I can only imagine
What it will be like
When I walk By your side
I can only imagine
What my eyes will see
When your face
Is before me
I can only imagine
I can only imagine
[Chorus:]
Surrounded by Your glory, what will my heart feel
Will I dance for you Jesus or in awe of you be still
Will I stand in your presence or to my knees will I fall
Will I sing hallelujah, will I be able to speak at all
I can only imagine
I can only imagine
I can only imagine
When that day comes
And I find myself
Standing in the Sun
I can only imagine
When all I will do
Is forever
Forever worship You
I can only imagine
I can only imagine
[Chorus]
Surrounded by Your glory, what will my heart feel
Will I dance for you Jesus or in awe of you be still
Will I stand in your presence or to my knees will I fall
Will I sing hallelujah, will I be able to speak at all
I can only imagine
I can only imagine
I can only imagine [x2]
I can only imagine
When all I will do
Is forever, forever worship you
I can only imagine
2008년 10월 22일 수요일
2008년 6월 13일 금요일
20501034 Entry 15
Moth Kanter in Chosun Ilbo on May 10 2008
Summary
Many people has stereotype about the big corporations. However, this is the different era. The giants companies could be also fast and flexible.IBM, P&G, Cemex, Cisco, Banco Real, these are the world renowned companies which is fast and flexible. The professor found the common things from those companies.
Many people has stereotype about the big corporations. However, this is the different era. The giants companies could be also fast and flexible.IBM, P&G, Cemex, Cisco, Banco Real, these are the world renowned companies which is fast and flexible. The professor found the common things from those companies.
In the one hand, they globalized themselves. On the other hand, they localized. They standardize but at the same time innovate. They emphasize on universality and diversity. Not only this, they tey to realize value creation and social contribution. They grow not only "Soft Asset; people, culture, and responsibilities" but also "Hard asset; techonologies and product innovation"
My opinion
I have been seeing that many huge corporations like Enron, Daewoo, Worldcom went into bankruptcy. However, I think it will be hard to see the large corporation falling down in the future. The giants of the present have a lot possibilities to remain as the giants in the future.
I found the similar evolution of the enterprise with evolution of the poitics. Socio-economic has been improved experiencing trial and error. According to the Karl Marx, socio-economic system has been through primitive, slavery, medieval, capitalism, socialism and the final stage he predicted is communism. Communism as a last resort could be controversial but the initial intention of communism is to distribute the goods as many people as possible and everybody can share what they deserve. I believe the business will follow those development steps as socio-economic system does.
From the past, companies have been expanding its boundary. Family to 
the town. Town to the province. Province to the nation. And the nation to the globe. Once globalized, the companies realized how important to sustainably develop satisfying and feeding all the members who involved. They should keep middle income family through contributing and helping, so that they can keep pumping money from out of them. Therefore, they contribute the society and try to grow with the world that they are surrounded by.
the town. Town to the province. Province to the nation. And the nation to the globe. Once globalized, the companies realized how important to sustainably develop satisfying and feeding all the members who involved. They should keep middle income family through contributing and helping, so that they can keep pumping money from out of them. Therefore, they contribute the society and try to grow with the world that they are surrounded by. 20501034 Entry 14
CEO's role and Value Preposition
My Opinion
By Ahn Sukwoo from Chosun Ilbo on June 8 2008
Summary
How the company Apple was dependent on the current CEO, Steve Jobs was proven when Steve Jobs had Pancreatic cancer. When his having cancer was announced, Apple's stock was decreased about 2.4%. One of the finest Wallstreet investors predicted "If Steve Jobs leave the Apple, Apple's stock price will be decreased about 20%. How the huge organization like Apple that control tens of thousand of employees can be influenced by just one CEO? It is because strategic postioning that CEO made will decide companies performances.My Opinion
Strategic positioning is the strategy that corporation concentrates given resources on the target market. However, this strategic positioning is getting difficult and challenged especially in service industry, because customers’ needs are becoming more diverse and it is getting hard to find common things among them. If the company is big enough, it can target various kind of market at the same time. However, if the company doesn’t have enough resources, it’s almost impossible to target various markets. Even though, the company that has enough cash and capacity, it became very hard to keep competitive advantages in every market they are getting involved with. In the worst case, the company could front the fact that they don’t have any competitive power in any market. Therefore, many times, it could be more efficient to target sp
ecific demographics and heavily focus specialized competitive advantages and resources on the target group. Once the company positioned in specific target group in the market through this strategy, the satisfied consumers who were targeted by the company can create new customers in the other market through the oral marketing.
ecific demographics and heavily focus specialized competitive advantages and resources on the target group. Once the company positioned in specific target group in the market through this strategy, the satisfied consumers who were targeted by the company can create new customers in the other market through the oral marketing. The market that the company concentrates on could be the specific area or particular age group. The important thing is to arrange the very narrow target group and massively focus on. When Starbuck laun
ched into Korea for the time, they did strategic positioning. They decided highly targeted places, City hall, Jong-ro, Gangnam where most people who have purchase power walk around and Starbucks opened the shop almost every corner of this districts. As a result of this strategy, Starbucks could successfully appeal the luxurious image and high quality and then it was kind of easy to open the business in other district because Starbucks already got a reputation among people.
ched into Korea for the time, they did strategic positioning. They decided highly targeted places, City hall, Jong-ro, Gangnam where most people who have purchase power walk around and Starbucks opened the shop almost every corner of this districts. As a result of this strategy, Starbucks could successfully appeal the luxurious image and high quality and then it was kind of easy to open the business in other district because Starbucks already got a reputation among people. Of course, this strategic positioning isn’t always successful and it is quite risky to put all the resources into the specific target group. Therefore, the company should have enough time to consider about what their competitive advantages are and how to implement it.
Entry # 21 20600331
My Opinion/Summary:
The reintroduction of United States beef into the Korean market happened on the eve of Lee Myung Bak’s term of office. This is not a good strategic plan for him in Korea. United States beef has not been in Korea since last year when a full ban went on it. Lee Myung Bak’s approval rate dropped dramatically since his landslide victory over his competitors. Furthermore, no Korean president’s approval rating has dropped so low and so quickly. The Korean public has disliked this decision so much that they have been protesting in the streets. More than protesting, they tried to march onto Lee Myung Bak’s house. However, they were met with force from the Korean Police.
Another problem that Lee Myung Bak is facing is that his policy-makers pushed for exports. This fueled growth in the economy, however, inflation has taken a huge rise. Therefore, prices of everything and not just oil are rising in the United States. Public opinion is a huge part holding a public office. The public opinion of him is growing worse and worse everyday.
All of these problems are not allowing Lee Myung Bak to implement the plans that he wishes to put forth. The negative publicity put into place with his first two decisions in office is greatly hindering the possible good that could possible be done. With such hostility in the air, it would be wise and prudent to change something in the policy.
--------------------------------------------------
Korea's U.S. Beef Brouhaha
President Lee Myung Bak's removal of restrictions on U.S. beef has plunged his administration into a crisis that could imperil a free-trade pact with the U.S.
South Korean riot police disperse protesters as they try to march to the Presidential House after a candlelight vigil against US beef imports, in Seoul on June 8, 2008.
by Moon Ihlwan
Rarely has a newly anointed Korean President fallen so far and so fast. Less than four months into a five-year term, Lee Myung Bak's decision to remove restrictions on U.S. beef has sparked widespread protests over food safety and engulfed his administration in a crisis that threatens a free-trade agreement (FTA) between the two countries. Lee's approval ratings have plunged to new lows, and opposition politicians are planning to boycott Parliament.
It wasn't supposed to happen this way. Lee had strong voter backing after winning a landslide victory in December. On Apr. 18, Lee, eager to cement ties with his country's closest ally, lifted the ban on U.S. beef imports for the first time since it was re-imposed last year. Korea had banned all American beef in 2003 following an outbreak of mad cow disease in the U.S. Seoul briefly allowed in boneless beef from cattle younger than 30 months of age before suspending that last year when bone chips turned up in shipments.
Seoul had hoped to coax the U.S. Congress into ratifying a free-trade accord, which the two governments signed last year. The lifting of the ban came on the eve of Lee's first summit with President George W. Bush in the U.S. in April. Korea was once the third-largest U.S. export market for American beef, with an annual turnover of more than $800 million a year. The on-again, off-again beef ban had fueled opposition to the free-trade pact among key members of the U.S. Congress, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, from the beef-producing state of Montana. A grand gesture from Seoul might do the trick, was the thinking.
Protests Outside Seoul's Blue House
So much for grand gestures. For the past three nights, as many as 60,000 farmers, students, and housewives have demonstrated against the resumption of American beef imports. They have jammed Seoul's streets leading to the Blue House, the presidential residence. Many of them have shouted slogans demanding Lee's ouster for risking public health, and accused the Korean leader of kowtowing to Washington. Some think Seoul could have let in beef from young cattle bred in the U.S. but kept out meat from older cattle, which are more susceptible to mad cow disease. Korea's neighbor Japan bans imports of beef from older cattle.
Lee's loss of popular support has been swifter than anything ever experienced by a Korean President. His approval ratings (BusinessWeek.com, 12/18/07) are now below 20%, down from almost 60% in early March. And a June survey by pollster Korea Research and YTN cable news network has shown that 87% of those polled expressed disappointment with the government's talks with U.S. officials over beef. "We have reached a point where we can't expect much political leadership in Korea," lamented Lee Hahn Koo, a senior member of Parliament from the ruling Grand National Party, on June 9.
Government officials worry that the row could derail the free-trade pact, which experts estimate could boost two-way trade by $20 billion annually. Opposition lawmakers have boycotted a new session of parliament this month, threatening to shelve the trade pact for now. "Given huge political pressures, it would be difficult even for the Korean National Assembly to ratify the FTA unless the beef issue is resolved," says a senior aide to Lee who asked not to be identified.
Rising Inflation Hurting Consumer Confidence
Lee's misfortunes aren't only beef-related. His choice of policymakers, who pushed for export-fueled growth but didn't worry enough about inflation, hasn't helped. Amid soaring oil and material prices, Lee's government allowed the Korean currency, the won, to depreciate by about 10% against the U.S. dollar. That helped propel inflation to a seven-year high of 4.9%. Now with consumer confidence at a low ebb the government faces the prospect of missing its target for 6% economic growth this year. Private economists forecast growth between 4% and 4.9%, compared to last year's 5% growth and 5.1% in 2006.
The brouhaha over beef is interfering with Lee's plan to institute pro-business reforms. He is pushing to privatize government assets that would free up tens of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy as well as an ambitious tax reform package. Also on the agenda: a tougher hand with labor unions and deregulation of the financial-services sector. "Lee's blueprint for change is fading badly even before he opens it," says Park Gil Sung, a sociology professor at Korea University.
Seoul is hoping Washington can step in with a diplomatic solution to defuse the crisis. On June 9, Lee dispatched a team of negotiators to Washington, asking them to make sure shipments of beef from cattle older than 30 months won't be allowed. At the weekend, Lee called Bush for a 20-minute phone conversation during which Bush, who is scheduled to visit Seoul in July, told Lee that Washington would cooperate closely with Seoul. He said the U.S. is "ready to support American cattle exporters as they reach a mutually acceptable solution with Korean importers on the beef trade," according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who gave no further details.
The Beginning of a Trade War?
Eager to appease an angry public, Seoul is grappling for a solution. It could press for a renegotiation of the terms of the beef trade. But asking the U.S. back to the table or scrapping the existing accord could trigger calls in the U.S. for tit-for-tat amendments to the free-trade pact. Detroit's concerns that Korean cars and parts will surge into the U.S., risking even more U.S. auto industry jobs, might find a more receptive audience in Congress.
Could the tensions develop into a full-blown trade war? It's possible, says Han Sangwan, chief economist at think tank Hyundai Research Institute in Seoul. The beef dispute could become a bigger issue if it's taken up during this year's U.S. Presidential election. The Korean public could inflame tensions, too. "Unless the U.S. shows flexibility over its beef exports to address Koreans' concerns over food safety, a wholesale boycott of U.S. products could follow," says Han. "And that could trigger protectionist retaliation." The collapse of an FTA would mean a "serious chasm between the two," he adds.
Lee now appears to be reconsidering the hard-charging style that he displayed as the CEO at Hyundai Group. The forcefulness that worked at a conglomerate that has long epitomized Korea's breakneck industrialization is being regarded as a liability and the mark of a leader who is deaf to public demands. In a meeting with Catholic priests on June 9, Lee admitted that he had made policy mistakes and hinted at a Cabinet shakeup. Already seven top presidential aides have offered to resign. Winning back the public's trust won't be easy for Lee.
Moon is BusinessWeek's Seoul bureau chief.
The reintroduction of United States beef into the Korean market happened on the eve of Lee Myung Bak’s term of office. This is not a good strategic plan for him in Korea. United States beef has not been in Korea since last year when a full ban went on it. Lee Myung Bak’s approval rate dropped dramatically since his landslide victory over his competitors. Furthermore, no Korean president’s approval rating has dropped so low and so quickly. The Korean public has disliked this decision so much that they have been protesting in the streets. More than protesting, they tried to march onto Lee Myung Bak’s house. However, they were met with force from the Korean Police.
Another problem that Lee Myung Bak is facing is that his policy-makers pushed for exports. This fueled growth in the economy, however, inflation has taken a huge rise. Therefore, prices of everything and not just oil are rising in the United States. Public opinion is a huge part holding a public office. The public opinion of him is growing worse and worse everyday.
All of these problems are not allowing Lee Myung Bak to implement the plans that he wishes to put forth. The negative publicity put into place with his first two decisions in office is greatly hindering the possible good that could possible be done. With such hostility in the air, it would be wise and prudent to change something in the policy.
--------------------------------------------------
Korea's U.S. Beef Brouhaha
President Lee Myung Bak's removal of restrictions on U.S. beef has plunged his administration into a crisis that could imperil a free-trade pact with the U.S.
South Korean riot police disperse protesters as they try to march to the Presidential House after a candlelight vigil against US beef imports, in Seoul on June 8, 2008.
by Moon Ihlwan
Rarely has a newly anointed Korean President fallen so far and so fast. Less than four months into a five-year term, Lee Myung Bak's decision to remove restrictions on U.S. beef has sparked widespread protests over food safety and engulfed his administration in a crisis that threatens a free-trade agreement (FTA) between the two countries. Lee's approval ratings have plunged to new lows, and opposition politicians are planning to boycott Parliament.
It wasn't supposed to happen this way. Lee had strong voter backing after winning a landslide victory in December. On Apr. 18, Lee, eager to cement ties with his country's closest ally, lifted the ban on U.S. beef imports for the first time since it was re-imposed last year. Korea had banned all American beef in 2003 following an outbreak of mad cow disease in the U.S. Seoul briefly allowed in boneless beef from cattle younger than 30 months of age before suspending that last year when bone chips turned up in shipments.
Seoul had hoped to coax the U.S. Congress into ratifying a free-trade accord, which the two governments signed last year. The lifting of the ban came on the eve of Lee's first summit with President George W. Bush in the U.S. in April. Korea was once the third-largest U.S. export market for American beef, with an annual turnover of more than $800 million a year. The on-again, off-again beef ban had fueled opposition to the free-trade pact among key members of the U.S. Congress, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, from the beef-producing state of Montana. A grand gesture from Seoul might do the trick, was the thinking.
Protests Outside Seoul's Blue House
So much for grand gestures. For the past three nights, as many as 60,000 farmers, students, and housewives have demonstrated against the resumption of American beef imports. They have jammed Seoul's streets leading to the Blue House, the presidential residence. Many of them have shouted slogans demanding Lee's ouster for risking public health, and accused the Korean leader of kowtowing to Washington. Some think Seoul could have let in beef from young cattle bred in the U.S. but kept out meat from older cattle, which are more susceptible to mad cow disease. Korea's neighbor Japan bans imports of beef from older cattle.
Lee's loss of popular support has been swifter than anything ever experienced by a Korean President. His approval ratings (BusinessWeek.com, 12/18/07) are now below 20%, down from almost 60% in early March. And a June survey by pollster Korea Research and YTN cable news network has shown that 87% of those polled expressed disappointment with the government's talks with U.S. officials over beef. "We have reached a point where we can't expect much political leadership in Korea," lamented Lee Hahn Koo, a senior member of Parliament from the ruling Grand National Party, on June 9.
Government officials worry that the row could derail the free-trade pact, which experts estimate could boost two-way trade by $20 billion annually. Opposition lawmakers have boycotted a new session of parliament this month, threatening to shelve the trade pact for now. "Given huge political pressures, it would be difficult even for the Korean National Assembly to ratify the FTA unless the beef issue is resolved," says a senior aide to Lee who asked not to be identified.
Rising Inflation Hurting Consumer Confidence
Lee's misfortunes aren't only beef-related. His choice of policymakers, who pushed for export-fueled growth but didn't worry enough about inflation, hasn't helped. Amid soaring oil and material prices, Lee's government allowed the Korean currency, the won, to depreciate by about 10% against the U.S. dollar. That helped propel inflation to a seven-year high of 4.9%. Now with consumer confidence at a low ebb the government faces the prospect of missing its target for 6% economic growth this year. Private economists forecast growth between 4% and 4.9%, compared to last year's 5% growth and 5.1% in 2006.
The brouhaha over beef is interfering with Lee's plan to institute pro-business reforms. He is pushing to privatize government assets that would free up tens of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy as well as an ambitious tax reform package. Also on the agenda: a tougher hand with labor unions and deregulation of the financial-services sector. "Lee's blueprint for change is fading badly even before he opens it," says Park Gil Sung, a sociology professor at Korea University.
Seoul is hoping Washington can step in with a diplomatic solution to defuse the crisis. On June 9, Lee dispatched a team of negotiators to Washington, asking them to make sure shipments of beef from cattle older than 30 months won't be allowed. At the weekend, Lee called Bush for a 20-minute phone conversation during which Bush, who is scheduled to visit Seoul in July, told Lee that Washington would cooperate closely with Seoul. He said the U.S. is "ready to support American cattle exporters as they reach a mutually acceptable solution with Korean importers on the beef trade," according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who gave no further details.
The Beginning of a Trade War?
Eager to appease an angry public, Seoul is grappling for a solution. It could press for a renegotiation of the terms of the beef trade. But asking the U.S. back to the table or scrapping the existing accord could trigger calls in the U.S. for tit-for-tat amendments to the free-trade pact. Detroit's concerns that Korean cars and parts will surge into the U.S., risking even more U.S. auto industry jobs, might find a more receptive audience in Congress.
Could the tensions develop into a full-blown trade war? It's possible, says Han Sangwan, chief economist at think tank Hyundai Research Institute in Seoul. The beef dispute could become a bigger issue if it's taken up during this year's U.S. Presidential election. The Korean public could inflame tensions, too. "Unless the U.S. shows flexibility over its beef exports to address Koreans' concerns over food safety, a wholesale boycott of U.S. products could follow," says Han. "And that could trigger protectionist retaliation." The collapse of an FTA would mean a "serious chasm between the two," he adds.
Lee now appears to be reconsidering the hard-charging style that he displayed as the CEO at Hyundai Group. The forcefulness that worked at a conglomerate that has long epitomized Korea's breakneck industrialization is being regarded as a liability and the mark of a leader who is deaf to public demands. In a meeting with Catholic priests on June 9, Lee admitted that he had made policy mistakes and hinted at a Cabinet shakeup. Already seven top presidential aides have offered to resign. Winning back the public's trust won't be easy for Lee.
Moon is BusinessWeek's Seoul bureau chief.
Entry # 20 20600331
My Opinion/Summary:
Retirement wage gap is a big problem between men and women. Women usually take off of work for a period of time due to maternity leave. However, when they do come back and catch up on the time lost due to a baby in the family, they still come up short to their male counterparts. Female workers in the United States earn about $0.77 per every $1.00 that equal male workers make. Over the course of the working lifetime that is a difference of three hundred thousand dollars. Therefore, a disparity in the payrate between men and women in the workforce is translated into a disparity in the retirement wage between men and women.
This is a problem strategically in the United States. There are more and more women entering the workforce. Furthermore, there are more and more women graduating out of college every year. If this continues, there will be more and more disgruntled women employees throughout the United States. With women becoming a bigger and more prominent part of the workforce, if they decided to strike, it could lead to a huge situation in the United States economy.
With this problem becoming bigger everyday, the United States cannot continue to ignore this problem and make reparations starting today.
-----------------------------------------------------
Article: Overcome the Retirement “Gender Gap”
by Stephanie Loiacono
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Many people won't save enough money for a comfortable retirement, but women have an even higher risk than men of coming up short when they stop working.
There are three key factors that have the greatest influence on retirement savings: income levels, risk tolerance and life expectancy. In each of these categories, women may hold the losing hand. Read on to learn why women fall behind on retirement savings and what they can do to catch up.
Income Falls Short
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, three out of four women earn less than $40,000 a year. In part, women earn less than men because of time spent out of the workforce. Women frequently take time away to have children, raise families and increasingly, to care for aging parents.
At the same time, however, women are often paid less for the work they do, regardless of how long they're employed. According to the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER), in 2007, women earned only $0.77 for every dollar on average, compared to men. That's a $300,000 loss over a career's lifetime!
Because retirement benefits are based on accumulated earnings during a working career, this "gender wage gap" quickly turns into a retirement wage gap. As such, WISER points out, women with pensions receive about half the amount men do, or $4,200 annually compared to $7,800 each year for a man.
The impact of this gap is multiplied by the fact that women typically live seven years longer than men. Add on the possibility of divorce or widowhood, in which women may lose out on a portion or all of their spouse's pension benefits, and women clearly head into retirement with far less wealth than men.
Risk Tolerance Is Low
When it comes to choosing how to invest retirement savings, every individual must decide which risk-return relationship is comfortable, but also ensures their financial goals are reached. A common mistake is to invest retirement assets too conservatively, thereby sacrificing long-term growth.
Investment history and theory have proved that higher returns are attained by taking on more risk. For women, being overly cautious with an investment strategy for retirement will only magnify the problems they already face as a result of lower lifetime incomes and longer life spans.
Figure 1, below, shows two retirement-savings scenarios comparing a conservative investment strategy with a more aggressive growth strategy.
Figure 1: Conservative vs. aggressive investing returns
The conservative investor is a 45-year-old woman making $40,000 a year. She has saved $35,000 and is adding another $200 per month into retirement savings. She invested her money conservatively for 20 years: 20% stocks, 50% bonds and 30% in short-term money market funds.
The aggressive investor is a woman with the same income, the same savings and the same time horizon, but she invested her money aggressively for 20 years: 85% stocks, 15% bonds and 0% in short-term funds.
By age 65, the conservative female investor saved $235,000 in retirement money, while the aggressive investor reached $352,000. As you can see, by taking on some additional risk and investing more in stocks, the aggressive investor created $117,000 more in retirement funds. Not considering taxes, if each woman lives to be 80.5 years (current life expectancy of women in the U.S. according to the CDC), the aggressive investor would have around $24,000 per year to live off of compared to the roughly $16,000 the conservative investor would have.
It's All In Your Mind
Psychological factors play a very important role in how women deal with money and investments. A review conducted by James Byrnes, David Miller and William Schafer (1999) of 150 psychological studies of risk-taking by men and women found that women generally perceive more risk, and are more risk-averse in situations ranging from health to the environment, public policy or finance.
The reasons for this risk-gender discrepancy are complex. Some studies suppose that women's greater responsibility in childbearing and reproduction leads to risk-aversion (J. LaBorde Witt, Journal of Women and Aging, 1994). Others point to the way women are raised. Regardless, most women can recount feelings of fear and intimidation when it comes to dealing with money and investments.
A recent analysis by John Watson and Mark McNaughton in the Financial Analysts Journal in July 2007 quantified the impact that risk-aversion has on women's projected retirement benefits. Controlling for age, income and education, the study concluded that women choose more conservative investment strategies, and that this is the primary reason why women can expect to have less retirement savings than men. The effect is compounded because women make less, retire earlier and live longer than men.
What's Next?
Women require more financial education to help them determine the appropriate risk, return and retirement strategies to meet their goals. A growing number of financial advisors, banks, and organizations have recognized this knowledge-gender gap and are creating education programs aimed specifically at women.
It's time for all women to take charge of their retirement savings. Seek out a financial advisor, an investor education materials and other resources that target the unique circumstances women face. Ask questions. Don't wait.Stephanie Loiacono, CFA, is a financial writer and analyst with 20 years of experience in investment management and research. She is currently writing a book, titled "Financial S.O.S. for Divorced Women."
Retirement wage gap is a big problem between men and women. Women usually take off of work for a period of time due to maternity leave. However, when they do come back and catch up on the time lost due to a baby in the family, they still come up short to their male counterparts. Female workers in the United States earn about $0.77 per every $1.00 that equal male workers make. Over the course of the working lifetime that is a difference of three hundred thousand dollars. Therefore, a disparity in the payrate between men and women in the workforce is translated into a disparity in the retirement wage between men and women.
This is a problem strategically in the United States. There are more and more women entering the workforce. Furthermore, there are more and more women graduating out of college every year. If this continues, there will be more and more disgruntled women employees throughout the United States. With women becoming a bigger and more prominent part of the workforce, if they decided to strike, it could lead to a huge situation in the United States economy.
With this problem becoming bigger everyday, the United States cannot continue to ignore this problem and make reparations starting today.
-----------------------------------------------------
Article: Overcome the Retirement “Gender Gap”
by Stephanie Loiacono
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Many people won't save enough money for a comfortable retirement, but women have an even higher risk than men of coming up short when they stop working.
There are three key factors that have the greatest influence on retirement savings: income levels, risk tolerance and life expectancy. In each of these categories, women may hold the losing hand. Read on to learn why women fall behind on retirement savings and what they can do to catch up.
Income Falls Short
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, three out of four women earn less than $40,000 a year. In part, women earn less than men because of time spent out of the workforce. Women frequently take time away to have children, raise families and increasingly, to care for aging parents.
At the same time, however, women are often paid less for the work they do, regardless of how long they're employed. According to the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER), in 2007, women earned only $0.77 for every dollar on average, compared to men. That's a $300,000 loss over a career's lifetime!
Because retirement benefits are based on accumulated earnings during a working career, this "gender wage gap" quickly turns into a retirement wage gap. As such, WISER points out, women with pensions receive about half the amount men do, or $4,200 annually compared to $7,800 each year for a man.
The impact of this gap is multiplied by the fact that women typically live seven years longer than men. Add on the possibility of divorce or widowhood, in which women may lose out on a portion or all of their spouse's pension benefits, and women clearly head into retirement with far less wealth than men.
Risk Tolerance Is Low
When it comes to choosing how to invest retirement savings, every individual must decide which risk-return relationship is comfortable, but also ensures their financial goals are reached. A common mistake is to invest retirement assets too conservatively, thereby sacrificing long-term growth.
Investment history and theory have proved that higher returns are attained by taking on more risk. For women, being overly cautious with an investment strategy for retirement will only magnify the problems they already face as a result of lower lifetime incomes and longer life spans.
Figure 1, below, shows two retirement-savings scenarios comparing a conservative investment strategy with a more aggressive growth strategy.
Figure 1: Conservative vs. aggressive investing returns
The conservative investor is a 45-year-old woman making $40,000 a year. She has saved $35,000 and is adding another $200 per month into retirement savings. She invested her money conservatively for 20 years: 20% stocks, 50% bonds and 30% in short-term money market funds.
The aggressive investor is a woman with the same income, the same savings and the same time horizon, but she invested her money aggressively for 20 years: 85% stocks, 15% bonds and 0% in short-term funds.
By age 65, the conservative female investor saved $235,000 in retirement money, while the aggressive investor reached $352,000. As you can see, by taking on some additional risk and investing more in stocks, the aggressive investor created $117,000 more in retirement funds. Not considering taxes, if each woman lives to be 80.5 years (current life expectancy of women in the U.S. according to the CDC), the aggressive investor would have around $24,000 per year to live off of compared to the roughly $16,000 the conservative investor would have.
It's All In Your Mind
Psychological factors play a very important role in how women deal with money and investments. A review conducted by James Byrnes, David Miller and William Schafer (1999) of 150 psychological studies of risk-taking by men and women found that women generally perceive more risk, and are more risk-averse in situations ranging from health to the environment, public policy or finance.
The reasons for this risk-gender discrepancy are complex. Some studies suppose that women's greater responsibility in childbearing and reproduction leads to risk-aversion (J. LaBorde Witt, Journal of Women and Aging, 1994). Others point to the way women are raised. Regardless, most women can recount feelings of fear and intimidation when it comes to dealing with money and investments.
A recent analysis by John Watson and Mark McNaughton in the Financial Analysts Journal in July 2007 quantified the impact that risk-aversion has on women's projected retirement benefits. Controlling for age, income and education, the study concluded that women choose more conservative investment strategies, and that this is the primary reason why women can expect to have less retirement savings than men. The effect is compounded because women make less, retire earlier and live longer than men.
What's Next?
Women require more financial education to help them determine the appropriate risk, return and retirement strategies to meet their goals. A growing number of financial advisors, banks, and organizations have recognized this knowledge-gender gap and are creating education programs aimed specifically at women.
It's time for all women to take charge of their retirement savings. Seek out a financial advisor, an investor education materials and other resources that target the unique circumstances women face. Ask questions. Don't wait.Stephanie Loiacono, CFA, is a financial writer and analyst with 20 years of experience in investment management and research. She is currently writing a book, titled "Financial S.O.S. for Divorced Women."
Entry # 19 20600331
My Opinion/Summary:
Yahoo has experienced decline and stagnation over the past couple of years. Icahn, wants to replace the current board of directors and put into place himself and others. This is a good idea because Yahoo has been a decline for the past few years. To add to this problem, Google a competitor has grew tremendously. I believe this is a sound strategic plan because the current board has done nothing or could do nothing to change the current outcome, it may be time to change the board. If something is not working, it is never a good idea to continue on that path and hope that it will somehow find the right answer. However, I do not believe that Icahn’s actions though well intended for Yahoo were the right course of action. A more level-headed cooled approach may appeal to more investors in Yahoo to make the switch from the current board to the new one. Currently, Yahoo has posted an injunction to try and stop Icahn’s plan.
-----------------------------------
ReutersIcahn trashes Yahoo for failed growth plan
Monday June 9, 2:34 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Carl Icahn on Monday fired off another letter savaging the board and management of Yahoo Inc (NasdaqGS:YHOO - News) for failing in its growth plan, the latest volley in an escalating proxy battle the billionaire investor has staged at the Internet company.
Icahn -- who is seeking to replace the board of Yahoo with his own nominees, including himself -- took aim at Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, saying he has failed to come up with a suitable plan to beat back rivals including Google Inc (NasdaqGS:GOOG - News).
"While Google's income from operations grew 59 percent per year for the last two years, Yahoo's income from operations shrank 21 percent," Icahn said in his latest salvo to Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock.
"What was the board doing over this period? Where was their great plan? Why did you permit Google to leave you in the dust?" Icahn asked.
Later on Monday, Yahoo filed its proxy statement for its August 1 shareholder meeting with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Web company urged shareholders to reelect the current board of directors, including Bostock and Yang, and reject Icahn's slate.
Yahoo also said in the filing it expects to foot $12 million in proxy solicitation costs.
Shares of Yahoo were down 6 cents at $26.38 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq.
(Reporting by Dane Hamilton and Anupreeta Das, editing by Mark Porter and Gerald E. McCormick)
Yahoo has experienced decline and stagnation over the past couple of years. Icahn, wants to replace the current board of directors and put into place himself and others. This is a good idea because Yahoo has been a decline for the past few years. To add to this problem, Google a competitor has grew tremendously. I believe this is a sound strategic plan because the current board has done nothing or could do nothing to change the current outcome, it may be time to change the board. If something is not working, it is never a good idea to continue on that path and hope that it will somehow find the right answer. However, I do not believe that Icahn’s actions though well intended for Yahoo were the right course of action. A more level-headed cooled approach may appeal to more investors in Yahoo to make the switch from the current board to the new one. Currently, Yahoo has posted an injunction to try and stop Icahn’s plan.
-----------------------------------
ReutersIcahn trashes Yahoo for failed growth plan
Monday June 9, 2:34 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Carl Icahn on Monday fired off another letter savaging the board and management of Yahoo Inc (NasdaqGS:YHOO - News) for failing in its growth plan, the latest volley in an escalating proxy battle the billionaire investor has staged at the Internet company.
Icahn -- who is seeking to replace the board of Yahoo with his own nominees, including himself -- took aim at Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, saying he has failed to come up with a suitable plan to beat back rivals including Google Inc (NasdaqGS:GOOG - News).
"While Google's income from operations grew 59 percent per year for the last two years, Yahoo's income from operations shrank 21 percent," Icahn said in his latest salvo to Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock.
"What was the board doing over this period? Where was their great plan? Why did you permit Google to leave you in the dust?" Icahn asked.
Later on Monday, Yahoo filed its proxy statement for its August 1 shareholder meeting with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Web company urged shareholders to reelect the current board of directors, including Bostock and Yang, and reject Icahn's slate.
Yahoo also said in the filing it expects to foot $12 million in proxy solicitation costs.
Shares of Yahoo were down 6 cents at $26.38 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq.
(Reporting by Dane Hamilton and Anupreeta Das, editing by Mark Porter and Gerald E. McCormick)
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)
