Sunday, 2 May 2010

Gain A Fashion Job


Fashion: Sartorial Opiate or Shamanistic Magic? by Earthworm

learn more about fashion jobs you can read








Whitney Port warned us that the second season of The City was not just a new chapter, but an evolution — a notch on the other side of the arc of a group of people who don’t have to worry about achieving their own success because it is handed to them in their fortuitous positions as television stars. A series that established itself as “relationship-heavy” and “character-driven,” Whitney said, would take a more sophisticated direction with a more sophisticated directive. Now the show is “focused on our careers, and how we’re going to eventually make it in the fashion industry.” Port indicated she had only seen the season premiere, which held true to her forecast. Last night we watched the girls chase careers instead of boys.



Well, except Roxy, who didn’t have anything to do but follow Whitney around and ask questions that would allow our protagonist to explain the plot to the audience. But Olivia, finally agreeing to put office drama with Erin aside, turned from the path of bitchiness and resentment onto the path of journalism in her new role as an Elle.com reporter. Erin rescinded her ultimatum that she would leave Elle if Olivia wasn’t fired, and continued her career in publicity. But her demeanor made clear that this was only for the sake of the show (as a publicist she knows the value of this exposure, even if by way of Olivia) and that she still hated Olivia’s guts deep down inside.



And Whitney, burgeoning fashion designer with a show rapidly approaching at Bryant Park, continued pursuing her fashion-design dreams. With funding we know not of, she has managed to manufacture a collection and secure a spot to show at Bryant Park — something aspiring designers only dream of! But she knew she would “eventually make it” — she would never face the struggles most 24-year-old fashion designers face, so she can’t show 14-year-old aspiring fashion designers how to overcome those hurdles. But she can show them what it’s like, kind of, when one skips all that crap and just goes straight to the Bryant Park show with major magazine editors and buyers in the front row. We wonder if, when the cameras stop for the day, Whitney just rides home on her unicorn with a flock of fairies. But she is perhaps better at working than dating. And so, on to this week’s lessons!



Lesson 1: Being a good sidekick.

Do: Find a role for yourself and stick to it. When Whitney goes fabric shopping and explains how stressed out she is that she has to show 24 looks but only has 17, and has to cast models and figure out hair and other stuff, Roxy just stands there with a blank expression. Sidekicks either need to be like Watson, and offer pertinent information or life-saving assistance, or like Phoebe from Friends and provide comic relief.

Don’t: Stand around like a dope. Roxy might wear an absurd pair of pants rather than sing “Smelly Cat,” but she has to be and do something to make us feel she’s valuable and worth at least a fraction of our cable bills. Here she wants to be an actress and she’s on TV! Wow us, sister!



Lesson 2: Managing two chicks who don’t get along but have to work together.

Don’t: Let one of them talk back to you. Over to Elle, where Olivia struts to some vampy, girlie, techno pop music, Joe finally berates her for bickering with Erin. He just suffered a fiasco on the Today show thanks to Olivia, and scolds her with curse words and more anger than we’ve ever seen him show. But Olivia retorts, “I do not think it is appropriate for her to speak to me or anyone at this magazine the way she does. It is unacceptable. She is a publicist. I am an editor of a magazine. My job is to put the best accessories in the magazines. Her job is to pitch to the press.” Olivia has been working at Elle for only a few weeks at this point, while Erin has been there for years. A new employee with any common sense would never say such a thing to Joe Zee, but he just kind of sits there and takes it. Also, Dear Olivia: This is fashion, people are mean, so GET OVER IT.

Don’t: Cave and give the problem employee what she wants. Instead of forcing her to do better at her job, Joe just reassigns Olivia to Elle.com. If someone can’t do something as simple as giving him a list of credits for a television appearance, how can he have her do anything other than man the reception desk? If even that? “Be that editor that you tell me that you are,” he tells her. Oh, Joe. This is The City, not The Biggest Loser (well, maybe in a sense).



Lesson 3: Designing a fashion line for your first Bryant Park show.

Do: Put the collection above your personal appearance. When she visits the pattern maker to crack the whip on those deadlines, Whitney is perhaps the most unkempt we’ve ever seen her outside her house. Her hair is in a lopsided bun, and she’s clearly put her line (or something) ahead of her mascara and eyelash curler. She obviously spent hours primping before the show (we saw her up close in person there — not a hair amiss), and hasn’t canceled her facial appointments, but she appears to have priorities some of the time.

Don’t: Make lace leggings from dingy taupe lace that just happens to be lying around. Designer Christopher Kunz of Nicholas K — one label in Whitney’s group show along with Mara Hoffman — cautions Whitney against creating looks just for the sake of creating looks, and putting something sloppy on the runway. Yet when she’s at the pattern maker and finds out her lace leggings didn’t work because the fabric didn’t stretch, she just grabs the nearest role of lace she can find. It looks like a soiled antique tablecloth with some glitter. Roxy, perennial fan of ugly bottoms, offers, “I loooooove those leggings.” Where’s a real editor when you need one?



Lesson 4: Mentoring.

Do: Be kind. Kelly is nice to Whitney throughout the episode, and she’s clearly gone above and beyond to include Whitney’s show with two other established labels who don’t want to — and quite frankly couldn’t — compete with a reality star like Whitney for attention. She seems to genuinely care a lot about Whitney.

Don’t: Scare your charge shitless. Kelly likes showing people she knows stuff. Whitney, who knows nothing, provides a great outlet for her to do that, so it's no wonder she adores her. However, she kept saying awful things to Whitney. At one point she asks Whitney if she’s okay. “Not really,” Whitney says. “Let me tell you something: If this doesn’t go well you could be fucked,” Kelly responds. “It would be crazy if you weren’t terrified.” So encouraging! And last season she said, “If [the show] sucks you’re probably done,” which is obviously not true. Plenty of designers with bad shows go on to show again. Besides, a lot of people like really bad clothes! Yet another reason Whitney is destined not to fail.



Lesson 5: Keeping the girl you don’t get along with in her place.

Do: Try to make nice in a fake way. Joe and Robbie tell Erin she has to make nice with Olivia and get along. So Olivia and Erin arrange to embark on a fresh start over tea. We can tell by her expression that Erin is over it before Olivia even walks in the door. And in the best scene of the episode, hands-down, while Olivia tries to make amends, Erin is looking at her with a face of utter disgust. Maybe she’s one of those people who can’t hide in her facial expression what she’s really thinking, even though she thinks she is. But she looks like she totally resents Olivia for having the time to curl and spray her hair so neatly every morning and apply five layers of foundation. But as Olivia chatters on, the emotions in Erin’s face only deepen, and at the very end of the scene she literally looks like she’s choking back chunks of vomit she would actually love to spew on Olivia. But she doesn’t, because this "make nice" meeting is about appearances, and Erin managed not to die right then and there of laughter or disgust. Bravo.

Do: Dress like you mean business. Erin wore a black leather jacket, the perfect complement to her tough anti-bullshit side.



Lesson 6: Interviewing fashion designers backstage.

Do: Ask interesting questions. Olivia interviews Anna Sui backstage after her show for Elle.com. She opens with “What was your inspiration?” which is a fine warm-up question. But then she asks about the CFDA Lifetime Achievement Award. Okay, that is a great honor, but it is also a boring thing to discuss at any length. A reporter she may not be, but she might do some genius freelance work making video press releases or something.

Don’t: Look smug because you think you didn’t mess up. When a reporter gets a really good interview, they don’t look smug. They keep it cool, walk away, and then freak out outside. If they really get something good, they don’t want any other reporters to know and steal the information from them. Olivia, despite fumbling one of her two snooze-worthy questions, turns around and gloats. Somewhere in the background Erin is rolling her eyes. And for these little moments, Erin, we love you.








This week, Jonathan Kelly, the longtime former assistant to Vanity Fair's editor (since 2004), can officially turn his back on 4 Times Square. He's joined up with the new Bloomberg Businessweek, as "Senior Editor of Etc." That's his actual title; Etc. is the culture section. Congrats, Jon!



The most notorious Condé assistant of all, of course, is Lauren Weisberger, who parlayed her traumatic time as Anna Wintour's assistant into a best-selling roman à clef and a massive international movie. At the end of the movie version of The Devil Wears Prada, Anne Hathaway's character, Andrea Sachs, lands her dream job at a newspaper with a little secret help from Wintour's character, played icily by Meryl Streep.



But are these success stories the norm? We tracked down what happened to the last handful of assistants to four of Condé's top editors.



Graydon Carter, Vanity Fair:

For more than a decade, Carter has been served by a rotating roster of two assistants, several of whom have left VF. Punch Hutton is still around, as Fanfair and Fairground editor, as is Dana Brown, a senior articles editor. When Matt Trainor left in 2003, after three and a half years, he eventually became an associate editor at Departures, and is now the editor-in-chief of digital media at Ralph Lauren, steering the company's online fashion writing. The next to go was Meg Nolan, who now lives in Amsterdam, works for PlumTV as a travel journalist, and writes books for Rizzoli. "I was indeed told there was a future at VF for me, on a number of occasions," she says. "That is, until I declared I really wanted to pursue travel journalism, and then I was promptly moved along, out the door." In came Leigh Herzig. After her stint, she and her brother launched a watch line, BobbyHBobby, which has since gone on hiatus. Which leads us to Jonathan Kelly, who started at Bloomberg Businessweek last week.



Anna Wintour, Vogue:

Did the Weisberger experience prompt Wintour to keep her ex-assistants close? Since 2003, the scariest boss in the business has had about ten aides, and many are still on the magazine's staff. Sylvana Soto-Ward climbed quickly and is now the director of special events, meaning she plans the mythical Met ball. After her: Lawren Howell, who's now the West Coast fashion editor. Next: Jessica Sailer, an associate fashion editor at Vogue, and Sophie Pera, a fashion assistant. After 2008, either the aforementioned girls took all the good jobs, or Anna's assistants went downhill quickly. There was Jessica Nagin, who wouldn't respond for comment, though friends tell us she's currently in nutrition school. Then there's Asia Baker, who also wouldn't respond, but who has recently made Vogue's weekly best-dressed list and goes to a lot of parties (she's throwing one for the Kentucky Derby, if anyone wants to send us an invite). Last up? Claiborne Swanson, of the television-dinner fortune, who says she is "presently working on a personal photography project" and hopes to one day return to Vogue in a creative capacity.



Cindi Leive, Glamour:

When Leive arrived at Glamour in 2001, she inherited Bonnie Fuller's assistant, Kirk Shannon-Butts, a filmmaker who apparently goes by “Boi Wonda” to his friends. After a few years, Leive helped him move into Glamour's fashion department, then he left to focus on his first film, Blueprint, a gay drama. Leive's other assistant at the time was Michelle Pacht, who is now an English professor at LaGuardia Community College. Cindi's next set of assistants stuck around. Margarita Bertsos managed an astounding four years, before flexing her, uh, muscles as the magazine's Body by Glamour program. She lost a ton of weight — this was before Glamour was on the plus-size train — and she's now an assistant editor, editing health coverage and interviewing Chace Crawford. “Yes, I'm deeply indebted to Cindi,” she says. So, too, is Tiffany Blackstone, who climbed the rungs as an associate editor before going freelance to spend time with her two children. She still writes often for Glamour.com. Then there's Kristin Koch, who explains: “I moved to Park City, Utah, with my boyfriend after he was laid off (he was in investment banking) and we spent the season skiing there.” She's currently freelancing and interviewing for magazine jobs, even if this whole Park City thing sounds a bit more, well, glamorous. “We actually had dinner with Cindi and her husband when they were skiing for New Year's.”



Lucy Danziger, Self:

Lucy only has one assistant at a time (versus the two or three other marquee editors keep), and they tend to stick around for years. Soon after Danziger joined Self in 2001, she hired Stephanie Davis Smith, whose dream was to work at GQ — Danziger helped make it happen after ambushing GQ editor Jim Nelson at a party. Smith is now the editor-in-chief of Skirt, a magazine in Atlanta that's some combination of liberal, Southern, and feminist, and the desk outside Danziger's office has been replenished with women who are all somehow connected back to Smith. Cristina Tudino is now Self's psychology editor, and after her came Kelly Mickle, who is currently the associate health-and-nutrition editor.



So there you have it. A mixed bag — some editorial fairy tales, other escape stories — but no people with serious complaints with where the job left them. Best of luck to the new batch of assistants, especially these two.



Pull In Money In Fashion


Nordic Fashion: Malene Marron by Hero K.

easy fashion jobs you should know



Thursday, April 29, 2010


Rubio   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Unless I've missed something he's said, this doesn't sound off: 




RADIO HOST: Let’s get right to it. Right now, our topic, a lot of callers fired up in support of this new law in Arizona. The crackdown on illegal immigration – where do you stand on it?”


MARCO RUBIO: Well, let’s take a deep breath first and realize where we are. This is inevitable that this was going happen somewhere, particularly in Arizona. I was there about two months ago and the people there are – this is not even an immigration issue to them. This is a law enforcement issue.  You’ve got kidnappings and murders and gang violence pouring over the border in an uncontrolled fashion. The bottom line is the Federal government has completely failed to enforce Federal immigration laws, much less make them stronger and more effective. We have a legal immigration system that doesn’t work. And so it is inevitable that eventually some state was going to take action.


“And I’m not going to sit here and criticize a state that’s taken action, in defense of what they’ve done. I will tell you that I don’t think this is the best way to have handled it. I think the best way for this issue to ultimately be handled is for the Federal government to do its job. And the job of the Federal government is to enforce the immigration laws we have, to make sure that to the extent we have to come up with new technologies, whether it’s border security or a fence or fixing the visa program – that the Federal government can handle that. You know, the Federal government is involved in so many things that are none of its business. This is one the things the Federal government should be involved in. And the fact that it has failed to do it in an effective way has led to this. And we certainly can’t have 50 different immigration policies in 50 different states.


“Now here’s my fear: my fear is that the Obama administration is going to use this as an excuse to go forward with some sort of an amnesty bill. I’ve never supported amnesty. I think amnesty would be terrible for America’s future. Quite frankly, I think amnesty is terrible for legal immigration. If you were to grant amnesty, you will never be able to have a legal immigration system that works in America.


“So my hope is that this will serve as a wake-up call to Washington D.C., that the immigration system that we have is broken, that we must figure out a way to stop the growth of illegal immigration in America, and that we’ve got to come up with a legal immigration process that works so that we don’t have to continue to face these kinds of issues that those people in Arizona are facing right now.”



When I hear Janet Napolitano assure us that the borders are secure, I wonder how she could even know given she has to worry about weather conditions and all the other things that fall under the massive mission of the Department of Homeland Security.

Back to Rubio, I think his original statement was premature, as Ramesh has suggested. He reacted to news coverage and not the bill itself. But I don't think he actually comes out to the Left of John McCain (!), as the current impression is.


I first saw Buke And Gass last summer at Joe’s Pub as part of the Happy Ending Music & Reading Series. They performed some of their songs on a bill where I did a reading about black metal (and, separately, Colin Stetson made his saxophone sound like black metal). I’d never heard them before that — they stood out in the way they conjured these weird, catchy, dense songs on homemade instruments. It was unexpectedly bracing. Lots of momentum. As far as the lingo, the buke is “a self-modified six string baritone ukelele” and the gass is “a guitar-bass hybrid.” They both handle all sorts of foot percussion. The sounds are then filtered and processed, etc. It’s compelling watching them kick and strum on these things, but it was Arone Dyer’s waling, uplifting, melodic voice that left the biggest impression on me. You hear Beth Ditto for a second (one who races/fixes bikes and builds her own instruments, doesn’t hang out at fashion shows), Kathleen Hannah in those Bikini Kill days, Throwing Muses, something else, etc., an overall joy.


Just to make things confusing, Arone’s bandmate’s name is Aron. I caught up with the two for Quit Your Day Job because what they do for work helps make more sense of their music: Aron builds instruments for the Blue Man Group (he invented the Aronophonic) and Arone’s a bike mechanic (who happened to sing on Blue Man Group’s “What Is Rock”). And, of course, they also build their own noisemakers. They’re releasing a full-length on Brassland in late summer/early fall and have a few shows next month opening for Brassland heads (with Alec Hanley Bemis) Aaron and Bryce Dessner’s band.


Aron, drums and gass


STEREOGUM: How did you get hooked up with the Blue Man Group?


ARON SANCHEZ: A friend of mine was a member of the Blue Man Group band when I first moved to NYC, he introduced me to them and I started working and performing in the band for the Chicago and New York productions. After a few years of that I began designing and building instruments for them full-time which lasted about nine years. Since ‘08 I work for them freelance.


STEREOGUM: What’s your background in instrument design?


AS: No formal background really, just something I’ve been doing since childhood. I just have a strong desire to build the instruments I play, it’s more satisfying and I’m able to experiment and discover new sounds and techniques. Actually, I have a strong desire to build almost anything, I’m a total geek that way. I studied art and music in school and I suppose instrument design is a way to straddle the two.


STEREOGUM: That show is basically ongoing… forever? How often do you need to build new instruments? Repair old ones?


AS: For Blue Man it’s pretty sporadic, several times a year. They call me when they’re putting up a new show or when something needs to be replaced. Though I’m about to do some big pieces for a new tour they’re putting up next fall, a few instruments that I’ve built before and some that are new designs.


STEREOGUM: Are you able to introduce you own new designs or are you working off specific prototypes?


AS: Well, back when I was working full-time for them I was able to experiment and come up with new designs all the time. A lot of R&D and problem solving.  Basically they would have a concept or idea for a new instrument or new sound they wanted to create and use and I would go off and try to make it happen somehow. Often times it was for a skit they were performing on The Tonight Show or a video piece or the touring productions. There was also the day to day stuff of building and repairing the stock instruments they use in the shows.


STEREOGUM: So you’re not on call?


AS: Yeah, not on call.  Blue Man work is project by project. Lately I’ve been doing more recording than anything else.


STEREOGUM: How many people work on the instruments? The show’s been long-running … Any elder statesman over there?


AS: Mostly just myself and maybe one or two assistants working on the instruments. We had a workshop in Red Hook Brooklyn where all the props, sets, special effects and costumes were fabricated, about 12 people working in they’re specific areas. The show’s been running since ‘90-91 I think. Some elder statesman there, yes, but mostly just the founders of the company.


STEREOGUM: You also build instruments for your own band.


AS: Yes, I build the instrument I play which is a hybrid between a bass and a guitar, as well as the amplifiers and some effect pedals we use.


STEREOGUM: Do you ever incorporate any Blue Man Group-esque elements for Buke & Gass noisemakers?


AS: Mm, not really, no. Different ball game.


STEREOGUM: How many times have you watched the Blue Man Group’s show?


AS: I can’t say, I performed in the show probably … 300-400 times in the two years I was doing that. Since then I’ve probably only seen it a handful of times.


STEREOGUM: Did Tobias ever have a chance?


AS: Didn’t he?


///


Arone, buke and voice


STEREOGUM: You’re a bike mechanic. Do you work in a shop or on your own?


ARONE DYER: I had managed a shop in Lower East Side for a few years, but recently chose to change that situation … Now I’m more freelance/part-part time at a couple different shops, one where I’m their main wheel builder, the other I’m just wrenching. More hands on, as I prefer.


STEREOGUM: How’d you get started?


AD: About seven or eight years ago I began volunteering at Recycle-a-Bicycle, which was a great source of information and gateway into the good-natured cycling community of NYC. I learned a lot there, moved on to another shop and learned more, moved to another/learned more, etc etc. I wrote a few articles on repair for a magazine a few years back, and since then I’ve tried to avoid being in a cycling spotlight.


STEREOGUM: What’s the most common repair?


AD: Flats.


STEREOGUM: Ever been stumped?


AD: Certainly, but far less as time has gone on. Right now I’m stumped as to why I still haven’t fixed the flat on my bike that’s been sitting in my backyard for a year, I mean … just crazy …  Apparently it’s really common.


STEREOGUM: In your opinion, what’s the ideal city bike?


AD: Something you hate so much you love it, yet wouldn’t mind leaving it behind.


STEREOGUM: Do you belong to any biking activist groups?


AD: No, I’m not terribly activisty in general. I support their causes, some of the time, but I tend to stay away from rallies and I don’t yell at cars anymore.


STEREOGUM: You also build instruments…


AD: Yes, learning more about that each day. I’ve dabbled for years, but now I have more reason to dive into it. I’ve built two amplifiers now, the one I play at our shows and a Fender Champ weber kit. Also, I just finished a nicer playing Buke. It’s far fancier with a radial fretboard and a truss rod in the neck, rather than the old fashioned Frankenbuke-style of stretching a cable from the head-stock to the base of the neck, potentially holding it from warping forward with the tension of the strings. No more entanglement.


STEREOGUM: How do you see your biking and music making overlapping, if at all?


AD: Aah, yes, well … to begin with, I just enjoy doing both things so much that that’s what I make sure to spend my time doing. On top of that, my mechanic work provides me the meager financial abilities and mental respite to survive while I make music … and sometimes it works the other way around. Also, I’ve noticed that singing while riding bike is very similar to playing a show, where I’m moving so much it’s hard to catch my breath at times.


///


Here’s a new one:


  • Buke And Gass – “Medulla Oblongata”Download


You can hear older ones at MySpace. They recently spoke for/played at Radiolab. The instruments are explained. Hookworms are mentioned. The shows:


04/25 – Brooklyn, NY @ Glasslands #

05/05 – London UK @ Electric Ballroom %

05/06 – London UK @ Royal Albert Hall %

05/08 – Berlin Germany @ Huxley’s Neue Welt %

05/09 – Berlin Germany @ Astra %

05/14 – Brooklyn, NY @ Glasslands !!


# w/ Melati Malay, Parlovr, The Luyas

% w/ The National

!! w/ Talk Normal, Asa Ransom, Miniboone




Learn To Pull In Money With Fashion


L'Oreal Fashion Week by Henry Roxas

a link about fashion jobs you have to know








MILWAUKEE — Carlos Delfino scored 22 points with six 3-pointers and the Milwaukee Bucks pulled off their second straight playoff surprise, beating the Atlanta Hawks 111-104 Monday night to draw even in the first-round series.



Brandon Jennings scored 23 points and John Salmons added 22 for the Bucks, who survived a fourth-quarter surge led by Atlanta stars Joe Johnson and Josh Smith. Now the Hawks head home for Game 5, desperately needing a win to stave off a surprising challenge by a team missing its best player, injured center Andrew Bogut.




Johnson scored 29 points, reserve Jamal Crawford had 21, and Smith had 20 points and nine rebounds.



The Bucks finally started getting to the free throw line and the made the most of it, hitting 28 of 32.



Salmons was 10 for 10 from the free throw line.



It was yet another subpar performance away from home for the Hawks, who struggled on the road in the regular season and haven't performed well on the road in recent playoff appearances. Atlanta beat Milwaukee in convincing fashion the first two games of the series, but the Bucks blew out the Hawks in Saturday's Game 3.



Atlanta did a better job responding to adversity Monday, but still not good enough.



Delfino went 6 for 8 from 3-point range, including a 3-pointer from the corner to put Milwaukee ahead 97-88 with 3:56 left. Smith missed inside and Jennings grabbed the rebound, then hit a floating jumper at the other end.



Layups by Al Horford and Johnson later cut the lead to five with 1:41 remaining, but Milwaukee's Kurt Thomas made one of two free throws, then took a charge by Crawford with 1:20 left.








Tonight The City returns on MTV. It may not have a promo as fancy as that of the Hills, in which the girls are finally cut from the strings by which they hang from Adam DiVello's meaty and powerful fingers, but it has just as much (if not more) tension. Between characters with that rare thing in reality TV — arcs. We rang Whitney Port up to talk about Olivia, her clothing line, her forthcoming first book, Kelly Cutrone, dating, and more. And she's feistier than ever before.



As revealed in the trailer, Olivia is not supporting your line — were you surprised? What is your relationship like with her?

I was not so surprised by that. Olivia and I have never really been the best of friends. You know, at the time, yes, I was a little bit hurt because it wouldn’t have really taken that much for her to interview me for elle.com, and as a "journalist" or whatever she is for the magazine, your opinion doesn't really matter. Your job is to interview someone and then report it, but she made it personal. I think that there's obviously some level of insecurity on her part, and she's showing it. I don't know that she knows that she's showing it, but it definitely comes through. It was a little bit hurtful, but Olivia's one of those people who doesn't care about anybody but herself. That's why it's not so surprising because she doesn't want to help anybody else out. She's only out for herself. So, if I expected something different from her, then maybe I would have been more hurt, but it's like the same old thing with her.



It seems like there's quite a bit of drama in store for this season of The City. What's going to particularly surprise viewers?

I think the show has taken on a totally different look. At first it was kind of The Hills' legacy, and it was very relationship-heavy, just kind of character-driven, and I think this season it's really focused on our careers, and how we're going to eventually make it in the fashion industry. I watched the first episode yesterday, and I was actually quite excited about it, because I think that, for girls, if you're interested in fashion and have goals of being in fashion, I think it's pretty cool that you can kind of see how to navigate your way through it in this way.



On to your fashion line, Whitney Eve, which we saw during Fashion Week in September: You had MTV cameras filming as you were trying to put out a runway show. Did they interfere?

It's been a balance of both. On the one hand it's been a little difficult, because I was worried about how the line was going to be portrayed, and they get every little detail of your process — the design process, the selling process, the presentation process, so not everything always goes smoothly and they're there for all those hiccups. So that can be a little bit daunting, but at the same time, it's also going to have such publicity and visibility because of it, so it's like a double-edged sword.



What do you see as the next step for your line?

The next step is basically starting on my spring collection. I'm continuing to design it, I'm trying to make it a little more accessible and affordable for my customers and my viewership, and just continuing to work on it.



Speaking of making it more accessible, would you consider doing a diffusion line?

Definitely. I first wanted to establish myself and show that I actually had some design sense. It's very easy for people to just put their name on something, especially in this industry — everyone seems to be doing that — and so it was really important to me that people kind of took me seriously at first. But I think I haven’t necessarily gotten to that point where people are taking me seriously yet, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be open to doing something on a larger scale.



Designer Adrienne Baravetto recently sued you, claiming she designed Whitney Eve but wasn't paid or acknowledged for her work. Is there any truth to that?

[Publicist intervenes: "I'm sorry, she can't comment on that, it concerns litigation."] I can't comment on that.



You're not represented by People's Revolution. Given Kelly Cutrone's involvement in your career, why did you decide to go with another PR firm?

I've been an employee at People's Revolution and I thought it was weird for me all of a sudden to become a client of theirs. And she was helping me out of the goodness of her heart, and she's got a lot on her plate, so I figured I would just move to something else and keep my relationship with Kelly as kind of a mentor relationship and not a business relationship.



You're writing a book. What can you tell us about it?

I've actually been working on it a lot. I'm coming out with basically a "how-to" guide. It's called True Whit and it covers everything from fashion, beauty, interviewing for a job, just all different elements of your quarterlife crisis. Once you get out of college, what to do and where to go and how to navigate through it. I found that I had so many questions when I graduated college and had a job in L.A. and moved out to New York and had to start a whole new life for myself, so I thought that I would share my experience and anecdotes and kind of help out that same kind of girl.



Last season, we saw Roxy get you into a bit of trouble. Are you still good friends with her? Do you think she's a bad influence on you?

I maintain a really good relationship with Roxy. I don't think that she's a bad influence, I just think that we have a really different way of doing things. Roxy and I still work together, but we're kind of going our own separate ways. She wants to do something different now, which you'll see, and she's definitely trying to stay out of my shadow.



There's been buzz that you're dating Buried Life star Ben Nemtin. Did you meet through MTV?

We met through friends, not through MTV.



So it's just a coincidence that you're both on reality shows?

Yeah, basically.



How has being on a reality show affected your dating life? Do you make an effort to balance a public and private life?

Now I've begun to do that. I think it's really important to maintain that level of privacy. While I would go on little dates here and there this past season, I'm not looking to put the spotlight on a serious relationship, I really want to maintain that the show is career-oriented.



Do you think you were you more willing to put yourself and your relationships in front of the camera in previous seasons?

In The Hills, I never was. I had a boyfriend behind the scenes, and no one knew who he was, and it was just kind of under the radar in that way. But once I moved to New York I lived out a whole relationship in front of the camera, so I totally learned my lesson, and I just don't think I could put myself in that position again.



Saturday, 24 April 2010

Let's Make Money


Ban Photo's...........Let's make it a Video Site!!! by sunny-drunk

click here to learn more about making money online

I don’t mean to pick on Fred Wilson. It’s just that of all that I found notable in Doree Shafrir’s cover story in this week’s New York Magazine, “Tweet Tweet Boom Boom: How Tech Startups Like Foursquare and Meetup Are Trying to Overthrow Old Media and Build a Better New York” — and there was a lot! — I found this quote most illuminating:



“We have a two-year program here, and we try like hell to hire women into that program,” says Union Square Ventures’ Wilson (whose office, except for his assistant, is all male). “We tell the world we’ve got this opening, and anybody who’s interested can apply, and it’s 90 percent men who even bother to apply. I mean, I don’t know what the problem is.”



Imagine for a moment that Fred Wilson just gave a start-up a big chunk of money, and a goal. If that goal was 90% a failure, do you think it would be enough if they were just “trying like hell?” If you “don’t know what the problem is,” you tackle it and find out. Fred Wilson knows that, it’s how every single startup is born. But that problem has to first be a priority.


As for “telling the world” — well, it depends how you define “world.” Wilson has advertised it in his popular wee-hours email (see here and here) and on the Union Square Ventures blog (see here and here), but that seems only to be telling his world. And if that world reaches 90% men and you’re trying to bring in women, then maybe a different solution is required. To paraphrase Foursquare co-founder Dennis Crowley: “To make a foosball table smarter isn’t that different from ‘Let’s make a VC smarter.’ ”


There is a lot to this article — including some friends of mine! — so pardon me for focusing on the demographics first. As Joe Coscarelli pointed out yesterday at the Village Voice, “It’s a boy’s world, still: of the 53 entrepreneurs photographed, only 6 are women.” Sigh. Those odds not only suck, but they don’t reflect my own experience in this milieu — who I see at events, at SXSW, at Tom & Jerry’s. (12% doesn’t even reflect the audience at a New York Tech Meetup, at least in my experience. Though if you’re a single guy on the prowl, you may want to try elsewhere.) These companies don’t run themselves and so many of the crucial team members are women — not necessarily founders, but their right arms and guts and blood — who are integral to strategy and growth and implementation. I’m not saying it would be 26.5 out of 53, but more than 6? It would have to be. Even if you just want to attempt to approximate the ratio in the actual industry.


But Wilson is talking about the people at the top, and I guess NYmag is, too. Paging through the online gallery, I looked for the pic featuring Drop.io, knowing that they’d recently hired Soraya Darabi, an SAI 100 designee and well-known new media/tech industry maven. I know she’s there providing crucial support in the background, but you’d never know it from the pic, featuring three guys. (Sidebar: Apparently being a young tech entrepreneur in New York City also means being photographed upside down.) And of course, more women were mentioned in the article than were shot — Emily Gannett of KlickableTV, Brooke Moreland of Fashism.com, Alexis Maybank and Alexandra Wilkis Wilson of Gilt Groupe — all which launched before 2010, unlike a number of those photographed.


So: If only 6 out of 53 featured NYC tech superstars are women, then are we using the wrong criteria? And by “we” I mean the royal we – we the media, in the criteria we are using to assess “success,” and in how we the industry are looking to galvanize, recruit and train. I would venture to say yes — below the surface (or, at least according to the average Foursquare leaderboard) there is a robust presence of women — more than 12%, at least! — making things happen and contributing to the whole. If the data is there, and the resources are there, then all that remains is to do something about it. If we can make a foosball table smarter, than surely we can do that.


Tweet Tweet Boom Boom [New York]


Photographs from NYMag.com by Jake Chessum.


Follow us on Twitter.


Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.




Let’s see, we’re nearly five months into this year. How are you doing with your resolutions? Particularly the one you made to start saving money. Have you been managing your finances more efficiently? Or have you been spending so much money that your debit or credit card is starting to melt? We all know it’s always best to make a budget, but it may be difficult to adhere to it. Your grocery budget may dwindle more quickly, as you find yourself dining out or hitting the drive thru more frequently. When a new BlackBerry comes out, will you have money set aside for it, or will you dip into your hydro bill budget? Well, at least you can use a flashlight app on your new BlackBerry to illuminate your place after your electricity gets cut off…until your battery runs out.



Do yourself a favour: put the hammer down and step away from your child’s piggy bank. I’m pretty sure that you would rather try and find alterative means to fix your financial follies, than to explain to your son or daughter why you’re taking their birthday money. Why not check out these applications plucked from a slew of money applications available for your BlackBerry.



There were so many applications to go through, so I tried to cover the basics that you should look out for. It takes money to make money, or in this case – save money as well. Keep this in mind when having a look at these applications - they may not be what you are looking for, or they may be the perfect fit. If you use anything that is not listed here, let everyone know and leave a comment.



 


Mobile Money Mover



Your money is easily carried and easily spent, but not necessarily easily made. Though not the greatest tool for a shopaholic to have, it would be convenient if you could manage your cash flow on your BlackBerry – regardless if it happens to be flowing in or out.



Two great options are the PayPal and Zoompass applications. Both of these applications allow you to send or receive money while on the go; you can even use Zoompass to request money (Mom? I need some gas money...). You can quickly and easily see your transactions, balance and more. You are also able to make payments to people already in your BlackBerry Address book. Both PayPal and Zoompass are free (Zoompass is only available in Canada).


Friday, 23 April 2010

Let's Make Money


Let's make some music, make some money, find some models for wives. by joniJEALOUSY

click here to learn more about making money online

The Social Analyst is a weekly column by Mashable Co-Editor Ben Parr, where he digs into social media trends and how they are affecting companies in the space.

It’s undeniable: Foursquareclass="blippr-nobr">Foursquare is on fire in a way that no startup since Twitterclass="blippr-nobr">Twitter has come close to achieving. It’s changing the world and acquiring new users at a rapid place, so perhaps that’s why it doesn’t surprise us to learn that Yahoo is aggressively trying to acquire Foursquare.

According to Kara Swisher of AllThingsD, Foursquare and its founder Dennis Crowley have two options: raise more money from venture capital firms that would value the company at around $100 million, or be acquired by Yahoo for $125 million or more.

These are not small numbers and this is not an easy decision. The payday from Yahoo would be enough for most of the Foursquare team to be very happy for the rest of their lives. Any overtures from the Internet giant should be taken seriously.

However, if Crowley and the Foursquare team want to make the kind of worldwide impact that only a handful of people can claim to have achieved — all while building a company with far greater value than the money Yahoo is offering — then it needs to take venture capital money, forgo the immediate payday and amp up Foursquare’s growth to the Facebook and Twitter level.

The Hit-or-Miss of Acquisitions

When a hot tech start is acquired by a major technology company, the results have historically been all over the charts. For every class='blippr-nobr'>YouTubeclass="blippr-nobr">YouTube success (acquired by class='blippr-nobr'>Googleclass="blippr-nobr">Google in 2006), there is a class='blippr-nobr'>Jaikuclass="blippr-nobr">Jaiku failure (acquired by Google in 2007). Sometimes the additional resources of a major tech company can help spur an acquisition to greater heights, while other times bureaucracy can leave it to languish.

/>



photo: Philip Jägenstedt


The national debt has been making its way into the headlines a lot as of late. Much of this attention has been underscored by a grumbling, a recession-weary U.S. population forced to re-examine their spending habits even as the government maintains record federal deficits.


One of the latest news flashes to spark public concern is China’s continued dominance as the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury debt. According to the U.S. Treasury Department’s annual benchmark revisions, China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury securities stood at $894.8 billion at the end of December 2009, keeping it in its first place position followed by Japan which holds $768.8 billion.


Over the last year or so, there’s been a lot of brouhaha over China’s holdings, its “econo-political” maneuverings, and what this all means for the average American. But all of this is pretty complicated and abstract–especially for those of us who don’t hold a degree in economic policy.


So I set out to make China’s U.S. debt holdings somewhat more tangible. Here’s what I found:


China’s holdings as a percentage of national debt:


Our current national debt is approximately $12.557 trillion. Thus, China’s total treasury holdings represent 14% of America’s total debt obligations and 24.3% of total foreign ownership of U.S. Treasury Securities.


How the money we owe China compares to the federal budget:


Total estimated expenditures for FY 2010 came to $3.552 trillion; while total estimated revenues for FY 2010 were $2.381 trillion. That works out to 25% of total US expenditures and approximately 37.5% of total yearly revenues.


How much we owe China per capita?


The estimated population of the United States is now 307,966,334 (and counting). That works out to approximately $2905 per person. Thus, the average family with two children collectively owes $11,622 to China.


How much interest are we paying China per year? Per Day?


The US treasury offers a range of securities that mature within set time periods (i.e. 1,5, or10 years) with the longest held securities maturing in 30 years. Though yields vary depending on the length of the security, the majority of China’s holdings are long-term. Currently, the interest rate offered on long-term securities is approximately 4.5%. We can therefore calculate a rough estimate of $40.26 billion in interest paid per year or $110.3 million a day. 


How does China’s debt holdings compare to health care industry profits?


The health care industry is one of the biggest industries in the US, constituting a 5th of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The profits of five largest US health insurance companies were a mere $12.2 billion in 2009!


Zaijian, America!


America, Let’s Face It: China Owns Us! provided by fastupfront.com.




Wednesday, 21 April 2010

The inner Circle


Meet Me at Inner Circle by Mayank Austen Soofi

skip over to How to Make Money With Google




Last night, at the annual Inner Circle show, Mayor Bloomberg left this business attire for the hippie-stylings of Hair, as he spoofed the past year of his mayoralty in Mair: 3 Terms of Peace and Music. But it's possible that he was overshadowed by his special guests—Snooki and The Situation. Snooki was excited by the prospect of meeting Bloomberg: She Tweeted, "Enjoying some wine and waiten to fist pump with Mayor B!! He double fist pumps lmao!" The Situation was so thrilled he took off his shirt!



The Post said he "looked right at home in a groovy get-up of long, flowing locks, a headband, suede moccasins and custom-made bell-bottom jeans... festooned with funky patches, each symbolizing a city agency." The Daily News seemed scared, "This year, he went full-on psychedelic - looking like the sexagenarian love child of Howard Stern and Janis Joplin." And the Post and News eported that among Bloomberg's lines were, "Bette Midler will help us plant one million pot plants in the next 10 years," "I've already brought crime down at frat parties. Peeing in the bushes has dropped 15%," and, in response to whether he'd want to be Public Advocate after his mayoral term ends, "It'd have to be a real job."



Here's a video montage of the event—see Bloomberg arriving in a Volkswagen bus! see Snooki ask, "If you're doing a show with hair, don't you think I should be part of it?"





The Inner Circle show, which is put on by the city's political reporters and raises money for charity, also poked fun at Governor Paterson. The Post reports, "Act Two opened with an actor portraying Paterson as the captain of the Titanic. He steered right into an iceberg and ended up stranded on Governors Island, surrounded by "sharks," including Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch and Long Island Republican Rick Lazio."



Last year, Mayor Bloomberg went Under the Sea with the cast of The Little Mermaid, the year before that he wore a headband with the cast of Xanadu, and in 2007, he went all Mayor Poppins. But of course, the most famous instance of a mayor playing along with the Inner Circle crowd is Rudy Giuliani who appeared in drag as Marilyn Monroe.






Senator Spencer Bacchus, the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee is quite right to write to Lehman bankruptcy examiner Anton J. Valukas and ask to review communications between the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission about Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, in preparation for an April 20 hearing into the Valukas report. He wants to know what exactly the SEC found out while it was inside Lehman -- or more importantly what it missed.



In his letter to Valukas. Bacchus wrote that Lehman "used accounting gimmicks to hide its debt and mask its insolvency...More disturbing, the examiner's report also describes what appear to be significant failings on the part of officials" at the SEC and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.



The SEC and FED, after all, were inside Lehman Brothers for the last six months of its life. How did they miss all this?



Sen. Chris Dodd, the Senate banking chair has asked former Lehman chief Dick Fuld to return to testify exactly how Lehman misled so many people. (Fuld's lawyer has said Fuld had never heard of Repo 105, the accounting tool by which Lehman moved $50 billion of its balance sheets...)



Perhaps some explanation may lie in an email I received today from one of Lehman's most senior employees -- someone who worked there for 17 years. He wrote to me off the record so I am not at liberty to disclose his identity, but he was very senior and widely respected.



He is not the only Lehmanite to have responded to my new book, The Devil's Casino (Wiley). Many have thanked me for exposing a culture led (and ruined) by a tiny leadership that was egregious, isolated and mendacious. Without exception, Lehman readers have told me I got it absolutely right -- and -- in particular they have agreed with today's New York Post's article which noted that the book maintains that Lehman's president Joe Gregory was actually the chief villain at the firm, responsible for much of the over-risky leverage, and not so much Dick Fuld. (Incidentally all the e-mailers and callers have agreed that their wives loathed being "married to Lehman" as the book points out in one chapter.)



What my e-mailer of today however points out is something that both Rep. Bacchus and Sen. Dodd may find useful as they follow up on Valukas's report.



He wrote, "like many former colleagues, I'm astonished at how much we didn't know about the workings of the inner circle."



Note the last three words. "The Inner Circle." This was not the whole Lehman's executive committee. This was Fuld, Gregory, perhaps in reverse order, and then Gregory's pet of the month, at one point Erin Callan, at another Mark Walsh. But it was a tiny unit, cut off from the rest of Lehman.



He follows up.



  • Dick's hardly the gorilla. He's funny, passionate, caring, competitive, and serious about the business. In a way, he almost cared too much about Lehman and its employees.

  • Unfortunately, Joe G's characterization highly-accurate.

  • The commercial real estate book alone did not sink Lehman. Enormous and wrong prop bets on European interest rates in mid-2008 (FID chief Andy Morton moved on) and Alt-A MBS in NY also hurt.

  • As detailed in Examiner's Report ...real estate exposure went against recommendation of firm's own research department beginning in 2005. Why? The "growth engine" had to be fed. And internal politics.

  • Realize that space did not allow a full consideration of so many other terrific contributors and positive firm attributes. For example, No. 1 U.S. bond house for nearly a quarter century thanks to so many terrific capital market soldiers (sales, trading, research, syndicate) trying to do the right thing for their clients. And starting in 1973, Lehman ran world's largest debt index franchise that helped bolster its international reputation....

  • In the end, Paulson correct. Too many people in same seats for too long. Lehman would have been still standing if Mike Gelband had not been fired in 2007 for telling the truth and if the Lehman's most competent executive, Bart McDade, had been elevated to president before 2008.


So, here we have Lehman:



"An inner circle" at the top cut off from the rest. It fires people for telling the truth, and fails to promote the most competent executive until too late.... This culture didn't spring up in its last few months...it festered for years. Whatever the SEC and FED missed in the bank's final six months, the cabal at the top was already set in its ways and adept at hiding what it was really doing from not just the SEC, Fed and market -- but its own senior management. That really is a horrifying culture, and one I am delighted to have exposed.



Vicky Ward is the author of The Devil's Casino: Friendship, Betrayal and the High-Stakes Games Played Inside Lehman Brothers









click here to learn about making money

can we make money?

Yes We Can!

Imagine making more money in a month than most people earn in a whole year. Imagine generating a monthly residual income of thousands of dollars per month, after month, after month, after month. Imagine true financial freedom.

take a look at a website i found: http://blog.pro2sell.com


Un pajarito que sobró by ma_virginia

I don’t mean to pick on Fred Wilson. It’s just that of all that I found notable in Doree Shafrir’s cover story in this week’s New York Magazine, “Tweet Tweet Boom Boom: How Tech Startups Like Foursquare and Meetup Are Trying to Overthrow Old Media and Build a Better New York” — and there was a lot! — I found this quote most illuminating:



“We have a two-year program here, and we try like hell to hire women into that program,” says Union Square Ventures’ Wilson (whose office, except for his assistant, is all male). “We tell the world we’ve got this opening, and anybody who’s interested can apply, and it’s 90 percent men who even bother to apply. I mean, I don’t know what the problem is.”



Imagine for a moment that Fred Wilson just gave a start-up a big chunk of money, and a goal. If that goal was 90% a failure, do you think it would be enough if they were just “trying like hell?” If you “don’t know what the problem is,” you tackle it and find out. Fred Wilson knows that, it’s how every single startup is born. But that problem has to first be a priority.


As for “telling the world” — well, it depends how you define “world.” Wilson has advertised it in his popular wee-hours email (see here and here) and on the Union Square Ventures blog (see here and here), but that seems only to be telling his world. And if that world reaches 90% men and you’re trying to bring in women, then maybe a different solution is required. To paraphrase Foursquare co-founder Dennis Crowley: “To make a foosball table smarter isn’t that different from ‘Let’s make a VC smarter.’ ”


There is a lot to this article — including some friends of mine! — so pardon me for focusing on the demographics first. As Joe Coscarelli pointed out yesterday at the Village Voice, “It’s a boy’s world, still: of the 53 entrepreneurs photographed, only 6 are women.” Sigh. Those odds not only suck, but they don’t reflect my own experience in this milieu — who I see at events, at SXSW, at Tom & Jerry’s. (12% doesn’t even reflect the audience at a New York Tech Meetup, at least in my experience. Though if you’re a single guy on the prowl, you may want to try elsewhere.) These companies don’t run themselves and so many of the crucial team members are women — not necessarily founders, but their right arms and guts and blood — who are integral to strategy and growth and implementation. I’m not saying it would be 26.5 out of 53, but more than 6? It would have to be. Even if you just want to attempt to approximate the ratio in the actual industry.


But Wilson is talking about the people at the top, and I guess NYmag is, too. Paging through the online gallery, I looked for the pic featuring Drop.io, knowing that they’d recently hired Soraya Darabi, an SAI 100 designee and well-known new media/tech industry maven. I know she’s there providing crucial support in the background, but you’d never know it from the pic, featuring three guys. (Sidebar: Apparently being a young tech entrepreneur in New York City also means being photographed upside down.) And of course, more women were mentioned in the article than were shot — Emily Gannett of KlickableTV, Brooke Moreland of Fashism.com, Alexis Maybank and Alexandra Wilkis Wilson of Gilt Groupe — all which launched before 2010, unlike a number of those photographed.


So: If only 6 out of 53 featured NYC tech superstars are women, then are we using the wrong criteria? And by “we” I mean the royal we – we the media, in the criteria we are using to assess “success,” and in how we the industry are looking to galvanize, recruit and train. I would venture to say yes — below the surface (or, at least according to the average Foursquare leaderboard) there is a robust presence of women — more than 12%, at least! — making things happen and contributing to the whole. If the data is there, and the resources are there, then all that remains is to do something about it. If we can make a foosball table smarter, than surely we can do that.


Tweet Tweet Boom Boom [New York]


Photographs from NYMag.com by Jake Chessum.


Follow us on Twitter.


Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.



To explain why costs always go up at American research universities, one has to understand how these institutions spend their money. Surprisingly, virtually no one has examined university budgets in a detailed and careful way, and so it has been easy for schools to claim that tuition never covers the true cost of education. However, if we look closely at the numbers, we shall see that there is practically no relation between what universities charge and what they spend. Moreover, even though many of the top universities continue to make large sums of money, most of them have used the recent downturn in the economy to cut classes, eliminate teachers, increase class size, and inflate student tuition. To understand why this happens, we have to look at how university budgets work.



Looking Under the Budget Hood

Like many other schools, the University of California divides its revenue budget into four main parts: instruction, research, services, and fund-raising. For example, in 2009, 28% of the UC's total operating revenue of $20 billion was dedicated to instruction and research, and the main source of this money was student tuition and state funds. Another 20% of the budget was generated out of external research grants, and most of these came from the federal government and the state of California. It is important to stress that the largest sector (42%) of the budget was based on revenue generated by medical centers, extension programs, and services, like parking, dining, and housing, that are sold mainly to students, faculty, and staff. Finally, 10% of the UC revenue came from donated gifts (the endowment), and at private universities, this sector is much larger and usually helps to make up for the absence of direct state funding.



One of the first things to notice in this general revenue structure is that instruction only represents less than a third of the total budget, and this includes undergraduate and graduate instruction and related research and administration. Furthermore, even though UC is a state school, in 2009, less than 16% of its total budget came from the state and under 8% came from student fees and tuition, and this means that from a budgetary perspective, instruction and related research is only a small part of what the university does.



Inside the Pay Raise System

Another way of examining a university's budget is to look at the actual pay of the employees and see who is making what and how much their salaries are increasing. In order to pursue this analysis, I utilized a database with the salaries of 240,000 people (including students) working in the UC system in 2006 and 2008. Since I had read that most of the raises in the UC system go to people making over $200,000, I wanted to see who was making this much, what were their raises, and what jobs they did. The first thing I did was to break these employees into six basic groups: administrators, medical faculty, athletic coaches, business school professors, academic professors (non-business and non-law school professors), and law professors. These six categories accounted for over 95% of the revenue of the over $200,000 club, which had a total gross pay of over $1 billion in 2008 (out of a total university payroll of $9 billion). It should also be pointed out that none of these highly compensated employees are unionized, and so the myth that unions are driving up the costs of higher education can be dispelled by this example.



According to my analysis, the top group was the medical faculty, which had 2,296 people making a total of $680 million in 2008. This same group in 2006 had 1,748 employees with total earnings over $502 million. In other words, over a period of just two years, the UC added 550 new people from the medical field into the over $200,000 club for an additional cost of $178 million.



Another big group of high earners was the administrators and staff. In 2008, there were 397 staff and administrators in the over 200k club making a collective total of $109 million, and in 2006, the same group had 214 members for a collective gross pay of $58.8 million. This group and its collective salaries, then, almost doubled in just two years. Likewise, the third biggest group, the academic professors outside of law, medicine, and business, also experienced large increases in members and salaries of the over 200K club. For 2008, there were 415 academic professors making over $2000,000 for a collective gross pay of $96.6 million; however, in 2006, this same group had 215 employees at $49 million. In other words, the number of academic professor's outside of the professional schools making over $200,000 basically doubled in a two-year period. I want to add that during this time, the university claimed that faculty salaries in the UC system continued to fall beneath the national average, but what was really happening was that there was an incredible widening of faculty salary inequality: the rich professors were getting richer and the other professors were losing ground.



In the case of the business school faculty, in 2008, there were 372 professors making more than $200,000 for a collective gross pay of $93 million, while in 2006, there were 193 in this group for a total of $46 million. Once again the pay of this group doubled in two years: I guess they do not call themselves business faculty for nothing. Likewise, in the case of law professors, we find that in 2008, there were 85 making over $200,000 for a collective pay of $21 million, and in 2006, this same group consisted of 57 employees making a collective $13 million. For some reason, this group did not double its earnings, but it still showed a healthy increase.



The final group I examined was the athletic coaches, which in 2008, there were 24 coaches in the UC system making over $2000,000 for a collective payout of $12.8 million. In 2006, this same group had only 11 members with collective earning over $5 million. So athletic coaches in this category more than doubled their earnings in two years. What all of these statistics tell us is that this university does not have a funding problem; it has an out-of-control compensation problem. Moreover, it is the people at the top, just 1.5% of the employees who make 11% of the total compensation, and this group increased its wealth by close to 40% in just two years.



The Rise of the Administrative Class

It is clear from the data presented above that one of the driving forces for the constant increase in university expenses is this expansion of the number and cost of staff and administrators, but we are still left with the question of how and why this group of employees continues to expand. To answer this question, the retired Berkeley Physicist examined employment data covering a ten-year period (1997-2007), and he found some remarkable statistics. One thing that Professor Schwartz did was to compare the rate of administrative growth in the UC system to the rate of growth at other universities: "In 2006, in public universities across the country, 49% of the professional full-time employees, excluding the medical school, were faculty members. At UC that percentage was about 25% . . . " According to this study, faculty now make up less than half of the employees at public universities, and in the UC system, faculty represent only 25% of the total number of employees. Moreover, Schwartz shows that the increase in the number and percentage of administrators really took off in the ten years between 1997 an 2007: "in 1997, there were almost 2 faculty to every Executive and Senior Manager; by 2007 the numbers are nearly the same for both groups, while the Middle Manager group steadily grows higher." These statistics show that management is growing at double the rate as the increase in the number of faculty, and so while the UC enrolled more students during this period, it had fewer people to teach the students but more people to manage the teachers and run the business.



In looking at what particular job categories grew the most, Schwartz discovered that computer analysts and budget analysts had the highest rates of growth: "Computer Programming & Analysis - from 2,084 to 4,325 for an increase of 108% and Administrative, Budget/Personnel Analysis from 4,692 to 10,793 for an increase of 130%." It is interesting to note that this growing class of administrators represents people whose primary job is to produce and analyze data for other administrators. In fact, Schwartz argues that one way of explaining why administrators multiply like rabbits is to show how top managers increase their power and control by hiring more people to work under them: "administrators and executives tend to make work for each other, and that because executives prefer to have subordinates rather than rivals, they create and perpetuate bureaucracies in which power is defined by the number of subordinates." The problem then is not only that the number of top administrators continues to grow; rather, administrators increase their power and influence by hiring people to work for them.



Of course, it would be easy to reply that universities have become so complex and diversified that you need an army of bureaucrats to make sure that everyone is following state and federal laws and all books are being balanced. Schwartz's response to this claim is to show that while the total number of employees increased 38% during the 1996-2006 period, the rate of growth of middle management often increased by over 100%; therefore, it is hard to imagine why the university suddenly needed so many more analysts to provide information and data to upper management. Furthermore, the increase in bureaucrats often reduces the knowledge of each employee, while it expands the number of workers who have no connection to instruction. In other terms, the increased expense of administration not only takes money away from the instructional and research budgets, but it also gives power to people who have no connection to education.



Budgets Represent Priorities

Like many other research universities, the University of California spends more than half of its budget on compensation, and that does not even include health benefits or pension contributions. Since so much of the revenue of universities goes into compensation, a good way of understanding how a university functions is to see how it determines pay; furthermore, we can read budgets as a set of implicit priorities, and as my salary analysis above shows, the UC system emphasizes professional schools and administration over instruction. In fact, virtually none of the top three thousand earners in the UC system have anything to do with undergraduate instruction, and so it should be no surprise to anyone if the institution only gives lip services to providing quality undergraduate education.



Ironically, many of the budgetary forces in the university work to drive up tuition costs and lower educational quality, and most of the reasons for this strange combination have to do with compensation. Like the rest of America, universities have moved to a system where profits are privatized and costs are socialized; in this structure, the poor end up subsidizing the wealthy as income gets concentrated at the top. Not only do middle-class students subsidize the financial aid of the wealthiest students, but the lowest paid faculty subsidize the low workload and high pay of the top faculty, coaches, and administrators.



By understanding this budgetary system in higher education, we also begin to understand other institutions in American, like the healthcare system. Just as in the case of higher ed, all of the forces in the healthcare system work to lower quality and raise the cost, and in both cases, the key to changing the system is to rein in the compensation of the people at the top. Of course this type of change is the hardest thing to do because all of the people who make the most money are also the people in control.