USEDCARSALESMAN

eBay Helps the Farm States?

In The Internet, Space People, and Living abroad in the 21st Century -- a previous post here --Usedcarsalesman suggested that widespread use of the web might enable a minor exodus of people from the United States to sunnier nations with lower costs-of-living. However, the other day, he realized that this same thing -- an exodus enabled by the web and, more specifically, by eBay -- was already going on within the United States. 

          

Some young couples are increasingly being lured from urban locations to farm states thanks to an unusual assortment of eBay property auction listings offered by local governments. For example, recently a couple bought an entire, "closed" elementary school facility in Kansas for $25,000. Usedcarsalesman is talking about a facility which likely cost several million dollars to construct, not including the real estate.

               

Yes, for the couple in question, this is probably going to work kind of like buying one of those old Cold War missile silos that people turn in to "Groundhog" Castles; the couple is going to have to invest considerably to clean the place up. But the cool thing is that the area's local government is apparently very enthusiastic about helping them do so; also, there are plenty of people locally who are in need of work. And the business that these people do involves manufacturing hand-made musical instruments, something which places work and storage space at a premium. Anyway, Usedcarsalesman thinks: "great for all involved."
             

Usedcarsalesman finds it very interesting that something like eBay is facilitating a redistribution of small numbers of the population by allowing governments to draw people to areas by auctioning off vacant properties. Drawn by unusual-- and to them-- under-valued properties, these newcomers probably also bring new perspectives to these areas and perhaps a little money, as well.

               

Will an eBay-related relocation of some people economically reinvigorate the farm states?  Usedcarsalesman knows that we already have people there charging for walks in corn-field mazes and rock-wall climbs in reconfigured grain elevators.  So, who knows what's next?

Are Print Publishers Like The Christian Science Monitor Asking for Donations?

Yes, its really true, The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) news organization asks for donations from its readers! Usedcarsalesman, of course, is not the only one who believes that when a "business" starts asking for donations, it is doing something wrong and it is no longer really a business. 

         

Usedcarsalesman doesn't see reasons to believe that this attempt by CSM management to turn the ship around -- say, by asking for donations or conducting souvenir auctions, car washes or whatever -- will somehow bring CSM back in to the black. Instead, he thinks that the Christian Science Monitor's needs are indicative of a situation facing big print media across the board:  the issue of maintaining a profitable, traditional operation in the shallow waters of a young "on-line-only" audience, new, on-line media competition and the never-ending competition for advertiser's dollars whether on-line or off.

                         

Forgive the analogy, but Usedcarsalesman thinks that print news publications like CSM currently resemble old pleasure yachts that have run aground near tropical islands. He thinks that, rather than call for help, the captains of these "yachts" need to dump excess weight to enhance the buoyancy of their vessels. Then they need to return the boats to port, scrap them, and use the salvage money to buy all of their people -- including themselves -- jet-skis and satellite phones.

             

In a literal sense, print news media businesses like CSM should do the following:

• Keep the usual cadre of intelligent reporters.
• Keep strong management.
• Use minimal office space; get read of most of it except for maybe management offices leased in some high end business tower; sell the old-school, museum-like headquarters of outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.
• Writing and editing off-site at all times;  bonuses paid to reporters, editors for doing their jobs from home.
• Eliminate each media outlet's traditional pulp print operation and its correspondingly inflated-wage, union jobs.
• Out-source traditional, "printing-press" printing to a centralized provider of printing services; such a company would produce traditional, "print" copies of newspapers, magazines, etc. to the few people who still demand their news and periodicals in such a format (for their own nostalgic purposes or for framing a clipped photo).
• If possible, out-source all in-house, research resources.   A external service can scan microfiche and one can view it on-line remotely; library services can locate materials and email scanned materials to reporters;  every research service -- including Lexis/Nexis -- is accessible to any person on-line with an account.   
• And outsource the sales and marketing functions of newspapers! Perhaps sell the publication to a large media conglomerate that can separate those functions; or form a conglomerate of publications that can address that issue for your own publication.  Usedcarsalesman says:  "Come on, are journalists at a news publication to work in the "production section" of a business that sells and markets?  Or are they there to write and edit?  Obviously, they are there to write and edit.  Usedcarsalesman believes that every aspect of their organization should be about the same. 

By doing this, Usedcarsalesman sees that they might greatly reduce operating costs in their industry and enhance their business for many reasons:

• It would not have to carry massive overhead for office space and print operations.
• It might enable greater pay for reporters due to lower costs of doing business.
• It might become easier to employ more reporters in any given media outlet since the logistics of maintaining an office environment become mostly irrelevant. 
• More reporters mean more news, stories, and issues covered.
• News organizations could expand in to new areas of publishing like never before, simply because the costs of doing so are so minimal.  Leveraging the "brand equity" of an old-school newspaper or magazine's "name" would become the name of the game.  For example, an organization such as The Washington Post could start to publish on-line, scientific journals, regional magazines (Virginia, Maryland, DC) , a sports magazine, an educational weekly, etc.   All the Post would need to do is slap its name on these sites to lend legitimacy to their content. 

In conclusion, Usedcarsalesman doesn't see the "donations" as a means for The Christian Science Monitor to stay in the "business" of news.  He has instead charted a potentially more beneficial course of action for their industry.

Note August 2007:  The Christian Science Monitor seems to have stopped soliciting for donations to fund their own operations and is now making an attempt at merchandising for profit:  http://www.csmonitormall.com/?s=csmonitor&attr=rottext

DARPA Exoskeletons: a Bell-Weather of Greater Insect Consumption By People?

When he was a kid, Usedcarsalesman often heard other kids say: "You-are-what-you-eat."  He doesn't know where they got this saying from. But since Usedcarsalesman has never heard people express opinions or show evidence to the contrary, the saying must be true (ha ha ;)

         

For the sake of this post, let's suspend disbelief a second time and count this next saying as "true": "you-eat-what-you-are." Meaning if you are a performance athlete, you eat performance foods; if you are rich person, you eat expensive food; if you are a health nut you eat healthy foods; if you are floating around in the International Space Station, you probably eat astronaut food.

            

What happens if Usedcarsalesman gets a little more literal with the concept of "you-eat-what you-are?" When the definition of who you "are" in the year 2040 is basically a 200lb insect -- a soldier or other person wearing a powered-exoskeleton? 

                  

This human-made, powered-exoskeleton technology is actually under development at DARPA (the U.S. lab for technology that sociable people are not going to use for 30 years).  The lab is going to have a working, powered exoskeleton in testing by 2005. And it will supposedly give its wearer an ant's power-to-weight ratio and enhanced speed, traits useful to a soldier on the battlefield and perhaps in the civilian world of the future (basically a wearer would look like a smaller, lighter and faster version of the Ripley character's Loader suit in -Aliens- film).

All very Interesting. But will -- dare Usedcarsalesman say it -- "you-eat-what-you-are" in this 2040, when potentially millions of people don powered exoskeletons and effectively become "giant insects" in civilian life and on the battle-field? Will we then adopt the behaviors of insects with natural exoskeletons? Will we commonly consume other, smaller insects for sustenance like they do?

       

Who knows?  It might seem quite trendy and reasonable then.  Maybe sooner, given all the increasingly exo-skeletal garb people wear:  multiple, wearable communication and electronic devices, artificial limbs,

body-armor, night vision goggles and temperature adaptable clothing.  Hey and why not eat insects now? Grasshoppers, ants, grubs and beetles are surprisingly high-protein sources of food and probably quite tasty with the right preparation and seasoning.

                

Post:  Usedcarsalesman will admit that he was highly skeptical that the public would ever consider eating insects in the modern age.  That is until he was awakened to this potential after reading a recent article about a "plague of locusts" that had descended on the Middle East. Apparently locusts are still considered a "delicacy" there;  you probably remember that passages in the Old Testament describe their consumption with honey.

         

After stifling his gag-reflex, Usedcarsalesman thought: "if these guys are eating these bugs, these Middle-Eastern "delicacies" in 2004, then you know some guy in the west could do some clever marketing, capitalize on future trends and make grasshopper, ants, grubs and beetles in to an All-American dietary staple over the next few decades. So, you might end up dining at a McDonalds in 2040 and kindly ask your spouse to "pass you the blackened grasshoppers and barbecue sauce!" (or maybe not :)