The pilgrimage begins

            Speaking of what motivates us…

There comes a time in time in a man’s life when he is motivated to do the unusual, something out of character and out of the ordinary.  I speak of a time when he must drag his comrades (and by that, I mean his dad, cousin and brother) 1,600 kilometres to a far-off, forbidden land.  To a land of terrorists and gun-slinging cowboys.  To a place where to sit for three hours on a frozen bench for an exorbitant price is considered an honour. 

That place, where football greats have clashed for the last century, is called Lambeau Field.  And that is where I will be dragging, however reluctantly, my closest relatives on November 20^th (admittedly, they don’t even cheer for Green Bay… yet.)

Sound foolish?  Yes, I couldn’t agree more.  As someone who balks at paying $50 for a Roughriders ticket when I could simply watch it on TV, it baffles even me.  Driving for two days for a 3-hour game is not quite the same as a short jaunt from Laird to Regina.  (Now that I’m a 20-minute walk away from Taylor Field, it’s even less magical.)

Call it an experience.  Call it male bonding time.  Call it a mild obsession of mine.  I’m not sure why, but guys tend to be more prone to these fixations.  I think it has to do with our inability to focus on more than one thing at a time.  Our brains are limited to one subject, and a channel change is sometimes quite difficult.  As in the olden days, when one had to go outside to crank the enormous satellite dish to get a different channel, so it can be with a man’s brain.  And sometimes it’s too cold outside to bother.

 Such will be our brains in frigid conditions at Lambeau Field.  There will be only one focus.  It will be football.  There will be no cheerleaders to distract.  (Green Bay is one of two NFL teams to not have cheerleaders, thereby keeping the game wholesome and pure.)  Our eyes will be fixated on the field as Aaron Rodgers dissects the defence with pin-point precision to lead Green Bay where no Packers team has gone since 1962 – to 10-0.

So it will be on that fateful day (but hopefully not too fateful).

Let us hope for a win.

Motivational techniques for the unmotivated

            The psychology of motivation is not something I’ve studied much, but it is interesting to observe what motivates us as humans.

          Take my four-year-old daughter, for example.  Tell her that it’s time to take a bath and she’ll dawdle for hours if you let her.  There’s no end of things to do and finish before she finds herself in the bathroom. It usually ends with me reaming out the child with, “If you don’t get in the bath now, you will never watch TV again!”  Motivation by threat, I’ll call it – completely ineffective, by the way. 

Yet if I simply tell her that I’m going to race her to the bathroom, she’s there in an instant, yelling, “I’m first! I’m first!”  There’s probably a term for it somewhere, but I’ll call it motivation by competition.

          I’m not sure how long this motivational technique will work (I’m hoping for at least one more year), but I’m reaping its benefits while it lasts. I have a feeling it’s subject to overuse, so best to wield my new-found powers wisely.

          Now it’s easy for me to think, as a parent, that children are rather weak-minded.  After all, they succumb so easily to the simplest motivational techniques.  But who am I kidding?  Adults are just as bad.

Taking me shopping, for instance, is about as bad as dragging along a two-year-old.  Yes, I’ll play happy for the first 20 minutes, but after half an hour, I start to get cranky.  You have to drag me through the aisles.  I’m not motivated to shop, so my blood sugar drops, my head starts to hurt, and I feel an aching in my feet.  Oh, the days when I could ride in the shopping cart!

          So my wife has to play some games with me.  She says I’ll get a coffee afterwards if I behave well.  Or I get to go into the electronics section all by myself.  It’s little things like this that keep me going.  Call it motivation by reward.

          Now contrast that with my wife and me at a financial planning meeting.  She’ll play nice for the first 30 minutes as well, but once we start getting into marginal tax rates and RRSPs versus tax-free savings accounts, her interest wanes considerably.  I, on the other hand, am into it.  I do research for days to prepare for the meetings.  I’ve got spreadsheets, online print-outs, and my top ten financial questions.  Call it the money motivation, but I’ve got it (it’s probably also a mild obsessive-compulsive disorder).

          So we’re all motivated by different things.  And it’s not the end of the world to admit we need motivation.  As much as we like to tout the benefits of internal motivation as opposed to external motivation (where we require someone or something else to motivate us), motivational techniques are still beneficial and necessary.

The workplace is no different.  Doing the same job everyday requires motivation.  Of course your paycheque is likely the biggest motivator, but it’s got to be more than just money. 

My director jokes that we, as the faithful worker bees, shouldn’t require any motivation.  After all, the greatest reward is work well done (yeah… sure).

          But I have a feeling he doesn’t completely believe in this.  Otherwise he wouldn’t go out of his way from time to time to show his appreciation.

          Like a few weeks ago, when he handed out “awards” to each of his underlings.  Similar to Michael Scott’s Dundies in the show, The Office, the awards were more like back-handed compliments.

          I received the “Never gonna get it award” for never winning our weekly office trivia contest (after six long months!).  Because I know this is the only way my boss can show affection, I interpreted this to mean, “I care about you.” (I don’t think he was hugged enough as a child.)

          It’s funny how a little thing like this can improve morale.  After I received my award, my productivity sky-rocketed! I was pushing through spreadsheets and bureaucratic red-tape (or shall I say, producing bureaucratic red-tape) like never before.

It almost lasted a whole hour…. okay, half an hour.

Riders' agony ends

            I hate to boast, but (ahem) I did predict a 5-13 record for the Riders with 10 games remaining in the season.  This was when they were still 1-7 and Ken Miller had just taken over head coaching duties.

            At the time I had written: “Will Miller, who now has his hands in everything, turn things around?  With the lack of talent, I seriously doubt it.  Unless our receiving corps can improve considerably and our defence can make a miraculous resurgence, I still see a 5-13 season on the horizon.”

            Fortunately, Miller has now resigned, not only as coach, but as vice-president of football operations.  Unfortunately, it appears that Brendan Taman will remain as the General Manager (although changes could still happen).  Both of them share the unique inability to find talent south of the border.  With Taman at the helm, I predict another rough year.

            Now it looks like the BC Lions are going to go all the way.  For the first time in a long time, the team hosting the Grey Cup could actually win it.  If I really cared anymore, this might be something to write about.  But I don’t.

            Go Green Bay!  :-)

Good or bad, we are the 1%

          It’s not often I agree with Maclean’s right-wing columnist Andrew Coyne, but he had a point in last week’s article when commenting on the recent “Occupy” protests.  The Occupy Wall Street protest that began in New York is a movement against the growing inequality in the US, particularly targeted against the wealthiest 1%.  They suggest that the rest of us (the 99%) have not shared in the same benefits.  Hence the slogan, “We are the 99%.”

          Coyne’s point is that while there are many reasons to protest in the US (high unemployment, the housing crash, the bank bailouts), there isn’t the same populist rage in Canada to justify an “Occupy Toronto” or, even worse, an “Occupy Laird” (where the top 1% pump your gasoline).  Since the 2008-09 recession, Canada’s unemployment rate has gone down, median incomes continue to rise (since 1993, apparently), and poverty is at a 40-year low. 

          There’s no escaping the fact that Canada’s wealthiest 1% have seen a larger increase in income than the rest of the country.  But it’s actually the 0.1% that have seen the big increases, according to Coyne’s research.  These are largely hockey players (I jest a little, but it’s true) and corporate executives whose shareholders have awarded them massive payments because they feel they’re worth it.  Perhaps the shareholders are deceived, but they certainly don’t mind taking the losses to pay these salaries.

          Interestingly, the top 1% of income earners in Canada earn 11% of the country’s wealth and pay about 25% of all income taxes.  In the US, they earn about 20% and pay 38% of the taxes.  Even more interestingly, 20 years ago, Canada had twice the top marginal tax rate on the wealthy, but they still paid the same amount in taxes.  So we know that while the wealthy enjoy benefits, they carry much of the burden as well – and they should.  And if we burden them too much, they might just find some way to avoid the tax anyway (funny how the wealthy can always find a way).

          But here’s where I really agree with Coyne.  The problem is not really the wealthiest 1% – it’s the bottom 1%, or more likely the bottom 10%.  Poverty continues to be a reality in Canada and the US, and can only be solved through greater investments in this area.

          Investing in social programs has been a hallmark of Canadian society.  Strong social programs, universal health care being the most notable, are what set us apart from the US.  Under our current political regime, unfortunately, this appears to be in decline. (You may have noticed that our prime minister lacks socialist tendencies, unless it involves sending people to the Gulag.)

          Social assistance payments are still a far cry from what they should be in Saskatchewan and other provinces.  For those who are unemployable or single parents in difficult circumstances, there shouldn’t have to be a choice between food or shelter.  Children in these homes are less likely to have the same opportunities as children in other homes, thereby driving the poverty cycle.

          Coyne notes that if we were to seriously address poverty in Canada, it would cost about $12 billion – a 2% increase in the GST would cover it.  That’s not too much of a sacrifice, yet I presume most middle-class Canadians would balk at paying 7% GST again.

          To take it a step further, I wonder what it would take to reduce global poverty to the point that children no longer die from starvation or preventable diseases.  Skimming 1% in tax off the world’s wealthiest 1% would probably solve this – not a huge sacrifice either.

But who are the world’s 1%?  As it turns out, if you earn $55,000 per year, you’re a member of the elite (break out the champagne!).  This group earns as much as the world’s bottom 57%.  Now that is staggering.

          In that case, most of us can say, “We are the 1%.”

          I have a feeling the slogan won’t be quite as popular.

This is an interesting website to see how relatively wealthy you are: http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Andrew Coyne’s article: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/24/a-phony-class-war/?utm_source=_BOqxfRB8eOlP3f&utm_content=ml14&utm_medium=email