33 Questions That Were Asked at Apple Job Interviews

33 Questions That Were Asked at Apple Job Interviews Posted: 20 Nov 2015 11:01 AM PST Apple is known for being one of the most challenging and exciting places to work, so it’s not surprising to learn that getting a job there is no easy task. Like Google and other big tech companies, Apple asks both technical questions based on your past work experience and some mind-boggling puzzles. We combed through recent posts on Glassdoor to find some of the toughest interview questions candidates have been asked. Some require solving tricky math problems, while others are simple but vague enough to keep you on your toes. “Explain to an 8 year old what a modem/router is and its functions.” — At-Home Advisor candidate  “Who is your best friend?” — Family Room Specialist candidate  “If you have 2 eggs, and you want to figure out what’s the highest floor from which you can drop the egg without breaking it, how would you do it? What’s the optimal solution?” — Software Engineer candidate  “Describe an interesting problem and how you solved it.” — Software Engineer candidate  “How many children are born every day?” — Global Supply Manager candidate  “You have a 100 coins laying flat on a table, each with a head side and a tail side. 10 of them are heads up, 90 are tails up. You can’t feel, see or in any other way find out which side is up. Split the coins into two piles such that there are the same number of heads in each pile.” — Software Engineer candidate  “Describe yourself, what excites you?” — Software Engineer candidate  “If we hired you, what do you want to work on?” — Senior Software Engineer candidate  “There are three boxes, one contains only apples, one contains only oranges, and one contains both apples and oranges. The boxes have been incorrectly labeled such that no label identifies the actual contents of the box it labels. Opening just one box, and without looking in the box, you take out one piece of fruit. By looking at the fruit, how can you immediately label all of the boxes correctly?” — Software QA Engineer candidate  “Scenario: You’re dealing with an angry customer who was waiting for help for the past 20 minutes and is causing a commotion. She claims that she’ll just walk over to Best Buy or the Microsoft Store to get the computer she wants. Resolve this issue.” — Specialist candidate  “How would you breakdown the cost of this pen?” — Global Supply Manager candidate  “A man calls in and has an older computer that is essentially a brick. What do you do?” — Apple Care At-Home Consultant candidate  “Are you smart?” — Build Engineer candidate  “What are your failures, and how have you learned from them?” — Software Manager candidate  “Have you ever disagreed with a manager’s decision, and how did you approach the disagreement? Give a specific example and explain how you rectified this disagreement, what the final outcome was, and how that individual would describe you today.” — Software Engineer candidate  “You put a glass of water on a record turntable and begin slowly increasing the speed. What happens first — does the glass slide off, tip over, or does the water splash out?” — Mechanical Engineer candidate  “Tell me something that you have done in your life which you are particularly proud of.” — Software Engineering Manager candidate  “Why should we hire you?” — Senior Software Engineer candidate  “Are you creative? What’s something creative that you can think of?” — Software Engineer candidate  “Describe a humbling experience.” — Apple Retail Specialist candidate  “What’s more important, fixing the customer’s problem or creating a good customer experience?” — Apple At Home Advisor candidate  “Why did Apple change its name from Apple Computers Incorporated to Apple Inc.?” — Specialist candidate  “You seem pretty positive, what types of things bring you down?” — Family Room Specialist candidate  “Show me (role play) how you would show a customer you’re willing to help them by only using your voice.” — College At-Home Advisor candidate  “What brings you here today?” — Software Engineer candidate  “Given an iTunes type of app that pulls down lots of images that get stale over time, what strategy would you use to flush disused images over time?” — Software Engineer candidate  “If you’re given a jar with a mix of fair and unfair coins, and you pull one out and flip it 3 times, and get the specific sequence heads heads tails, what are the chances that you pulled out a fair or an unfair coin?” — Lead Analyst candidate  “What was your best day in the last 4 years? What was your worst?” — Engineering Project Manager candidate  “When you walk in the Apple Store as a customer, what do you notice about the store/how do you feel when you first walk in?” — Specialist candidate  “Why do you want to join Apple and what will you miss at your current work if Apple hired you?” — Software Engineer candidate  “How would you test your favorite app?” — Software QA Engineer candidate  “What would you want to do 5 years from now?” — Software Engineer candidate  “How would you test a toaster?” — Software QA Engineer candidate

Hillary Still Needs to Define Her Brand of Clintonomics

http://time.com/4113931/hillary-economic-policy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Hillary Still Needs to Define Her Brand of Clintonomics

Posted: 16 Nov 2015 06:14 AM PST

Foreign policy is the topic of the moment for the 2016 candidates, given the horror of Paris. But what interested me most about Saturday’s Democratic debate was how Hillary Clinton came under attack from both Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley over whether she had the gumption to stand up to Wall Street, given that she is the Democratic candidate of choice for the financial lobby and has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from financiers. I thought one of the most pointed moments in any Democratic debate so far was when O’Malley said he wouldn’t have either Larry Summers or Bob Rubin on his economic advisory team, as Bill Clinton did, given their role in some of the policies that created and exacerbated the financial crisis of 2008. I keep waiting for Hillary to answer that challenge head on and say, “neither will I.” But so far, she hasn’t.
That’s important because the legacy of Clintonomics, meaning specifically Bill Clintonomics, still needs to be addressed. Bill Clinton put the final nail in the coffin of Glass-Steagall, the Depression Era legislation that separated commercial and investment banking, something that both Sanders and O’Malley would like to see reinstated. I would too, though you can make a fair argument, as Hillary does, that Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 meltdown and that the problems within our financial system go way beyond just too big to fail banks. They include shadow banks, insurance companies, money market funds and like.
But that’s not an argument for not limiting the power of the biggest banks, which are bigger and more powerful than before the crisis. And it also doesn’t address the rest of the Summers-Rubin legacy, namely shifts in the tax and executive compensation structure that led to perverse incentives for corporate executives who could now receive pay in options, and manipulate the value of those options by doing more and more share buybacks (which exacerbate inequality) rather than investing in Main Street.
Hillary has said she would look closely at buybacks, but Sanders and others like Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren would like to see them make illegal as they were before 1983. One thing that is becoming clearer and clearer in any campaign discussion of Wall Street is that Hillary is going to have to clearly address her husband’s economic legacy, and clearly state if and how, she’d address the things that he and his advisors did to create a situation in which inequality is growing, wages are stagnating, and growth is more dependent on financial sugar highs than on a healthy Main Street economy.
I think it would be incredibly powerful if Hillary came out and took on that issue directly, and said what her version of Clintonomics would look like, rather than letting Sanders and O’Malley put her on the defensive. It would also answer the question of whether she is truly willing to go against the powerful financial lobby should the country need her to, or not.

Why Europe Needs More Integration to Fight Terror—and All Its Other Problems - TIME

http://time.com/4116345/paris-attacks-europe-migrants/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Why Europe Needs More Integration to Fight Terror—and All Its Other Problems Posted: 17 Nov 2015 08:11 AM PST The European Union, the world’s greatest ever experiment in globalization, was under threat before the Paris attacks: The debt crisis and the influx of migrants from the Middle East and Africa, as well as the lack of a cohesive response to either, has threatened the future of a united Europe. Now, the future of European integration is truly at a tipping point. Globalization is commonly defined as the free movement of goods, people, and capital. These days, every single one of those things is under threat in Europe, starting with people. French President François Hollande has understandably imposed stricter border controls in France, and is asking Europe for help monitoring intra-European travel. All that makes sense, but the question is whether it will lead to a breakdown of the Schengen zone, the free travel zone that is at the core of the EU and has led to huge upticks in trade and tourism revenue throughout the Eurozone. It’s easy to see how each country could end up in a hunker down position, closing off individual borders, which would threaten regional trade (the biggest contributor to overall trade in Europe) as well as the movement of people. Combine that with the existing Balkanization of capital flows following the debt crisis (banks simply don’t lend as easily across borders as they used to, because the debt crisis exposed that a Greek or Italian euro isn’t the same as a German one) and you have the makings of a breakdown of European regional integration. It’s no surprise that many politicians, even sensible ones like Germany’s minister of finance Wolfgang Schauble, are using this moment to bash immigration, open borders, and more shared economic policy in Europe. But ironically, the only solutions to the big problems that face the EU is more integration. Europe is at a pivot point in how it responds not only to terror, but to foreign policy as a whole, and economic growth. The European Union was created in good times, but needs to be able to weather bad times. That means that Germany, along with France, has to recommit to the ideal of a truly, deeply politically integrated Europe, not just a superficial economic one. If Europe actually had a common foreign policy, security policy, and fiscal policy, think about how much easier it would be to fight terror—migrants would be tracked and settled much more efficiently, and France wouldn’t have to worry about breaking the EU budget rules to send bombers to Syria since it would by necessity be a pan-European effort. Europe as a whole would be able to present a stronger and more integrated defense of its own social democratic system. Russia would take note. So would many countries in the Middle East. A stronger Europe would be a crucial counter-balance to the rise of state capitalist systems in places like China. The Franco-German alliance was at the center of the post-World War II European integration. A recommitment to that—to the goal of total political integration in Europe—is what’s needed now to solve all the big problems: terror, security, economic growth and stability. Germany’s foreign minister, Frank Walter Steinmeier, was sitting right next to Hollande in the Stade de France when the attacks occurred. What an amazing statement it would be now if German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Hollande stood together and recommitted in a big way to the Franco-German alliance that made modern Europe—the world’s best ever counterexample to the “clash of civilizations” underscored by the terror attacks—possible.

4 Reasons This Holiday Shopping Season Will Be Different from the Past - Kit Yarrow, Ph.D.

4 Reasons This Holiday Shopping Season Will Be Different from the Past Posted: 17 Nov 2015 03:30 AM PST In many ways, the 2015 holiday season will be similar to the last one—and the one before that, and the one before that. People will stress out about what presents to give family and friends. Sales around Black Friday will attract crowds of crazed shoppers, many of whom will make bad purchasing decisions because of the rushed, pressure-filled atmosphere. And far too many of us will wind up swimming in stuff thanks to generous gift-giving traditions. But in a few ways listed below, the holiday season is changing little by little. 1. Consumers Have Gotten Crafty Thanks to inspiration from visually potent websites like Pinterest and Instagram, Christmas cookies won’t be the only homemade gifts this year. Inspired consumers are whipping up things like homemade jam, crafty earrings, knitted ditties, spice rubs and bath salt concoctions to give as holiday gifts. Those who lack the talent, time or inspiration to create their own homemade gifts will let others do the work and purchase from websites such as Etsy and Handcrafted on Amazon. Why the trend toward the handcrafted gift? It’s the anti-gift card—something unique that feels more personal to the giver and recipient alike. Social media helps the case too: It’s where people get inspiration for gifts to give, and where people share images of what they give and receive. 2. Experiences Are Gaining on Ties and Sweaters Every gift has intangible, experiential components—the anticipation, for instance, or the emotions associated with how the new “thing” will enhance one’s life or boost one’s mood. Ginger, one of the many consumers I’ve interviewed in my field of research, told me she experiences a thrill whenever she looks at the woven gold bracelet her husband gave her the first Christmas they were dating. “Yes, it’s beautiful and I enjoy wearing it in its own right,” Ginger said. “But when I look at it I also remember every bit of the excitement I felt when he gave it to me.” MORE: Why Christmas Creep Turns So Many Shoppers into Grinches Yet when we reach acquisition saturation, the impact of those emotions diminishes. If Ginger’s husband gave her a new bracelet every weekend, none of them would match the emotional resonance of that initial gift. What’s more, many modern-day consumers feel like they simply have too much. The thrill of new has lost its punch. Look at the staggering recent success of a book about decluttering—here’s proof that simplification and stuff-purging is a new religion for some and a message to consider for most. The antidote to more stuff isn’t necessarily no gift-giving whatsoever, but another option: the “experience gift,” which ideally provides the emotional lift of a great tangible gift without baggage. Experiential gifts include spa days, surprise weekend getaways, tickets to a favorite sporting event or concert, lessons in rock-climbing or sculpture, and so on. The one thing they have in common is that none results in more clutter—and hopefully they’re more memorable and fun than just another sweater or piece of electronica. Again, social media provides gift recipients ample opportunity to share (or for some show-off) their experiences, which makes these kinds of gifts feel more permanent and valuable. 3. Virtual and Real Shopping Worlds Unite Consumers won’t be shopping online or in stores this year — they’ll be browsing and buying in both. Shopping is no longer an either/or, which/when equation. Our social, work and entertainment lives have long been a mashup of online and real-world experiences, and this year our virtual and real shopping worlds become as integrated as the rest of our lives. In research that I’ve conducted about technology-enabled shopping, consumers have told me that they wish they could get more of the convenience of online shopping (inventory info, fast check-out, easier searching and social media validation) when they’re in stores. Likewise, when shoppers are online they wish they could get a little more service and a better sense of fit and quality like they do in stores. Many retailers have beefed-up technology in both worlds to satisfy those needs. Since there’s still no substitute for Santa, shoppers will visit malls for that essential wish list chat and photo session. Even people without kids will do some physical shopping to see holiday windows and perhaps enjoy a whiff of pine and all the other traditional allures of the holiday season. Overall, however, foot traffic in shopping centers has been steadily declining during holiday seasons, and it’s expected that trend will continue this year. Mall traffic on any single day will be diluted not only because of more online buying, but also because consumers start their holiday shopping earlier nowadays, and the typical customer goes shopping in shorter bursts as opposed to the marathon days of the past. And it’s the retailers who provide shoppers with exactly what they want—great deals that are easy to buy, and great services available seamlessly online and in-store—that’ll have successful holiday seasons. 4. It’s the Season of Buying, Not Just Giving According to the National Retail Federation, nearly 60% of consumers will buy things for themselves during holiday shopping outings, and the increase in the amount spent on “self-gifting” is expected to outpace the rise in gift purchases this year. There are several reasons why this isn’t just because people are greedy. The holidays have developed a reputation as the best time of the year to buy nearly everything. Consumers tell me they find better merchandise selection, better inventory, and better prices during the holidays. What’s more, shoppers are no longer tied to traditional purchasing seasons. For example, they don’t feel compelled to buy a winter coat in autumn because that’s when stores begin stocking and selling them. Instead, consumers with literally a world of merchandise to choose from year-round increasingly make purchases when the best price and selection arises–and that’s the holiday season. It’s more a case of smart and opportunistic shopping than “self-gifting” in the sense of splurging on oneself. Kit Yarrow, Ph.D., is a consumer psychologist who is obsessed with all things related to how, when and why we shop and buy. She conducts research through her professorship at Golden Gate University and shares her findings in speeches, consulting work, and her books, Decoding the New Consumer Mind and Gen BuY.

Silicon Valley Has Jus Arrived at a Major Turning Point - TIME

Silicon Valley Has Jus Arrived at a Major Turning Point Posted: 12 Nov 2015 07:59 AM PST This year has been an unusual one for corporate finance–record M&A dealmaking, a drought in IPOs–but as 2015 wears on, things are starting to get downright weird. The trend is especially noticeable in the tech industry, where startups have been shunning the IPO market for a few years, hoping instead to tap into mega-rounds of private financing. Only now are they moving into the IPO queue, with Square, Match Group and Atlassian aiming for IPOs by year’s end. The trouble is, they are going public just as public investors are growing finickier. And that’s costing them potential capital. Square now plans to go public with a valuation of about $4 billion, down from the $6 billion valuation it enjoyed during its last private round a year ago. Square is seen as a test case for other tech startups that will likely feel pressure to go public now that the private venture financing is starting to dry up. It’s already setting one not-so-great trend: marking down IPO prices below the exuberant private valuations. Tech companies that have fought for years to stay private may end up wishing they had gone public when the going was good. Elsewhere, there’s a sense that companies are scrambling to do something–anything–to position themselves when the inevitable downturn hits. After years of arguing why it would never split up, HP did just that. HP now says severing itself in two is the best way forward. Even as two of its rivals–Dell and EMC–are moving in the exact opposite direction. The whole tech sector, flush for years with confidence and talk of disruption, suddenly has an air of desperation about it. The Fed will raise interest rates soon, an incremental move that could have an outsize impact on investment strategies. Some tech startups are securing financing where they can, while others are trying to burn less cash. Tech giants are reorganizing, hoping to get a foothold in a promising market like cloud computing. Nothing illustrates just how desperate tech companies are feeling these days than the ambitious merger of Dell and EMC. Valued at $67 billion when it was announced, the Dell-EMC will rank not only as the largest tech M&A in history but also the largest leveraged buyout ever staged to take a company private. To pull it off, the companies need to use creative financing – a polite way of describing a hairily complex deal. Square Inc.'s Timeline | FindTheCompany In addition to new equity from Michael Dell, EMC and Dell have lined up nearly $50 billion in loans from eight banks, an impressive accomplishment given the rising concerns in the corporate lending market and waning demand for high-yield debt tied to mergers. When Dell financed its buyout in 2013, it secured a 4.6% interest rate. Today, that rate could be as high as 7%. Like those tech IPOs, Dell and EMC may have waited too long to make their move. EMC shareholders will get paid in cash as well as shares in a tracking stock of VMware, of which EMC owns 81%. The tracking stock is a controversial provision. It will be “linked to a portion of EMC’s economic interest in the VMware business. Owners of the tracking stock won’t be able to vote and they won’t even own a piece of a company, but of an entity that mimics actual VMware shares. In effect, there will be two stocks for VMware, the one currently trading (and falling, since this deal was announced) and a virtual one given to current EMC shareholders. Confused yet? An excellent (but long) explainer can be found on Andreessen Horowitz’ blog. There are plenty more details, but here is a simple test to gauge the complexity of a financial deal: Is it harder to explain to someone than the plot of Lost? The Dell-EMC merger is. It is much, much easier to explain what the Dharma Initiative did or what exactly that smoke monster was than it is to explain why a tracking stock for VMWare is necessary to help Dell sell cloud computing. Which raises an interesting question about Dell-EMC. Why exactly does the deal need to be this complex? The apparent answer is to better position both companies in a competitive market for enterprise tech. But IT budgets have been dwindling, and cloud computing is favoring a select companies, like Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Mega-mergers also distract companies for years while they integrate, a distraction that a more focused company like Microsoft doesn’t face. And there are bound to be layoffs. When Michael Dell and EMC CEO Joe Tucci announced the merger to EMC employees, Dell assured them, “that’s what this is all about, continuing the great innovations and success that you all have created.” When, in a separate call with reporters that same day, someone asked about layoffs, Dell became both vague and tetchy. Layoffs would come in 2016, he said, lecturing reporters this was a “normal course of business.” Then Dell snapped at the reporter, “I think there’s some other companies in our industries that are maybe far better at reducing head count than we are. So maybe jump on their calls.” Shareholders, meanwhile, aren’t thrilled with the deal either. EMC is down 10% since its announcement and VMware is down 23%. None of Dell’s potential rivals are inclined or able to wage a takeover battle, so the merger and buyout is likely to happen, barring any regulatory moves that could complicate it further. So if no one but Michael Dell and Joe Tucci are thrilled with the deal, why is it happening? A clue can be found in the transcript of the announcement to EMC workers. After striding onto a stage, Tucci had a bizarre request. “I’ve never used a selfie stick… where’s that selfie stick?” As the two posed with another EMC executive, Dell had his own request: “Get the logos in here.” That’s right. In announcing the largest tech M&A–and what may be the most complex in structure–the executives brought in a prop that is synonymous with narcissism and self-absorption. In front of employees who may be laid off in a few months–and who weren’t even in the selfie photo that the companies later tweeted. And that image, as much as anything, shows just how weird things have gotten in the world of tech corporate financing this year.

Why Millennials Are Saving at a Younger Age Than Any Other Generation -TIME

Why Millennials Are Saving at a Younger Age Than Any Other Generation Posted: 12 Nov 2015 03:00 AM PST Boomers may have spurred the mutual fund industry, but millennials are embracing it at a far younger age—plunking down their first dollars a decade earlier in life, new research shows. The average age that millennial households started investing in funds is 23, according to the Investment Company Institute. That compares with age 37 for older boomers and 32 for younger boomers. Gen X started at age 26. The latest results echo earlier research from Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, which found that millennials began saving at a median age of 22, Gen X at 27, and boomers at 35. Yet it doesn’t tell the whole story. Mutual funds, as we know them today, date to 1928. But their numbers did not soar until the 1980s—well after the first boomers entered the workforce. Those boomers were promised pensions and felt less pressure to save. Meanwhile, to the extent they wanted to invest their own money for long-term growth it was a difficult proposition. Individual stocks were their primary option. The Revenue Act of 1978, with a section called 401(k), changed everything. The oldest boomers were then 32, and it wasn’t long before there was a steady flow into this newfangled product. The 401(k) plan became a gateway to mutual funds and helped take fund assets to $16 trillion today from less than $50 billion in the late 1970s, according to the ICI. Today we have nearly 8,000 mutual funds, compared with fewer than 500 in the mid-1970s. Many boomers seized the opportunity to invest this way as it became available. Today they represent 40% of all mutual fund owning households—the largest share of any generation. Gen X makes up 32%, while millennials make up just 16% of mutual fund owning households, ICI reports. None of this diminishes the impressive job many millennials are doing in getting started early. Eight in 10 millennials say the recession convinced them they must save more now, and more than half are putting away money regularly, according to Wells Fargo. They are taking advantage of their 401(k) plans for tax-deferred growth, using the automatic escalation feature to increase contributions, and target-date funds to remain diversified and practice sound asset allocation. Their early start gives them a huge advantage over boomers: an additional decade of growth that has the potential to double their nest eggs so that they’ll never miss the pension they never had.

Self-Driving Cars Are More Accident-Prone, Study Finds - TIME

Self-Driving Cars Are More Accident-Prone, Study Finds

Posted: 03 Nov 2015 08:58 AM PST

Self-driving cars are getting into accidents at a higher rate than cars driven by humans, according to a new study. However, the new research comes with a laundry list of caveats that indicates that transportation experts are still struggling to ascertain just how safe self-driving cars actually are.
The study, by researchers Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute, found that self-driving cars are in accidents at five times the rate of human-controlled cars. However, people often don’t report minor accidents to police. When controlling for that fact, self-driving cars are still twice as likely to get into accidents as regular cars.
The study aggregated data from the self-driving cars being operated by Google, Delphi and Volkswagen. Their vehicles have logged 1.2 million miles traveled, compared to the trillions of annual miles logged by regular cars, according to the study. With a larger data set, it’s possible that the accident rate could be substantially higher or lower.
Still, the data illustrates some early trends. Most of the self-driving vehicles involved in accidents were hit in the rear when they were traveling 5 miles per hour or slower. None were involved in very serious accidents, such as head-on collisions. Google has repeatedly said that the accidents its self-driving cars have been involved in were the result of human error. But self-driving cars’ inability to bend or break traffic laws, as human drivers regularly do, could make their driving habits surprising to others on the road, leading to crashes.

20 Ways to Manage Your Time Bette - Business Insider

20 Ways to Manage Your Time Bette

Posted: 11 Nov 2015 01:01 PM PST

When you’re just starting your career, you need all the help you can get managing your time. Even when you’re working hard, you could be wasting a tremendous amount of time either by trying to multitask or by focusing too much on minute details.

Montreal-based designer Étienne Garbugli has struggled with all of that. But as he’s gotten older, he’s learned how to manage his time and workload more effectively. Today, he’s a consultant and entrepreneur, and recently published his first book, Lean B2B: Build Products Businesses Want.

Last year, he collected some of his favorite lessons in the SlideShare presentation “26 Time Management Hacks I Wish I’d Known At 20.” In December, SlideShare named it the “Most Liked” presentation of 2013.

Below, we’ve explained some of Garbugli‘s best time-management tips everyone should learn in their 20s.

1. There’s always time. Time is priorities

You never “run out of time.” If you didn’t finish something by the time it was due, it’s because you didn’t consider it urgent or enjoyable enough to prioritize ahead of whatever else you were doing.

2. Days always fill up faster than you’d expect

Build in some buffer time. As the founder of Ruby on Rails and Basecamp, David Heinemeier Hansson said, “Only plan on four to five hours of real work per day.”

3. Work more when you’re in the zone. Relax when you’re not

Some days you’ll be off your game, and other times you’ll be able to maintain your focus for 12 hours straight. Take advantage of those days.

4. Stop multitasking. It kills your focus

There have been academic studies that found the brain expends energy as it readjusts its focus from one item to the next. If you’re spending your day multitasking, you’re exhausting your brain.

5. We’re always more focused and productive with limited time

Work always seems to find a way of filling the space allotted for it, so set shorter time limits for each task.

6. Work is the best way to get working. Start with small tasks to get the ball rolling

The business plan you need to finish may be intimidating at 8 in the morning. Get your mind on the right path with easy tasks, such as answering important work emails.

7. Work iteratively. Expectations to do things perfectly are stifling

Gen. George S. Patton once said, “A good plan executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

8. More work hours doesn’t mean more productivity. Use constraints as opportunities

Don’t kid yourself into thinking that sitting at your desk will somehow extract work from you. Do whatever you can to finish your current task by the end of regular work hours instead of working into the night.

9. Separate brainless and strategic tasks to become more productive

Ideally, you can brainstorm your ideas and then execute them. If you’re constantly stopping your flow of work to rethink something, you’re slowing yourself down.

10. Organize important meetings early in the day. Time leading up to an event is often wasted

If you have an important meeting scheduled for 4 p.m., it’s easy for anxiety to set in and keep that meeting at the front of your mind. Try to get them over with early so you can work without worrying about them.

11. Schedule meetings and communication by email or phone back-to-back to create blocks of uninterrupted work

You’ll disrupt your flow if you’re reaching out to people throughout the day.

12. Work around procrastination. Procrastinate between intense sprints of work

Try Francesco Cirillo’s Pomodoro Technique. “Pomodoro” is Italian for “tomato,” and it refers to the tomato-shaped cooking timer Cirillo used to break his work into 25-minute increments with 5-minute breaks in between. You can use the same idea with your own increments, as long as they inspire bursts of hard work.

13. Break down a massive task into manageable blocks

Alabama football coach Nick Saban follows a similar philosophy he calls the Process. Instead of having his players focus on winning the championship, he trains them to focus only on what is directly in front of them — each block, pass, and field goal.

14. No two tasks ever hold the same importance. Always prioritize. Be really careful with to-do lists

Daily to-do lists are effective ways of scheduling your day. Just do what you can to keep bullet points from making “clean desk” on par with “file taxes.”

15. Always know the one thing you really need to get done during the day

To help prioritize, determine what task in front of you is most important, and focus your energy into getting that done as soon as possible.

16. Delegate, and learn to make use of other people

To be truly efficient, get over the fear of handing work off to someone else. “If something can be done 80% as well by someone else, delegate!” says John C. Maxwell, author of How Successful People Think: Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life.

17. Turn the page on yesterday. Only ever think about today and tomorrow

Don’t distract yourself with either the successes or failures of the past. Focus instead on what’s in front of you.

18. Set deadlines for everything. Don’t let tasks go on indefinitely

Spending too much time on a project or keeping it on the backburner for too long will lead to stagnation. Get things done and move on.

19. Always take notes

Don’t assume you’ll remember every good idea that comes into your head during the day. It doesn’t matter if it’s a notebook, whiteboard, or an app like Evernote — just write stuff down.

20. Write down any unrelated thoughts that pop up when you’re in the zone, so that they don’t linger as distractions

You’ll get them out of the way without losing them.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider

These Were Warren Buffett’s First Jobs -TIME

These Were Warren Buffett’s First Jobs Posted: 11 Nov 2015 11:56 AM PST Warren Buffett — now worth more than $71 billion — has had a hunger for wealth since he was a tube-socked teenager. Through numerous schemes, the would-be Oracle of Omaha amassed the equivalent of $53,000 by the time he was 16, enough money that he nearly refused his father’s request to go to college, because he didn’t see the point. By looking through Alice Schroeder’s biography, The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life, we can see that Buffett has always had a gift for manipulating money — and people. Here are a half-dozen of his early hustles. He delivered The Washington Post Buffett’s father, Howard, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives when Buffett was a teen, and the family had to move from Omaha to the nation’s capital. As Schroeder notes, the young Buffett immediately set to work making money with the most traditional of hustles — dutifully delivering newspapers. But by handing out the Post, Buffett was making more money than most grown-ups. “Just from pitching newspapers a couple hours a day, he was earning $175 a month, more money than his teachers,” she writes. He also sold calendars to his newspaper clients, bringing in a little extra. He sold used golf balls If you wanted to get a golf ball on the cheap back in the 1940s, you could do worse than buying Buffett’s at $6 for a dozen. Buffett’s friends and family thought he scooped the balls out of water traps, but the young entrepreneur got them by ordering from a provider in Chicago. “They were classy balls,” Buffett told Schroeder. “Titleist and Spalding Dots and Maxlis, which I bought for three and a half bucks a dozen. They looked brand new. He probably got them the way we first tried to get them, out of water traps, only he was better.” He sold stamps If you needed a fancy stamp, you could turn to Buffett’s Approval Service, which sold collectible stamps to collectors around the country. He buffed cars The teenage Buffett partnered with his friend Lou Battistone to form Buffett’s Showroom Shine. The car-buffing business ran out of Battistone’s dad’s used car parking lot — though Schroeder reports that the duo abandoned the business when it turned out to be too much manual labor. He set up a pinball machine business When Buffett was 17 he had his biggest money-making idea: pinball. He made the following pitch to his friend Don Danley: I bought this old pinball machine for 25 bucks, and we can have a partnership. Your part of the deal is to fix it up. And look it, we’ll tell Frank Erico, the barber, ‘We represent Wilson’s Coin-Operated Machine Company, and we have a proposition from Mr. Wilson. It’s at no risk to you. Let’s put this nickel machine in the back, Mr. Erico, and your customers can play while they wait. And we’ll split the money.’ The pinball machine was a hit: Buffett counted $4 in nickels on the first evening. The pair soon set up pinballs in barbershops all over Washington. And he turned the horse track into a very lucrative playground When still in Omaha, the young Buffett found a bull market in the Ak-Sar-Ben arena, a horse-racing track that operated from 1919 to 1995. He and a friend would go to the race track, and though the duo was too young to make bets, Buffett quickly found a way to make money: by stooping, which was like dumpster diving for race track tickets. Here’s Buffett’s description: At the start of racing season you get all these people who’d never seen a race except in the movies. And they’d think that if your horse came in second or third, you didn’t get paid, because all the emphasis is on the winner, so they’d throw away [second-] and [third-place] tickets. The other time you would hit it big was when there was a disputed race. That little light would go on that said ‘contested’ or ‘protest.’ By that time, some people had thrown away their tickets. Meanwhile, we were just gobbling them up. It was awful; people would spit on the floor. But we had great fun. And if the boys found any winning tickets, Buffett’s aunt Alice would cash them in for the boys. Buffett went a step further: using his love of math and of collecting information, he and a friend put together a tip sheet for bettors at the race track. Soon they were out hawking “Stable Boy Selections,” a tip sheet that the boys typed out on an old Royal typewriter in Buffett’s basement. “We were in the track, yelling, ‘Get your Stable-Boy Selections!'” Buffett tells Schroeder. “At 25 cents, we were a cut-rate product. They shut down Stable-Boy selections fast because they were getting a cut on everything sold in the place except for us.” Like other self-made billionaires, Buffett started early. This article originally appeared on Business Insider

How to Avoid the Next Credit Crisis Even If Politicians Won’t - Talking Money

How to Avoid the Next Credit Crisis Even If Politicians Won’t Posted: 09 Nov 2015 08:36 AM PST As co-author of best-sellers All The Devils Are Here and The Smartest Guys In The Room, journalist Bethany McLean unpacked the 2008 financial crises and the Enron scandal. Her new book Shaky Ground scrutinizes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the mortgage giants that were supposed to be reformed but remain weird, public/private hybrid “government-supported entities.” McLean’s books always focus on the big picture, but she offers some personal views, too, in the latest installment of “Talking Money.” Given that you’ve made a career of revealing financial malfeasance, do you basically trust no one? I’m picturing cash stuffed under the mattress.  [Laughs.] Honestly, it’s problematic as I get older. For many years I had so little money, I never had to worry about it. But now I’m almost 45, with children—and you do have to worry about it. I would say I’m phenomenally risk-averse. So it’s not like I’m publicly voicing pessimism but and secretly taking huge gambles on the market. I’m voicing pessimism—and terrified to do anything. [Laughs.] Really, I have a hard time being interested in anything involving my own money. Give me a financial statement for a company that’s incredibly complex, and I’m really happy and excited. Ask me to look at my own bank account and I have this shudder of horror. I just don’t, don’t want to deal with it. And yes, I do think my work has made that worse. I’m so aware of how much I don’t know, and how many conflicts of interest there are. So what do you do at tax time, you just turn it over to an accountant and sign the paperwork? I do. I thought it would be intimidating to be Bethany McLean’s accountant.  As if I would be checking every line? [Laughs] No! No, no, no, no, no. When I was sharing an apartment with roommates, out of college, they would just go into my bag because they’d know there would be five-dollar bills, ten-dollar bills, kind of floating around. Not in a wallet — I didn’t own one. They would tell me; they weren’t stealing. But they all think it’s amusing that I’ve become someone who investigates money. I literally didn’t own a wallet until two years ago. That’s crazy. Why?  [Laughs] I don’t know! Some sort of total aversion to organizing money – my own money. Do you own stocks? Mostly ETF and index funds, not individual stock positions. But beyond that I honestly don’t know what it is that I own. And that’s partly a professional decision, to avoid conflicts?  It is. But if you told me I had to pour all the energy I dedicate to investigating companies and focus on managing my own money, I would find that utterly horrifying. I don’t have any interest applying what I learn to my financial life. Which frustrates my husband to no end. Shaky Ground explains that Fannie and Freddie persist in a “conservatorship” structure that makes it unclear what might happen if there’s another financial/real estate rupture. I’m curious whether you own a house—and whether you’re personally worried?  We do own a house. For a long time I was perfectly happy to rent, but something happened—not a financial decision, more of an emotional one. Chicago, where we live, is a house-owning kind of place. So maybe it’s situation- and geographic-dependent for me. But I like the fact that this is my house. Here’s what scares me. Homeownership is way down since the financial crisis, and rental rates in a lot of places are skyrocketing. So we may have an affordable housing crisis in the making. My worst case is that we don’t focus and come up with a smart housing policy that addresses the status of Fannie of Freddie until there’s another crisis. We don’t want decision-making in a crisis. It doesn’t sound like I should ask you for personal-finance tips, but got anything?  What caused the credit crisis was really the conflation of homeownership and credit creation—cash-out refinancing [people borrowing against their homes]. A healthy homeownership policy would disentangle those two things. If politicians aren’t going to do that, people should do it for themselves. If you are going to invest in a home, it’s a home. I remember seeing, after the financial crisis, this tattered banner advertising: “Let your home take you on vacation”—meaning borrow against your house for extra money. Resist! READ MORE: Talking Money with Podcasting Pioneer Roman Mars

Why the Flat Tax Is More Popular Than Ever - TIME

Why the Flat Tax Is More Popular Than Ever

Posted: 10 Nov 2015 01:46 PM PST

More progressivity means more progress. Especially after 2008. That’s the Democratic tax philosophy seven autumns after the financial crisis. Voters are still frustrated by the arbitrary quality of the rescues and the uneven quality of the recovery. So Hillary Clinton proposes increases in capital-gains-tax rates for top earners. Clinton’s former fellow candidate Lincoln Chafee offered to raise the top marginal income tax rate to 45% from the current 39.6%. You can bet Bernie Sanders’s plan, when it comes, will redistribute even more dramatically. 

Republicans by contrast are heading toward the very un-progressive flat tax. The simple levy hasn’t been this popular since 1996, when Steve Forbes campaigned with the promise of a universal 17% income tax rate. Several of this campaign’s flat taxers are actually out-Forbesing Forbes. Ted Cruz is calling for a flat 10%. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul also propose some kind of flat rate. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump pay their respects with plans that reduce the number of tax brackets.

Republicans—who are headed into yet-another televised debate tonight—are aware that voters feel rooked since 2008. But GOP candidates believe that even today voters don’t equate redistribution with fairness. And they are betting that voters desire a trustworthy government more than an arbitrary one. 

To understand the parties’ difference, recall the nature of progressivity. Under a progressive schedule, a worker pays a base rate on the first dollar earned. Rates rise like a staircase with earnings, so that the more the worker makes, the higher the tax on the last bit earned. A flat tax by contrast is proportional: top earners pay more dollars than low earners, but at the same percentage rate. 

Structuring a progressive tax schedule requires meticulous calibration by panels of experts. To voters, the process feels mysterious, in the same way, in fact, that the 2008 bailouts did: Some expert, somewhere, picks AIG over Lehman Brothers. Some expert, somewhere, decides that the top rate should be 39.6%, not 38%. Progressivity’s architects rarely finish their work—they just move on to new areas. For example, differing tax regimes in the states yield a different level of progressivity for otherwise similar earners. So now scholars are mooting the concept of “Corrective Progressivity.” Under a plan authored by Eric A. Kades of William & Mary Law School, federal tax rates would automatically reset from state to state to offset any difference resulting from state codes.

Precisely such tinkering is the great weakness of a progressive structure. For if one authority wins license to tinker, so may another. Eventually every interest group convinces others that it is only fair to introduce its ornaments, its exceptions, or its doodads to a tax code. A progressive structure grows organically and disproportionately, becoming a monument to the crony capitalism it was conceived to constrain.

Less known is that progressivity may not enjoy the solid backing policymakers suppose. In a paper recently presented at the American Accounting Association, scholars Michael and Theresa Roberts report that nearly 8 in 10 business students they polled believe a progressive income tax to be fairer than a flat tax. Still, when asked to actually ascertain a fair amount for a tax payment, the vast majority of the same pollees, even self-identified liberals, picked an amount that correlated to a flat, or even a regressive, rate. 

This suggests that while Americans like the sound of the word “progressive,” even educated citizens don’t necessarily love progressivity’s effect. Whatever they say at a party, people may quietly prefer proportionality to disproportionality in the same way they tend to prefer Monticello to a tower designed byAntoni Gaudí. The Roberts-Roberts paper concludes that “a majority of both liberal and conservative Americans may view a flat income tax rate as fairer than progressive income tax rates.” 

Economists of the Reagan school claim such results reflect an intuitive national understanding that lower tax rates afford greater economic growth. Many of us agree with that. 

Still, something is at work here beyond supply-side theory, which itself features a tendency to tinker. That something is simplicity. Simplicity defines the flat tax, so tampering with a flat tax represents a major political undertaking. Therefore, a flat schedule is likelier than a progressive schedule to sustain its form. To many, that stability matters more than whether the rate is 10% or 17%. Surely both parties would agree that a tax regime voters trust also represents progress.

Shlaes chairs the board of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation

Wall Street Bonuses Could Be 10% Lower This Year-New York Times

Wall Street Bonuses Could Be 10% Lower This Year

Posted: 09 Nov 2015 05:40 AM PST

Bonuses in the financial industry are likely to fall between 5 and 10 percent this year, according to a new report, the first year since 2011 that compensation is likely to drop.

Private equity and mergers-and-acquisition work are likely to be stronger for finance workers, but most segments of the industry are struggling, the report released Monday morning by the consulting firm Johnson Associates says, the New York Times reports. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have shown poor financial results this year, and Deutsche Bank has said it will slash 35,000 jobs over the next two years.

“We kept expecting next year will be the year,” said Johnson Associates founder Alan Johnson. “And it hasn’t really happened — and I don’t see it for the next three to five years.” The industry still has some of the highest remuneration levels in the world, with the average securities industry bonus reaching $172,860, according to the New York State comptroller’s office.

[NYT]

The Real Economic Recovery Is Finally Here - TIME

The Real Economic Recovery Is Finally Here Posted: 06 Nov 2015 06:58 AM PST Is a real recovery finally here? That’s what the latest U.S. employment data appears to be telling us. Not only did payrolls come in dramatically higher than expected, workers finally got a bit more money in their pockets–wage growth, which had been hovering a little above 2 %, kicked up to 2.5%—a 6 year high. That’s modest by historical standards, particularly at this stage of a recovery. But it’s a shift in the right direction for the continued strength of an economy made up of 70% consumer spending. It’s always dangerous to extrapolate any economic trend based on a single month of good data. But there’s reason to think that the global economy may soon surprise on the upside. Here’s why: The Chinese economy appears to be stabilizing. The hundreds of billions of dollars worth of policy stimulus the Communist Party kicked in over the summer finally seems to be working; fourth quarter growth is picking up. Of course, China still has a big leap to make to shifting its economic model longer term, but having discussed this topic recently with a key US economic player in the know, I’m a little more bullish on that process than I had been. For example, in some ways, the bad news this week about China throwing off 17% more carbon emissions than previously thought could been seen as an increase in political transparency (the Party never likes to publicize bad news) which is an important part of that process. Ditto the meeting between Xi Jinping and the leader of Taiwan. Lower commodities prices are kicking in–while they hurt countries like Brazil, Nigeria, and many parts of the Middle East, they are good for China, the U.S. and Europe–on balance, that’s a net positive for the global economy. Financial markets are calmer, as investors have priced in the effects of a likely Fed rate hike, which Yellen is now indicating could come by end of year, and the divergence in monetary policy in places like Japan and Europe, which are still doing quantitative easing and keeping rates low (the effects of fiscal austerity have diminished in Europe, which is another economic tailwind). That expected divergence had created volatility in global markets over the last few months, but now, it could help buffer markets that might have been hit harder had every major region been hiking rates at once, as was usually the case in the past. The big remaining question—with manufacturing still weak in the US, how much can wages growth? The next two months of data will be key—if wages keep rising even without a hike in manufacturing jobs, we’ll know something important, new, and positive is really happening in the US economy.

8 TED Talks That Will Make You More Productive - Business Insider

8 TED Talks That Will Make You More Productive

Posted: 04 Nov 2015 03:29 PM PST

Tapping your productivity in ways you never have before takes unconventional thinking.

Reaching optimal productivity is about working smarter, not harder, and making the most of each day.

The following TED talks offer valuable lessons in doing just that.

Shawn Achor’s “The happy secret to better work”

As the CEO of Good Think Inc., a psychologist, and author of The Happiness Advantage, Achor has spent a lot of time researching where human potential, success, and happiness intersect.

He suggests the common belief that we should work to be happy is misguided, and instead happiness inspires productivity.

Nilofer Merchant’s “Got a meeting? Take a walk”

The business consultant and author of The New How: Creating Business Solutions Through Collaborative Strategy Paperback shares with TED audiences how she’s helped numerous major companies develop successful new ideas: walking meetings.

She recommends forgoing coffee meetings or fluorescent-lit conference room meetings in favor of walking and talking 20 to 30 miles a week.

“You’ll be surprised at how fresh air drives fresh thinking, and in the way that you do, you’ll bring into your life an entirely new set of ideas,” she says.

Jason Fried’s “Why work doesn’t happen at work”

According to the Rework author, thanks to modern offices, we’re constantly getting distracted by our boss checking in on us, pointless meetings, or coworkers with urgent requests.

“You don’t have a work day anymore,” Fried says in his talk. “You have work moments. It’s like the front door of the office is like a Cuisinart, and you walk in and your day is shredded to bits, because you have 15 minutes here, 30 minutes there.”

One of his proposed solutions goes against common convention, but Fried says implementing half-days (or more) of complete silence will help employees work uninterupted for longer periods of time.

Stefan Sagmeister’s “The power of time off”

For more than 20 years, Sagmeister has poured his heart and soul into designing album covers for artists like the Rolling Stones and Lou Reed. But every seven years, he closes his New York studio for a yearlong sabbatical to rejuvenate and refresh his creativity.

In his talk, he explains how taking time off has allowed him to pursue “some little experiments” that have become innovative projects.

David Grady’s “How to save the world (or at least yourself) from bad meetings”

Another crusader against bad meetings, the information security manager is on a mission to help you reclaim your time.

His solution to attending meetings needlessly is surprisingly simple, but it shifts so radically from modern workplace thinking, many rarely see it as an option.

Yves Morieux’s “How too many rules at work keep you from getting things done”

Morieux, a senior partner at Boston Consulting Group, believes today’s businesses are increasingly and dizzyingly complex, and the only way to solve brand-new problems every day is to cooperate with others.

“To cooperate is not a super effort, it is how you allocate your effort,” he says. “It is to take a risk, because you sacrifice the ultimate protection granted by objectively measurable individual performance. It is to make a super difference in the performance of others, with whom we are compared.”

Arianna Huffington’s “How to succeed? Get more sleep”

It’s a simple idea that a good night’s sleep has the power to increase productivity, happiness, and smarter decision-making, but Huffington, cofounder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, believes it can unlock bigger ideas.

“I urge you to shut your eyes and discover the great ideas that lie inside us, to shut your engines and discover the power of sleep,” she says.

Margaret Heffernan’s “Dare to disagree”

Good work relationships aren’t built on constantly agreeing with each other, as Heffernan, serial entrepreneur and Beyond Measure author, explains.

Great businesses allow people to deeply disagree, she says, but “the truth won’t set us free until we develop the skills and the habit and the talent and the moral courage to use it. Openness isn’t the end. It’s the beginning.”

This article originally appeared on Business Insider