Our City Online

Messageboard

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,692 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Apartment Utility Costs #1076073

    myliftkk
    Participant

    You can see my entry on utilities in your other thread.

    in reply to: Skreened Production Leaving Columbus #1076070

    myliftkk
    Participant

    That’s 30 already trained employees ready to make a Skreened spin off company. ^_^

    Perhaps they can join with the much larger contigent of local IBM employees that will be let go in 2 months.

    in reply to: Moving to Columbus in August (suggestions on areas to avoid) #1076066

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Thanks for the info everyone. Can anyone who lives in a 2 bedroom in the area please give me an idea of what your utilities are like monthly? TIA

    It’s entirely dependent on the quality of the place.

    Good insulation/windows/doors and gas heat, you can budget $50/mo in the summer which will build up a credit enough to make it through nearly the whole winter with a month or two at $100+ (I’ve sucessfully budgeted this way for a 2-bedroom 1700sqft house for 9 years now).

    Power is highly dependent on your running electronics and A/C. I run multiple pcs nearly 24/7/365, but otherwise nearly have all power off except for A/C in the summer. My bills fluctuate between $60-200+, mostly dependent on central A/C usage.

    Poor insulation/windows, you will pay for it, I guarantee you that. $400+ heating bills can be normal in some GV duplexes if you want to keep your add-on kitchen over an un-insulated crawlspace at some temperature near 65.

    Cable/internet/phone/etc are probably going to be equivalent to wherever you live now. Water for two people should run $120-180/3mo unless you love watering plants.

    For ~$1200/mo, you should actually have little issue finding a well-apportioned house/duplex for rent anywhere outside the most popular areas. If you’re paying that for amenities beyond living space, you need to consider the months amenities won’t be available (outdoor pools in winter, for example). Privacy is also one heck of an amenity.

    Your problem, as is with everyone moving here, is that the choice locations don’t stay on the market long and I’m assuming you want a place for multiple years. Your best bet is to find someplace servicable in the school district you want, that also has the neighborhoods you want to live in and use you time here to look for an optimal solution in the same district once you’re able to cruise the neighborhoods on a semi-regular basis.

    in reply to: Police Brutality & Violence in the US #1074054

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Graffiti is now punishable by death…

    Hector Morejon, Unarmed Teen Shot, Killed By Police

    in reply to: Surly Girl Closing This Month #1074045

    myliftkk
    Participant

    The ownership of the building is related to the ownership of the bar, but not 100% overlapping. There’s ~0% chance this is a landlord/rent/lease dispute.

    in reply to: Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and Indy convention business #1069898

    myliftkk
    Participant

    I don’t think its a coincidence that the authors of this bill also wrote one recently to require public school students to recite the lord’s prayer every morning and to add creationism to their curriculum.

    BTW, apparently not everyone got your memo that this wasn’t legalizing discrimination…

    http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service

    They like their discrimination a la carte, apparently.

    Funny how people forget using “religious liberty” as the fig leaf to discriminate goes back a long time.

    We’ve Used Religious Liberty to Discriminate Before

    in reply to: Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and Indy convention business #1069838

    myliftkk
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Friendoffacts wrote:</div>
    I’d agree that this RFRA law could use some clarity and should be balanced with an anti discrimination bill.

    That stated, the narrative that this law is “anti-gay” doesn’t stand up, IMO.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/

    RFRA bills have been recently, a total rearguard social conservative action because they lost the primary gay marriage battle.

    The original bill was a terrible reaction to one of the decisions Scalia actually decided quite correctly:

    Employment Division v Smith

    This is hardly settled legislation. The USSC has tried to strike down RFRA before, and undoubtedly will try again. It’s a piece of bad law at its root.

    in reply to: Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and Indy convention business #1069837

    myliftkk
    Participant

    I’d agree that this RFRA law could use some clarity and should be balanced with an anti discrimination bill.

    That stated, the narrative that this law is “anti-gay” doesn’t stand up, IMO.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/

    RFRA bills have been recently, a total rearguard social conservative action because they lost the primary gay marriage battle.

    The original bill was a terrible reaction to one of the decisions Scalia actually decided quite correctly:

    This is hardly settled legislation. The USSC has tried to strike down RFRA before, and undoubtedly will try again. It’s a piece of bad law at its root.

    in reply to: $281,000 for bronze deer on the Scioto? #1055036

    myliftkk
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>myliftkk wrote:</div>
    We all know sex sells and people love deer. Sexy deer? That should go without saying.

    That was a great episode. Maybe someone should tag Cartoon Network with our freaky deer statues?

    in reply to: $281,000 for bronze deer on the Scioto? #1054923

    myliftkk
    Participant

    First of all, we should not be slut-shaming our new public art.

    We all know sex sells and people love deer. Sexy deer? That should go without saying.

    As for kids sexually assualting our new riverbank resident. Is that better or worse than jesus?

    in reply to: Women in leadership roles – should their looks be mentioned? #1051290

    myliftkk
    Participant

    The magazine could have simply let the picture speak for itself, and certainly the “beauty contest” reference with all its vapid connotations could have been switched out for something else if they were going to say something at all. But on the larger topic of whether the looks of women in leadership roles should be mentioned, I think it’s fair game. As others have already noted on this thread, people notice appearances in real life and they can even affect whether someone gets the CEO job and how people evaluate the company itself once they do have the job; attacking the magazine has a kind of shoot-the-messenger quality to it.

    I think the problem, and I say this as someone that studied non-lawyer writing, is that the piece lead with this (in other words):

    “We knows she’s a bombshell guys, but really, trust us, we put her on the cover because she’s a good businesswoman”

    There’s nothing inherently different about what I wrote than what the editor wrote, and that sentence is its first line. Even if you were going to mention her looks, and if the research shows there are correlations between beauty and performance (across the board), that was a piss poor way of doing it, that frankly, treated the reader, who’s supposed to be a ‘serious businessperson’ like their initial assumption coming into the magainze was, “great, a hot piece of ass on the cover”.

    Now, despite what people rattle off about in this thread, standards of beauty do/have/will change. If you pay any attention to art history, and art history across different cultures, this is not a surprise. If standards of beauty change, that would seem to imply the effect of one’s said beauty on performance is less a ‘baked in’ advantage than it is the whim of culture at that particular moment in time (today’s clean cut ad man is tomorrow over-processed trying to hard d-bag). If that’s the case, and I suspect it is (given studies on perceptions of beauty that have taken place among isolated tribes), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone advocating that consideration of any particular definition of ‘beauty’ get reconsidered as something integral to the descriptive process of a business leader. At best, it’s a feature that might have some tiny usefulness depending on where that person falls in the continuum of culture during their time in the business world. Certainly not enough to warrant leading with that phrase, in the way it was written (putting aside the farcical nature of beauty pagents and their ilk – see John Oliver).

    in reply to: Women in leadership roles – should their looks be mentioned? #1051284

    myliftkk
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>L.I. to Buckeye wrote:</div>
    I read the business article you posted and you know what stood out to me? That only one woman was included.

    How many women would have to be included until you stopped seeing gender inequality? Is it a 50:50 ratio? What if this list, or any list, total was an odd number meaning one gender had to be the majority?

    Sorry for all the questions, I’m just curious how you think.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>L.I. to Buckeye wrote:</div>
    We have a long way to go.

    I think if you keep saying this line enough it actually becomes true for whoever keeps saying it. While everyone else is out there starting up their own businesses, creating opportunities for themselves, some people can’t help but limit themselves. Who are you referring to when you say “we have a long way to go”? Somalia? Afghanistan? If so then I’m right behind you love. You’re in a city that is all about successful women in business. Knock it off with looking at everything as a glass half empty or as if the world needs to be split down the middle fair.

    I still can’t wrap my head around how an article about a sucessful female CEO can get front cover, make note about how her beauty isn’t the reason she’s been highlighted, can still cause so much written discourse on how unfair life is for women. This is #shirtgate to a new degree.

    Sensitive “men’s rights”er are we?

    First, the observation that a fairly neutral business source like HBR (which was looking as best I could tell, at company performance alone) had a list of nearly all men is a fair observation.

    Second, since the list spanned the globe, I really wouldn’t expect the breakout to be otherwise. The differences in gender vary wildly from country to country, but it’s almost exclusively always stacked against women. Again, no surprise, and not news.

    Third, observing that women, as 50%ish of the world’s population have a ‘ways to go’ before they’re represented at even close to equal levels in upper management of the worlds best companies is a fair observation. She perscribed no solution, just made an obersvation.

    Fourth, quit advocating people knock off their political goals. People are allowed to advocate their government for redress of their grievances, unless you feel that principle only applies to you? If you want to advocate for the permanence of your privileged status, nut up and say so, don’t hide behind calls to others to knock off their goals. Just pony up like a big boy and admit yours.

    Fifth, quit reading every observation about the world as it stands as a kick to your wheat germ sized nuts. You men’s righters and your whining is world’s smallest violin.

    Sixth, if you were truly curious about the world, your phrased questions wouldn’t be nearly as annoying, condescending, and disingenuous.

    Seventh, you might need to be drip fed to understand that no one was advocating the only endpoint is perfect fairness (unachievable). But, 1/10 is a long, long, ways from 5/10, unless that is, you’re bad at math too.

    in reply to: Cameron Mitchell to open 2 new restaurants #1051244

    myliftkk
    Participant

    I appears those chains have had a pretty consistent downward slide under Ruth’s management.

    In early 2008, when Ruth’s acquired Mitchell’s, executives predicted that the fish market and three steakhouses would add $98 million a year to company revenue.

    But a recession that began in 2008 interfered. In 2009, the first full year Ruth’s owned Mitchell’s, the segment provided just $75.5 million in revenue.

    In recent years, Ruth’s has struggled to improve Mitchell’s Fish Market’s sales and profits, and there are signs this year that the concept’s struggles have worsened. Profit at Mitchell’s has fallen 8.6 percent from 2011 through 2013, even as annual sales during that time increased by nearly $2 million.

    Revenue and same-store sales at the fish market fell 2.8 percent during the third quarter ended Sept. 28, and profit fell 8.7 percent. Traffic at Mitchell’s fell 6.2 percent during the quarter.

    Same-store sales at Ruth’s Chris rose 4.8 percent during the third quarter, including a 3.3-percent increase in traffic. Ruth’s took a $15.3 million loss on an impairment charge on Mitchell’s during the third quarter.

    see more

    in reply to: Women in leadership roles – should their looks be mentioned? #1051164

    myliftkk
    Participant

    post^2

    in reply to: Women in leadership roles – should their looks be mentioned? #1051160

    myliftkk
    Participant

    The thread topic doesn’t really narrow it down though.

    Women in leadership roles – should their looks be mentioned?

    So your example then goes into just the Columbus CEO. I’d say edit the thread title to “Should looks be addressed in Columbus CEO magazine?”

    Cuz based on this thread, CEOs and their looks get mentioned in all forms of media.

    Except they don’t in all media. As I said, read the HBR link.

    Actually, if you wanted to bother to read white papers on the subject, there’s studies being done about the imapct of a beautiful CEO on shareholder value.

    Beauty is Wealth: CEO Appearance and Shareholder Value

    Now, if the working paper conclusion holds up in further research

    We further hypothesize and test two channels through which more attractive CEOs enhance shareholder value: negotiating and visibility. To test the negotiating channel, we examine the stock price reactions around M&A announcement dates and find a positive and significant CEO attractiveness effect on acquirer returns. This positive relation persists beyond one year following the mergers announcement dates. We test the visibility channel by first investigating the stock price reaction around CEO television news event dates and find that more attractive CEOs are associated with better stock returns surrounding CEO-related television news days. However, we find no significant relation between CEO attractiveness and stock returns around a matched sample of non-television news events. In a second test, we continue to find the positive and significant CEO attractiveness effects on stock returns surrounding earnings announcement dates with CEO image, but insignificant effects around earnings announcement dates without the CEO’s image. These findings mitigate the endogeneity concerns when interpreting our findings. Overall, our results suggest that more attractive CEOs create value for shareholders through better negotiating prowess and visibility.

    Then we can still go back and point out the writing in the magazine was bad because it should have instead mentioned the CEOs beauty was a potential asset to shareholders.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,692 total)

Subscribe below: