(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Welfare – Has it Helped the Poor? (Part 3)

Thus far, we’ve looked at how, like most government programs (even the well-intentioned ones), the “War on Poverty” has been both an abject failure in its own right and has caused numerous unintended consequences. The two premises in this “series within a series’ are that:

#1 We do indeed need to help those who cannot help themselves.

#2 Government is not the proper, nor the best qualified, entity to take on this important job.

We’ve discussed some of the problems. But, what is the solution?

Non-proft and for-profit organizations and the individuals who comprise them.

Non-profits have always been the main and most effective helper of the poor. People coming together voluntarily to make sure their fellow human beings are cared for and assisted; both for the immediate and long-term.

When left to do what they do best, non-profit, private charities, both religion-based and secular have a proven record of excellence. They care, they are helpful, they are efficient, and they foster independence rather than dependence (and, when independence is not possible, they continue to provide sustenance).

I’m also a big proponent of “for profit” charitable organizations. These are ventures that would be founded and run by entrepreneurs. They would solicit funds from individuals and companies in order to support one or more types of poor. The big differences between these organizations and the government-run ones would basically be:

#1 The private, for-profit charity would be more accountable to their clients (donors), having to show them exact figures as to where the money would go, how it is spent, and how much they got to keep for their efforts. And, if they cheated and were caught, they’d be held accountable and perhaps face prison time, as opposed to the huge government bureaucracy backed by the full force (literally) and support of the government.

#2 Because this for profit, private charity would be run by a business person with a profit motive it would be run more efficiently. The fact is, private organizations run by someone who has a vested financial interest in its success runs their company much more efficiently than do bureaucrats who will make the same amount of money for not making changes and “messing up the works.”

#3. Those who are “gaming the system” will have no source of “suckers” willing to give them money for free. This also frees up additional monies in order to help more of the truly needy.

#4 Since private taxpayers, by not having to pay into the present wasteful welfare system, will save thousands of dollars per year, they’ll have more to donate to these private, more efficient charities.

#5 Also, for the same reason as the above, those who truly are needy will see more charitable dollars and genuine loving-caring assistance than they ever have before. They will also be empowered and encouraged to help themselves to get off this privately-provided welfare and gain back their self-esteem; self-esteem they can now pass on to their descendants.

People ask, “Do you believe in a safety net?’” Once we redefine the term “safety net” as being provided by individuals and voluntary groups, whether not-for-profit or for-proft as opposed to government, absolutely yes!! But remember, people help people; governments don’t help people. They hurt people. And, even if their intentions are good, their results are not. And good intentions plus negative results, do not equal positive results.

Who are government politicians and bureaucrats anyway to imply that without their force, we won’t help out our needy brothers and sisters, whether for one-time emergencies, or to provide them with a helping hand until they can get to their feet?

In the final part of this mini-series, we’ll look at the ultimate insult of a government-enforced welfare system.

In our business fable, The Go-Giver, John David Mann and I cite “The Law of Authenticity” which says, “The most valuable gift you have to offer is yourself.”

In other words, as important as sales skills, technical skills and people skills absolutely are to the process of selling, without being truly authentic (and being able to communicate such), the “skill-sets” will only take you so far. With authenticity, however, the effects of those extremely important skill-sets will be multiplied geometrically.

I believe that authenticity is a natural result of integrity; where everything you think, everything you feel, everything you say, and everything you do are in alignment.

While none of us (most of all, this writer) are 100 percent true to the above statement, it seems that to the degree we are, that’s the degree to which we will add true value to the lives of others and be extremely successful.

My good buddy, Steve Dorfman, President of Driven To Excel and author of the D2E Blog sent me — what he calls — his favorite definition* of Integrity:

—–

“Nothing hidden, being truthful and honest, doing complete work, working from an empowering context, and doing very well what you do; doing it as it was meant to be done or better, and without cutting corners.

“In other words, HONORING ONE’S WORD: Doing what you know to do, doing what you said you would do and on time, doing what others would expect you to do even if you haven’t said you would do it, and saying when you are not doing this as soon as you realize you won’t be doing it or won’t be doing it on time.”

—–

I like it. And, let me put it up for discussion. What do you think of Steve’s definition? Of mine? And, most importantly, how do YOU define integrity?

{Note from Bob: Being the man of integrity he is, Steve Dorfman wrote me after he saw this post to tell me that the defintion he provided was actually told to him by a friend who credits Landmark Education as the source of the definition.}

Let’s face it; as residents of this earth, no matter who we are, what we do, or who we know, there are times when we have to deal with those difficult people who might — for whatever reason — choose to stand in the way of our pursuit of happiness. It might be something big, such as getting the proper attention for a loved one in a hospital.

Then again, it could be something simply annoying such as having to deal with a local government bureaucrat who wants you to “jump through hoops” for the permit allowing you to build an addition to your home. Or, it could be your prospect’s “gate-keeper” doing his or her best to keep you from speaking to their boss.

Regardless, it’s incumbent upon us to know when this is the case, and to always remember that we have the choice (yep, we really do) as to how we are going to communicate with another person.

Which reminds me of a story: It seems a formal and very fancy black-tie affair was being held at a major hotel which included a number of dignitaries. One of them, a United States Senator noticed that at his table-setting there was only a single pat of butter next to his roll.

Dismissively, and with a wag of his index finger, he summoned the waiter. “Young man, bring me another pat of butter.”

A bit taken aback but having to feign politeness, the waiter replied, “I’m sorry sir, it’s only one pat of butter per setting.”

Annoyed, the important guest said, “I would like another one anyway; bring me another pat of butter.”

“I’m sorry” countered the waiter, “We’re a bit short tonight; it’s just one pat of butter per setting.”

Now totally put off and offended, the VIP demanded, “Young man, do you know who I am? I happen to be the senior senator from the state of New Jersey.”

To which, the waiter replied, “And, do you know who I am? I’m the guy who controls the butter.”

Now, really, I have no idea if that ever actually happened, and every time I’ve ever heard the story the Senator is from a different state and sometimes has an entirely different vocation.

However, the lesson is clear: Speaking respectfully is not only the right way to communicate with others; it is often the difference between getting what you want, need or desire … or creating an enemy that can make your life (if even just a tiny part of it) unnecessarily difficult.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Welfare — Has it Helped the Poor? (Part 2)

In Part One, we looked at how the “War on Poverty” — as well intentioned as it surely was — turned out to be an abysmal failure, creating not only more poor, but trapping these unfortunate souls within a system escaped by all too few, while effectively stripping them of their dignity and sense of self-reliance.

I suggested that, quite simply, if we wanted to truly help the poor (as opposed to merely providing lip service to helping the poor) then we needed to get government out of the Welfare business; a place in which they have proved to be totally incompetent.

As this entire series places a high value on understanding premises in order to come to logical conclusions, here are the two very well-intended questions asked by those who care deeply about the poor, believe totally in the Welfare System and can’t see how anyone or anything other than a government bureaucracy (the same body that has failed miserably at this for more than 50 years) can possibly help them:

Question: “Are you saying then that we shouldn’t help the poor? That we should just leave them on their own to starve?”

Answer: Absolutely not. In fact, just the opposite. I’m saying that it is our absolute moral responsibility as human beings to help the poor. (The key word being “help”).

Question: But, if the government doesn’t do it, who will?

Answer: THIS is the crux of the matter, and I shudder in both disbelief and sadness hearing that question as often as I do, not just in terms of this topic but when asked about practically everything else government has managed to completely mangle while fooling its citizens into believing that they are helping.

Wait! I’m going to correct myself here. I don’t think government really has fooled its citizens into thinking it has helped (by and large, the masses no longer believe that), but here’s what it has done which is just as dangerous: it’s fooled its citizens into believing that nothing but government could possibly help. And, when that’s the case, people will helplessly sit back and say, “go ahead.”

When it comes to Welfare, of course, this results in numerous problems; just a few being:

#1 The same actions and the same results. We’ve all heard the well-known definition of insanity; “doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.” What we’re doing now is even worse: the same thing over and over – that isn’t working – knowing we’re going to get the same results, and encouraging it anyway!

#2 Less volunteerism because “government is already doing it.” (Yes, there is still lots of volunteerism, but not nearly as much as there would be, and these volunteers and their organizations are often hamstrung by the very government agencies that see them as competition!)

#3 Less charity money raised because “government is already doing it.” Despite that, individuals still give a lot but not nearly as much as if government was not as actively involved.

#4 A huge waste of taxpayer money. This because, unlike charitable organizations, which must be accountable to their donors and typically have administrative fees around 25-35 percent, the government Welfare System (based on force, remember?) works on just about opposite numbers with an average of 65-75 percent of ever taxed dollar being used to support the bureaucracy administering the system.

#5 A much smaller percentage of people who are ever helped off of welfare. In fact, they are often encouraged to get on and, through numerous rules, regulations and some really weird reverse incentives outside the space and scope of this blog, are “encouraged” to stay on and stay dependent. This again is opposite of a private charity.

In the next installment … we’ll look at a Free-Market solution to helping those who cannot help themselves and need either temporary or ongoing assistance.

Is it just me, or do you find it a bit annoying when someone “friends” you on Facebook and then asks you what you do (i.e. what line of work you are in)…when you’ve posted a description on your Facebook Info Page?

Now, before you think I’m just being “nitpicky” let me ‘splain (“Oh Luuucy, I’m home. You’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.”)

As you know, I’m all for focusing on the other person and finding out about them and how you can add value to their lives. And, of course, when meeting someone in person for the first time, it’s proper and important to ask what they do. From there you are indeed in a position to ask the “Feel-Good” questions and “One Key Question” that will immediately communicate value.

However . . . in online social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, the person typically has this information right on their site, so there’s no reason to ask.

My opinion (and, just my opinion. Please don’t feel the need to agree. Please do feel free to let me know otherwise in the Comments section) is that to ask a person who has listed what they do…“what do you do?” shows a bit of, laziness at best, and insincerity at worst.

My friend, Art Sobczak, perhaps the world’s premiere teacher of tele-selling suggests that asking {a prospect} anything that can easily be researched is most definitely going to set you back in that person’s mind. I agree. In this case, it’s just too simple to know what the person does and is not a good starting place.

I politely suggested this to the last person who asked me this question immediately after “friend connecting” with me on Facebook, assuming he didn’t know that he could easily find out a person’s job or profession by checking out their Info Page. He wrote back saying about himself (I’m paraphrasing), “Bob, I am different. I ask because I want to find out how excited a person gets answering that question and perhaps I can bless them.”

Perhaps. But he can also first take the time to find out what the person does, and then write, “I notice you are a ___________. That sounds fascinating. How did you get started in that line of work?” Or, “What do you enjoy most about what you do?” And then, “How can I know if I come across someone who would be a good prospect or connection for you.”

Anyway, that’s my story (or, at least, opinion) . . . and I’m sticking to it, UNLESS enough of you tell me I’m incorrect. In which case, I’ll revisit my thoughts and not necessarily stick to it.

What do you think?

So often in these articles we talk about giving before getting, and that is certainly a very important aspect of helping a person to feel comfortable with you, and want to do for you. Whether in social relationships or sales, being the first to reach out is an extremely effective human relations strategy, as well as just a generally nice way to be.

But, there’s also a “reversal” to this. We learn from one of America’s more well-known founders, Benjamin Franklin, how taking the opposite approach can have excellent results as well.

In his book, Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and Other Writings, the inventor, statesman, and diplomat tells of an incident with a man who opposed his being rechosen as Clerk of the General Assembly of the Pennsylvania House.

Although he did manage to keep the office, Ben knew that this person, whom he described as “a gentleman of fortune and education with talents that were likely to give him, in time, great influence in the House,” could be trouble later on. He aimed to insure that didn’t happen by “making, of an enemy, a friend.”

Let’s let Ben tell us how he did it:

“I did not, however, aim at gaining his favour by paying any servile respect to him, but after some time took this other method. Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce and curious book, I wrote a note to him expressing my desire of perusing that book and requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days.

”This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says, ‘He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged.’ And it shows how much more profitable it is prudently to remove, than to resent, return, and continue inimical proceedings.”

Understand that both ways work (giving first and getting first); it’s just a matter of judging the method that will work best depending upon both the situation and the other person involved.

Either way, what Ben said in his final sentence makes a whole lot of sense. To paraphrase: “We’re better off making a friend than keeping an enemy.”

“Your price is too high” are five words that seem to strike terror in the hearts of so many salespeople. But it really need not. In this article, we’ll look at some sage words from 19th century English philosopher John Ruskin that will help overcome this objection.

I’m often asked, “What would you suggest is a good response for when a prospect says, “Your price is too high?”

Actually, depending upon your product or service, there are many good responses. Perhaps, the number one way to overcome this situation is by building the value of your product so high that price never becomes an issue in the first place. Still, it’s a fact of life and an objection that, at one time or another, every star salesperson must learn to overcome.

Here’s a neat little explanation.

—–

“A Thought on Price”
by John Ruskin, English Philosopher, 1819-1900

“It is unwise to pay too much, but it’s also unwise to pay too little. When you pay too much, all you lose is a little money. But when you pay too little, you stand a chance of losing everything, because the thing you bought is incapable of doing what you bought it to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot – it just cannot be done. So, when you deal with the lowest bidder, it is wise to put a little something aside to take care of the risk you run. And, if you do that, you can afford something better.”

—–

Now, a couple of suggestions; First is to either memorize that saying, or even copy it onto a notecard so you can read it whenever necessary.

Secondly, instead of answering your prospect directly (which could come off as though you’re talking down to him or her) use the “third-party” approach. This is where you make “yourself” the target of the correction, instead of your prospect. In other words, “you” were taught something; you’re not teaching your prospect anything.

For example (after they tell you your price is too high), “I truly relate to what you’re saying. I felt exactly as you feel about price. Recently though, I read something that really answered my question (by saying “my question” you’re putting the onus on yourself; A very appropriate “I Message”). It went like this . . .” Now recite or read the saying you just learned.

This is a very effective way of getting your point across, teaching your prospect a valuable lesson, and making yourself, instead of your prospect, the target of the lesson. This way, you save their ego, answer their objection and make the sale.