May 4, 2024

It’s the Economy: What’s an Idea Worth?

Blumer, 42, wanted to infuse a bit more rock ’n’ roll into his industry. So when he eventually took over his father’s small firm, he made his own rules: There would be no time sheets, no dress code and, most radical of all, no billable hours. He was convinced, in fact, that the billable hour was part of a series of mistakes that took all the fun out of his profession. To him, it seemed like a relic of a dying economic age and one that was depriving his industry of billions in profit.

The notion of charging by units of time was popularized in the 1950s, when the American Bar Association was becoming alarmed that the income of lawyers was falling precipitously behind that of doctors (and, worse, dentists). The A.B.A. published an influential pamphlet, “The 1958 Lawyer and His 1938 Dollar,” which suggested that the industry should eschew fixed-rate fees and replicate the profitable efficiencies of mass-production manufacturing. Factories sold widgets, the idea went, and so lawyers should sell their services in simple, easy-to-manage units. The A.B.A. suggested a unit of time — the hour — which would allow a well-run firm to oversee its staff’s productivity as mechanically as a conveyor belt managed its throughput. This led to generations of junior associates working through the night in hopes of making partner and abusing the next crop. It was adopted by countless other service professionals, including accountants.

During the past few decades, as the economic logic of the United States has changed, global trade and technology have made it all but impossible for any industry to make much profit in mass production of any sort. (Companies like G.E., Nike and Apple learned early on that the real money was in the creative ideas that can transform simple physical products far beyond their generic or commodity value.) Similar forces have ripped through professional services, particularly accounting, a profession that, until recently, was little changed from its 16th-century roots. Software like Turbo­Tax has made the most basic work worth little. Cheaper accountants in India, Ireland, Eastern Europe and Latin America have steadily taken over the more routine types of business, though not quite as voraciously as once predicted.

Just as Apple doesn’t want to be in the generic MP3-player business, Blumer didn’t want to be just one more guy competing to charge a few hundred dollars an hour to do your taxes. A few years ago, he said, he realized that the billable hour was undercutting his value — it was his profession’s commodity, suggesting to clients that he and his colleagues were interchangeable containers of finite, measurable units that could be traded for money. Perhaps the biggest problem, though, was that billing by the hour incentivized long, boring projects rather than those that required specialized, valuable insight that couldn’t (and shouldn’t) be measured in time. Paradoxically, the billable hour encouraged Blumer and his colleagues to spend more time than necessary on routine work rather than on the more nuanced jobs.

But those complex problems were the ones that Blumer wanted to solve, and he also knew his insights were more valuable than the time it took him to conjure them. So he identified a niche — creative professionals who struggled to manage their finances as their start-ups became mature businesses — and he endeavored to help his clients make (and save) enough money that they would gladly pay a significant fee without asking about the hours it took him to figure out what to do. Blumer has been so successful in his approach that he has become a leading voice among a national band of accountants who call themselves the Cliff Jumpers. Many Cliff Jumpers have abandoned the traditional bill-by-the-hour approach to focus on noncommodity accounting solutions for specific client groups. One focuses on entrepreneurs hoping to sell their new businesses; several work with people who are terrified about starting a small business.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/magazine/whats-an-idea-worth.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Why I’m (Sort of) Ignoring Mother’s Day

Anna Jarvis, the force behind Mother's Day in America.Associated Press Anna Jarvis, the force behind Mother’s Day in America.

About this time, many spouses and children, including those who are grown, are hurrying to buy or create a gift for Mother’s Day.

I am here to say that my family can stand down this year. It may be too strong of a word to say I’m “boycotting” the whole thing, but I’m having second thoughts. So they shouldn’t worry about taking me out to brunch (with a crowd of other mothers) at a restaurant that has raised its prices for the day.

Not that there aren’t aspects of the holiday I don’t enjoy. One year, my girls (with help from my husband) gave me a ring with their names engraved on it. It’s the only piece of jewelry I wear regularly, besides my wedding ring. And when my children were in preschool, I delighted in their efforts to serve me breakfast in bed without spilling the juice. I still treasure their little handmade gifts — Who doesn’t tear up, at an imprint of a toddler handprint on a card for Mom? — and I look forward to their creations this year.

Nevertheless, I can’t help but see Mother’s Day is a bit of a relic, a holdover from a time when most mothers didn’t work outside the home, and most fathers helped out less with the housework and the children.

Insure.com, an insurance Web site, compiles a “Mom’s Value” index, computing the annual value of jobs done by mothers, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, if the family had to pay someone else to do them. (Example: “Cleaning up,” $5,135; Haircuts, $320; taking care of the children, $20,072.)

It’s entertaining to think that way, and certainly stay-at-home spouses deserve credit for all that they do. But most families I know work as a partnership. Sometimes, it’s the mother who stays home with the children, but it’s increasingly the father (and for male same-sex couples, it’s always a dad). Often both halves of the couple work outside the home, and they muddle through the household duties like grocery shopping, cooking, laundry and cleaning as best they can — together. Both are exhausted, much of the time.

The last thing my husband needs, after flying across the country on a business trip, is to feel guilty because he didn’t have time to buy me a bouquet of pricey, short-lived roses for a contrived holiday (although it’s true that I am, in fact, the family’s chief “summer activity planner” — valued at $7,704).

Even the founder of the modern American Mother’s Day, Anna Jarvis, eventually turned against the holiday. According to History.com, her efforts led to establishment of the holiday in 1914 — but she later disowned her creation. “Jarvis would later denounce the holiday’s commercialization and spent the latter part of her life trying to remove it from the calendar,” the site says.

Perhaps when my children are grown and living on their own, I’ll feel differently. I won’t be spending as much time with them. So I’ll likely jump at the chance to have brunch with them or receive flowers (or even a text message) from them.

But right now, what we really need in my family is a day off together, without an expensive agenda. To sleep late, read the paper, maybe go for a bike ride — if we feel like it. I know my children love me, because they show me their feelings on a regular basis, not just on one day a year.

What do you think? Do you think Mother’s Day is outdated?

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/why-im-sort-of-ignoring-mothers-day/?partner=rss&emc=rss