While the prestige and glamor surrounding Wall Street and New York’s financial district presents to the world at large the image of a city dominated by multinational corporations and other gargantuan businesses, it is small business that is truly the beating heart of the city itself. With media focus drawn to Downtown Manhattan’s Financial District, it’s easy to forget that Midtown Manhattan is above and beyond the largest commercial center in the United States. Midtown, while home to such tourist attractions as Times Square and the high-end shops on Fifth Avenue, also houses more small businesses than any other place in the United States.

Continuing our Lifestyle series, Envision More looks at small businesses in and around the New York City area, chronicling the work done by both raggedy upstarts and long-established family businesses. It is these outfits that compose the backbone of America’s service economy and, consequently, they drive the American economy as a whole.

DayTraderJobs.com Inc. currently is run out of an office in Manhattan. Founded by Ara Mehetarian, a veteran of the financial services industry, the business itself exists solely on the web (daytraderjobs.com) as a platform to serve businesses in finance. Designed and operated to be purposefully niche, DayTraderJobs.com focuses solely on providing services to the core of the financial trading industry.

“Easy to use interface, quick information, and low intervention from the
service provider,” explains Ara Mehetarian, founder of Day Trader Jobs Incorporated, “After years of working as a Quality Assurance Manager for software development in the financial services industry, I learned how the business works, what the people need from a technical perspective. [With DayTraderJobs.com] we created for the recruiter and the prospective jobseeker an interface that allows them to complete their business with ease.”

Mehetarian, after years in the financial sector, was inspired to start the business after he noticed that many large companies had trouble with recruitment.  “[Throughout the course of my work], I became involved in recruiting business developers in the insurance and mortgage industry. Here I became acquainted with the needs of recruiters in the financial sector,” explains Mehetarian.  DayTraderJobs.com, a brain-child fostered after years of dealing with improper and inefficient recruitment techniques, was created to streamline the process of recruitment within the financial sector.

Running small business in New York City has brought its own set of challenges, as well as unique opportunities. “Like with all dot-coms the biggest hurdle is reach, and providing real results,” says Mehetarian. More optimistically, he notes that, “operating from the center of the world, connections are consolidated through sound and transparent business dealings. New York City amplifies the results necessary for expanding our business and helps us to reach those who will greatly benefit from our service.”

Envision More also sat down with Daniel Dabek, one of the few employees Mehetarian has hired to help run the fledgling operation. “I am a full-time proprietary trader and also a full-time business development manager through DayTraderJobs.com Incorporated. I basically incubate ideas and make them a reality,” Dabek explains. He further notes, “for me, as a day trader, DayTraderJobs.com resonated with necessity; a hub where the world can connect to day trading. I just had to become a part of it.” Dabek, a full-time day trader, was intrigued by the idea of such an integrated job-application system and noted that, like Mehetarian, the industry needed a better process for the recruitment of new individuals.

Both men, having long and successful careers behind them working for other individuals, have jumped feet-first into this new endeavor, exhibiting extraordinary optimism for the work they are doing now. Regarding the near future of the company, Mehetarian states that “[Within five years], there is no doubt that DayTraderJobs.com will be a standard in this industry. No hedge fund, proprietary trading company, or financial services firm will find their candidates through any other recruiting service.”

Copyright Dan Downs 2010

            So recently I attended an event where eminent Harvard historian, Niall Ferguson, and senior fellow at Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, Jeff Madrick, spoke about the current economic crisis.  These two men are both highly regarded individuals when it comes to academic matters, especially when it concerns economic history.  Madrick, it seems, is a liberal Keynesian academic while Ferguson is very much conservative and classical on economic matters; the guy thinks the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.  Overall it was very enjoyable to see these two intellectuals spar when it came to the issue of debts, Keynesian economics, the outlook of the American economy, and President Obama’s economic policies.

            On debts the two men differed greatly.  Ferguson, the more articulate and charming of the two, lambasted America’s absence of “thrift spending” and called for people to save more out of their income.  He argued, that according to basic economics, saving would in the long run better serve the American economy.  Madrick, in response, said the average American income, adjusted with inflation, has flat-lined and perhaps even decreased since the late 1960s; thus by in large, the idea of there being an overly consumerist American is a myth.  Ferguson shot back saying regardless, data proves debt is increasing when compared to previous decades, and that Madrick’s focus on middle class spending is the wrong way to approach it.  Because in reality, according to Ferguson, the debt is largely from the rich, upper class, and that it is precisely the mishandling of this money amongst the rich that greatly contributed to the current financial mess.  The two men continued to argue over whose data was “more right”, so the moderator moved on to a different topic.

            As for Keynesian economics, Ferguson handsomely critiqued it as mainly a form of economics that has become too politicized and simplified to be efficiently utilized by the government.  But more fundamentally, he believes the long-term effects of intensive Keynesian economics, such as large deficits and debt, eventually hamper and stagnate the overall economy.  He cited the current state of the Japanese economy to support his view.  Madrick, in defense of Keynesian policies and now Obama’s, said the massive intervention and regulation of government both fiscally and monetarily is necessary.  The loss of entire businesses, financial structures, and the economic lives of individuals must be avoided if possible, and it is Keynesian policies that do exactly that.  Both Madrick and Ferguson did agree however that Keynesian economics has become oversimplified and too politicized though.

            As for the outlook on the American economy, both had very pessimistic views, and Ferguson said the Obama Administration’s predictions of economic growth next year were that of “fairy tales.”  They both blamed economists, yet surprisingly not themselves, for being unable to see this financial hurricane coming.  Although on a lighter side, Ferguson remarked that the United State is doing much better than many other countries, especially the East Asian ones, where GDP is expected to fall about 10% and that the U.S. bailout, when proportionately compared to China’s, is relatively small.  The U.S. will instead, in Ferguson view, will have a GDP contraction of only around 2 or 3 percent.

            Now as for President Obama’s policies, both had their criticisms, but it was really Ferguson who had the harshest words.  The man said the main issue now was the incoming collision that would occur between Obama’s monetary policy and his fiscal policy.  Ferguson warned that the tremendous debt resulting from Obama’s massive fiscal increases and the Federal Reserve dropping the interest rate to near 0% would cause very high interest rates in the near future.  The Harvard academic was very concerned about this, because such a future will harm the economy over the long run.

            I must say though, Niall Ferguson, despite the fact he’s opposite me when it comes to economic matters, is a man whom I greatly admire and respect.  His intellectual prowess and charming wit, not to mention his great ability at articulating himself, always leave a deep impression upon me.  Jeff Madrick was great too, but Niall was really amazing; it’s people like him that make me want to become a renowned academic. I recommend all you guys check out Ferguson further; he’s also a great history writer!

The world of print journalism will never be the same again. After 150 years of service to the Denver community, the Rocky Mountain News announced Thursday that their final issue would be Friday (February 27, 2009). Owned by the E. W. Scripps Company, the newspaper had been in financial trouble for months due to an industry-wide decline in newspaper revenues and the current financial turmoil that has shaken global markets.

The Rocky Mountain News had a storied history. Its first printing was in April of 1859, when William N. Byers, an Ohioan by birth, moved to Denver in order to sell newspapers to citizens of a booming gold-rush city. Since then, the paper has been through countless adventures. Evidence of the paper?s rich history can be found in author Robert L. Perkins? The First Hundred Years-an Informal History of Denver and the Rocky Mountain News, a book that chronicles the adventures of the Denver news giant from its birth in 1859 to its one-hundred year anniversary in 1959.

It is fitting to note that, while the closing of this institution is indeed a great tragedy, both for the industry and for the loyal readers of the paper, the Rocky Mountain News has left the stage in peak condition. The tenure of the paper?s last editor, John Temple, has seen the tabloid finally solidifying its position as a no-nonsense, high-quality news source that shatters the traditional stereotype that many Americans have come to associate with tabloid newspapers. Since 2000, the Rocky Mountain News has won four Pulitzer Prizes. Three were for excellence in photography while the last one was for reporter Jim Sheeler?s ?Final Salute? article, a piece about Casualty Assistance Calls Officers in the United States Marine Corps that was recognized as an outstanding achievement of journalistic prose, form, and content. While the death of this paper is a tragic one, Rocky employees can rest assured that the content produced by the paper was not at fault for the collapse of their beloved institution. Rather, revenues from Classified ads all but disappeared with the advent of Internet posting of services and sales, especially from sites like Craigslist.

This bottoming-out of revenue streams provided by newspaper ads has had detrimental affects throughout the American newspaper industry. This past Wednesday (February 25^th, 2009) saw the announcement from the San Francisco Chronicle that the newspaper was in experiencing incredible financial hardships, with the paper losing thousands of dollars each week. Hearst Corporation, owner of the Chronicle, knows that it cannot accept these losses forever. Currently, the paper looks to be listed for sale or closing within the coming months. The Journal Register Company, a multi-state corporation that owns over three-hundred local newspapers, recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection due to the almost complete destruction of revenues.

Some newspapers seem to be surviving, if not thriving, in this world of lessened newspaper revenues nationwide. The Wall Street Journal, for example, seems to be weathering the hard times nicely to due to highly successful web-based subscription service has resulted in many people paying substantial annual fees in order to read the Journal online each day.

The Rocky Mountain Press may be the first newspaper to go this year but it will certainly not be the last. With the passing of this once-formidable institution, an industry stands on the brink and waits to see if any more papers will share the same fate as the Rocky. For the job-seeking, ex-employees of what was Denver?s top tabloid and for the dedicated readers who enjoyed their paper?s daily serving of news, the market shift that has gutted the profit-making organs of newspapers across the nation has already taken its toll and robbed the world of quality writing and photography that Denver knew and loved. This new paradigm shift, while justified according of the market?s natural tendencies, has left a world where everyone already misses their Rocky.

Copyright Daniel Downs 2009

I took advantage of IHOP’s generosity and did visit my local franchise. The service was prompt, the pancakes warm and fluffy, the butter deliciously whipped, and the atmosphere cozy. Within minutes, I devoured my free stack of pancakes. After my meal, I made a sizable donation to the charity drive.

While I’m sure the event wasn’t too profitable for IHOP as a company, it is heartwarming to see businesses go out of their way for a good cause. That waiters and waitresses working today did so on the company dime but often without tips (as they were donated to the charity drive), a true act of selflessness on the part of those who survive on the money we patrons leave on the table.

Men and women of IHOP, I salute you. And thanks for the warm, fluffy pancakes.

Copyright Daniel Downs 2009

It was with incredible shock that I heard Senator Dodd casually mention the n-word while appearing as a guest on “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” a Bloomberg Television talk show that airs on Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. That a man could so audaciously use such a powerful, aggressive word in seemingly polite discourse was, to say the least, a surprising fact. Whether or not Senator Dodd intended his use of the n-word to have drastic consequences, the result was the same: markets tumbled Friday on the news that influential sitting politicians, such as Chris Dodd, were even considering the implementation of the n-word. When Alan Greenspan had used that n-word earlier this week, the market generally pooh-poohed his remarks without giving them much credence, as the aging former Chairman for the Federal Reserve, while still influential, now has almost no control over the mechanisms of this government, economic or otherwise. Dodd?s use of the word this Friday sent shockwaves through Wall Street as investors questioned their very reason for being.

This insidious word, one that is rarely mentioned in successful capitalistic societies, is certainly not what is needed now. The word I have been alluding to is, of course, ?nationalization.? Simply defined, nationalization is the process of a government seizing the interests of a company or even an entire industry. The history of the use of nationalization aside (Wikipedia and InfoPlease.com and good places to start for those wishing to brush up on the history of nationalization), the reason why this word has caused so much fear on Wall Street as of late is due to, among other things, a specific aspect of nationalization; namely, how investors are compensated once a government takes control of a business or industry. If a government were to nationalize an industry without compensating investors, the result would be known as expropriation. Depending on the industry, investors could lose millions to billions of dollars worth of assets simply because the government exercises its power (legally given or otherwise) to take control of a freely-operating business.

A nice benefit to living in a (mostly) free-market, capitalistic society is that businesses are allowed to fail and, by extension, allowed to succeed. As failure is generally an unpleasant option for entrepreneurs and business owners, the quest for success is generally what a business and its owners endeavor. That the government may swoop in at any moment and take over a successful (or failing) business is not a thought that business owners and operators wish to address. The idea that the government may, at any time, take over a business and jeopardize the assets of those who own stake in the company, is one that is simply abhorrent! Barring a major societal and economic shift, I can only hope that Senator Dodd and other law makers avoid the use of the n-word so that businesses and the people in their employ can continue trying to make a profit without the (hopefully needless) fear of government confiscation.

Copyright 2009 Daniel Downs

It was an average Perspectives meeting. This week?s topic of discussion was about the then-current crop of frontrunners in the race for the White House. The meeting started spectacularly, with a group of female students quickly attacking Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton. These girls criticized the former First Lady to great extent, sometimes using words that cannot be printed here. While I understand and respect any informed person?s political views, I was horrified by the main argument that these girls put forward: Hillary Clinton should not become President of the United States simply because she was a woman. With the irony both obvious and saddening, I came to the startling realization that this argument was actually considered legitimate by these girls and other students in the classroom.

Collectivism is the philosophy of grouping an individual with a larger body or establishment. Collectivists tend to make unfair associations between people and large social groups due to a stereotype or commonly held belief. Collectivism encompasses all forms of discrimination, including racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, etc.

The discussion regarding Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of collectivist attitudes found in America today. Here, girls attacked Hillary Clinton for being born a female. Instead of judging her as an individual, these girls argued that females were inherently less suited for the demanding job as leader of the free world because, according to them, women were emotional and not able to properly deal with stress. This argument was not against Hillary herself but rather against all women. These girls argued that their belief, whether formed by personal experience or otherwise, applied to Mrs. Clinton because she herself was a woman, not taking into account that Hillary, as an individual, might not conform to their preconceived notions of how all women act.

The terrifyingly gargantuan nature of collectivism can be hard to grasp. While it is well known that forms of discrimination are all related, the idea that they come from humans making generalizations about groups of people can be a tough pill to swallow. Besides this, our current culture and government perpetuate the collectivist way of thinking.

For example, government handouts and leniency based on race, sex, ethnicity, etc. can build resentment between groups of people. Intelligent individuals could turn towards racism if the government were to specifically give benefits to people of a certain race. If all the members of one group were given special treatment because they just happened to be born with a certain skin color or ethnicity, people who didn?t receive such treatment might characterize all people receiving the government?s attentions as having the same positive or negative traits.

Culture also perpetuates collectivist thinking. What do women want? I don?t know what women want, as I am not every woman on the planet. I do know what certain women want. I know that my mom wants to go on vacation this summer to Disney World. But does every woman share this goal? Grouping all men or women together with a seemingly harmless question takes away from the individual rights of every person to be considered equally among all humans, regardless of gender or any other inborn trait.

Someday, I hope that all people are judged solely on their non-superficial traits. Until this concept is realized, the world will continue to exist with over six billion people but not a single individual.