To that end, here’s an animated video it released a couple of weeks ago called “Copying Is Not Theft,” spelling out one argument against certain copyright restrictions.

Of course, you should feel free to download, repurpose, and sell this any way you can.

Do you have a piece you think should be considered for the EconomyBeat Podcast? Put it on PRX, and add the tag ‘ebpodcast’.

Number one? Aubrey K. McClendon of Chesapeake Energy, who made a cool $100,069,201 in 2008. That’s 100 million. I bet he gets his own parking space too.

Number two, at $59,834,630, is Eugene M. Isenberg of Nabors Industries, which I believe manufactures merchandise featuring the picture of fan favorite Jim “Gomer Pyle” Nabors.

Just a hunch, but I’m guessing he thinks they make too much.

Watch it here.

And here is the union’s Executive PayWatch web site, where you can search for your favorite CEO and his compensation by company name, state, and industry.

Enjoy.

When the wrong person is fired, it hurts everyone involved — the person and his or her company. There’s a better way to solve this problem and a worse way. The worse way first: If you’re an employee and want to protect yourself, you can do two things:

1. Be excellent. The more effectively you deliver on your goals the less likely you’ll be let go. Employers value productivity.

2. Be confusing. The more ambiguously you achieve your goals the more difficult it will be to fire you. Employers fear uncertainty.

There are two problems with this. One, it might backfire. Being too opaque could get you fired, especially if you’re not quite as excellent as you think. And two, while this strategy might help you as an individual, it hurts the company which, eventually, will hurt you as an individual.

We got ourselves into this economic mess in part because leaders didn’t understand what was going on in their own companies. While tying a Gordian knot may help individuals keep their jobs, untying it will help the businesses stay viable. That’s the critical challenge facing industry today.

The full post here.

Includes “low-hanging fruit,” “dealbreaker,” “drink the Kool-Aid,” “get your ducks in a row,” “hard stop,” “mission critical,” “take it offline,” “whiteboard it,” and of course, “think outside the box.” Click on the picture to see it full-size.

First, Frankel:

Job market confirms end of recession

The recession is over. The last piece has fallen into place, with the BLS announcement that employment rose in March.

Identifying the beginnings and ends of recessions has been difficult in recent decades because the two most important indicators, output and employment, have sometimes behaved differently from each other. Most notoriously, in the recovery that began in November 2001, employment lagged far behind economic growth. If one had gone by the labor market, one might have called it a three year recession. But if one had gone by GDP, one might have wondered whether there was a recession at all.

This time around, the difficulty is not so great. True, the magnitude of job loss after December 2007 was unparalleled since the 1930s. It was severe even relative to the loss of GDP. But contrary to some impressions, the labor market in this recovery has not lagged unusually far behind the rest of the economy. It always lags behind somewhat: due to costs of search, hiring and training, firms wait until the recovery is reasonably well established before adding workers to the payroll. But by either of two criteria, the lag has not been unusually long this time. First, the three months of greatest job loss virtually coincided with the three months of greatest output loss, in the first quarter of 2009, as had also been the the case in the 1991 and 2001 recessions.

By July 2009, job market indicators were showing their first signs of life. Second, with the latest figures, employment changes have now turned positive. This is the more definitive criterion, because a recovery is defined as a period of increasing economic activity. The nine month wait was painful. But the lag between positive income growth (June 2009) and positive job growth (March 2010) turned out to be shorter than in the preceding two recessions (one to two years)…

And here’s Thoma’s response:

“The recession is over”

Jeff Frankel — a member of the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee — says: The recession is over.

He is basing this conclusion on the recent job market number showing positive employment growth:

…with the latest figures, employment changes have now turned positive. This is the more definitive criterion, because a recovery is defined as a period of increasing economic activity, not a period when economic activity is high. The nine month wait was painful. But the lag between positive income growth (June 2009) and positive job growth (March 2010) turned out to be shorter than in the preceding two recessions (one to two years). …

He may well be right, but I’m waiting for more than one month of somewhat encouraging employment data before coming to that conclusion. It’s always possible that one month is a blip, not a trend. In addition, the conclusion is based upon the fact that labor markets are exhibiting positive growth, but positive growth is all that is required, the strength of the growth is not the determining factor. However, even though growth is positive, it is very sluggish and as David Altig notes, at current rates of job creation, the unemployment rate will still be over 9% a year from now. So this is by no means an “all clear” signal for labor markets.

The Somali Pirates’ Business Model

by Mark Leon Goldberg

Last week, a group of investigators dispatched by the Security Council to Somalia released an exhaustive, 100 plus page report on arms trafficking, aid diversion, and other criminal activities in Somalia… I found this short explanation of the pirates’ business model, tucked away in the report’s annex, to be fascinating:

“A basic piracy operation requires a minimum eight to twelve militia prepared to stay at sea for extended periods of time, in the hopes of hijacking a passing vessel. Each team requires a minimum of two attack skiffs, weapons, equipment, provisions, fuel and preferably a supply boat. The costs of the operation are usually borne by investors, some of whom may also be pirates.

To be eligible for employment as a pirate, a volunteer should already possess a firearm for use in the operation. For this ‘contribution’, he receives a ‘class A’ share of any profit. Pirates who provide a skiff or a heavier firearm, like an RPG or a general purpose machine gun, may be entitled to an additional A-share. The first pirate to board a vessel may also be entitled to an extra A-share.

At least 12 other volunteers are recruited as militiamen to provide protection on land of a ship is hijacked, In addition, each member of the pirate team may bring a partner or relative to be part of this land-based force. Militiamen must possess their own weapon, and receive a ‘class B’ share — usually a fixed amount equivalent to approximately US$15,000.

If a ship is successfully hijacked and brought to anchor, the pirates and the militiamen require food, drink, qaad, fresh clothes, cell phones, air time, etc. The captured crew must also be cared for. In most cases, these services are provided by one or more suppliers, who advance the costs in anticipation of reimbursement, with a significant margin of profit, when ransom is eventually paid.

When ransom is received, fixed costs are the first to be paid out. These are typically:

• Reimbursement of supplier(s)

• Financier(s) and/or investor(s): 30% of the ransom

• Local elders: 5 to 10 %of the ransom (anchoring rights)

• Class B shares (approx. $15,000 each): militiamen, interpreters etc.

The remaining sum — the profit — is divided between class-A shareholders.”

Wonder if they teach that at Wharton?

Google Fiber may sound like a new breakfast cereal, but it triggered a manic, some might say desperate, response from cities eager to become the company’s broadband guinea pig. Rancho Cucamonga, California, for example, changed its name to Rancho Googlemonga. Greenville, South Carolina rounded up 2000 of its citizens, gave them LED Glow Sticks, and arranged them in the form of the Google logo.

Topeka, Kansas launched a sophisticated online campaign called Think Big Topeka and the not-so-sophisticated gesture of issuing a proclamation changing its name in March to Google, Kansas.

Not to be outdone, Duluth, Minnesota launched its own initiative including this video announcing that the city was changing the names of all first-born males to Google Fiber and first-born females to Googlette Fiber. In typical Minnesota nice fashion, Duluth Mayor Don Ness sandwiches the video with disclaimers that no offense to Topeka is intended.

Google didn’t tell Duluth to go jump in the lake, but Mayor Ness did it anyway, jumping into freezing Lake Superior in support of the city’s bid.

State and city finances are really hurting, so it’s understandable if perhaps a little depressing, why various communities would go so far to attract private sector largesse. One user comment on BoingBoing: “Considering Google’s finances, I’m surprised they’re not holding out for their own country. I’m sure Iceland would consider it.”

Nestle’s Facebook meltdown

Oops. Nestle, or whoever runs their Facebook fan page, stepped on a social media landmine this weekend with this update:

Nestle: To repeat: we welcome your comments, but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic – they will be deleted. Fri at 2:26am

Nestle received 190 complaints within 24 hours on Facebook, and thousands of tweets reaching hundreds of thousands of consumers. You see, the surest way to tick off users of social media is to delete their comments. Yes, by the old standards of 20th century law, brands have a right to protect their intellectual property. But social media comprises fluid networks of users sharing and retweeting and mashing up material. Brands no longer command media channels or the spread of memes; if you want to win, you have to give users room to play.

Here are highlights from how it played out:

Paul Griffin: Not sure you’re going to win friends in the social media space with this sort of dogmatic approach. I understand that you’re on your back-foot due to various issues not excluding Palm Oil but Social Media is about embracing your market, engaging and having a conversation rather than preaching! Read www.cluetrain.com and rethink! Fri at 2:51am

Nestle: Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider yourself embraced. But it’s our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus. Fri at 2:53am

Paul Griffin: Your page, your rules, true, and you just lost a customer, won the battle and lost the war! Happy? Fri at 2:56am

Nestle: Oh please .. it’s like we’re censoring everything to allow only positive comments. Fri at 2:58am

Darren Smith: Honey you need new PR Fri at 3:20am

Jagos Golubovic: I was a big fan of your products, but now, when I saw what you guys wrote, I think I’m gonna stop buying them. Fri at 3:55am

Helen Constable: I’d like to know if the person writing the comments for Nestle, actually has the backing from Nestle? I doubt it. Even a dumb ass company like them would get such an idiot to be their public voice. Fri at 4:10am

Nestle: I think you missed out the ‘not’ there, Helen Fri at 4:12am

Hyra Zaka: is a nestle rep running this page????? Fri at 4:39am

Nestle: We welcome debate, @Hyra – from any opinion. It helps us to know what people think and feel. Fri at 4:44am

ymann Lee: WFT !!!! This firm is a ugly creep !! trafficking and now censorship of my personal life. it seems pretty nazi !! Fri at 5:19am

Fernanda Shirakawa: I’m not using your logo… Fri at 5:55am

Fernanda Shirakawa: You deleted my comment anyway… Fri at 5:57am

Damien DeBarra: What a total train wreck. Sorry Nestle, but you really don’t seem to get it do you? Social media provides you with an opportunity to engage with your customers – to listen to them, to show that you actually care about ethical issues in business. Sadly it seems you have precisely the opposite attitude and seem determined to be as aggressive, patronising and corporatist as you can. And practically guaranteed that folks will now start shunning your products. Fri at 8:00am

Mark Watts-Jones: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Case study in how not to engage with your customers. We’ll await the inevitable apology and climb down. Fri at 11:06am

Nestle: This (deleting logos) was one in a series of mistakes for which I would like to apologise. And for being rude. We’ve stopped deleting posts, and I have stopped being rude. Fri at 1:29pm