There’s no question that being positive and optimistic both cushions the blows of adversity and makes it easier to notice and take advantage of opportunities when they come your way. But staying positive is difficult if you’re forced to deal with negative people, a category that unfortunately includes a large percentage of the workplace population.
Here’s what you can do to ensure that the complainers don’t bring you down with them:
1. Avoid them when possible.
This probably goes without saying, but the absolute best way to deal with negative people is to cut them out of your life.At work, don’t hang out with them at the water cooler or sit next to them at lunch. Uninvite them to any meeting at which their presence is not absolutely required.
If they’re customers who you can’t avoid, stay cordial and friendly but don’t get sucked into a deeper relationship. If you’re online, don’t read the comments sections on political blogs or anywhere else where people vent anonymously. That’s like drinking from a sewer.
2. Don’t go Pollyanna on them.
When you must deal with negative people, the worst thing you can do is get all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Your display of positivity won’t cheer them up. Quite the contrary. They’ll see it as a challenge and amp up their negativity to compensate.
Being optimistic around a pessimist is like painting a target on your forehead–a target at which the pessimist will aim his or her hatred and unhappiness. Don’t believe me? Google “I hate optimists” and read some of the spew. Negative people are invested in their negativity. You’re not going to jolly them out of it.
3. Agree, then weaken by rephrasing.
Negative people express themselves using negative, emotionally charged words (such as hate, sucks, crap, effing, and so forth). Because such words are loaded, they make the negative person more miserable and negative. It’s a classic feedback loop.The only way to help negative people out of that loop is to edge them out of it by putting yourself on their side.
To do this, you immediately agree with every negative statement that they make. Then, as part of that agreement, you rephrase what they said using words that are less loaded.
Examples:
Debbie: “I absolutely hate it with a passion when…”
You: “Yes, it’s irritating when that happens…”
Debbie: “This totally sucks.”
You: “So true. There are some real challenges here.”
When you do this, you’ll notice that the negative person will actually change her physiology. Her body straightens, her glowering frown lightens up.Do this long enough and you can actually erode a person’s negativity to the point where he can take off the crap-colored glasses. It can take a long time, though.
4. Clear your head afterward.
Dealing with negative people taxes and drains your energy. Therefore, whenever you’re forced to deal with such folk, take time afterward to recharge your emotional batteries.
The best thing to do after dealing with a downer is to call or visit a kindred spirit who shares your basically positive attitude.If that’s not possible, go for a walk, listen to some music, read something inspirational. Do something–anything–that creates a mental break.
Failing to do this is like failing to wash yourself or change your clothes after wading through mud. If you’re not careful, negativity can and will stick to you. In fact, that’s the reason that negative people are negative. It’s a learned behavior. After all, most children are natural optimists.
Qatar Airways has committed to order up to 50 Boeing777-8 freighter jets, including 34 firm orders and options for 16 additional planes, in a total purchase worth more than $20 billion at current list prices.
The order, which marks the largest freighter commitment in Boeing history by value, will support hundreds of U.S. suppliers from across 38 states, sustain more than 35,000 U.S. jobs and provide an annual estimated economic impact of $2.6 billion during the contract’s delivery period, according to Boeing.
Boeing will build the 777-8 Freighter in its Everett, Washington, factory, with the first delivery expected in 2027. The aircraft will include GE9X engines produced by GE Aviation. With a range of 4,410 nautical miles, the 777-8 Freighter has a maximum structural payload of 118 tonnes, allowing customers to make fewer stops and reduce landing fees on long-haul routes.
Boeing and Qatar Airways signed a letter of intent to purchase five 777 Freighters, valued at $1.7 billion at list prices, on Jan. 31, 2022. This rendering shows the airplane in the carrier’s livery. (Boeing illustration)
As part of the agreement, Qatar Airways will convert 20 of its 60 777X family orders to the 777-8 Freighter and order two of Boeing’s current 777 freighters.
In addition, the companies signed a memorandum of understanding for an order of up to 50 Boeing 737-10 aircraft, including 25 firm orders and options for 25 additional planes, for a total value of nearly $7 billion at current list prices.
Monday’s announcement covers up to 102 airplanes total with a list price value of approximately $34 billion inclusive of engines.
The deal was solidified during a formal signing ceremony at the White House on Monday by Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Stan Deal and Qatar Airways Group CEO Akbar Al Baker. Other officials in attendance included Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, White House National Economic Council Director Brian Deese, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun and Qatar’s ambassador to the U.S., Sheikh Mishaal bin Hamad Al Thani.
Qatar Airways Group CEO Akbar Al Baker and Boeing’s Kevin McAllister sign a memorandum of understanding for five Boeing 777 Freighters in the presence of the Qatari Minister of Finance and Qatar Airways Chairman Ali Sharif Al Emadi (left) and Qatar a (Boeing)
“The Biden administration has prioritized the revitalization of our manufacturing economy. This investment from our friends in Qatar represents another step toward fulfilling that priority,” Raimondo said in a statement. “It means good jobs right here in America, billions of dollars more in exports, and a much-needed boost to America’s manufacturing sector.”
Raimondo added that the deal “underscores the importance of revitalizing America’s semiconductor industry.”
“Each of these aircraft will require an enormous amount of chips, which is why the administration is urging Congress to put a semiconductor bill on President Biden’s desk as soon as possible,” she said.
Qatar Airways’ move comes less than two weeks after Airbus ended its contract for 50 A321neo planes, a direct competitor to Boeing’s Max jets, amid a months-long dispute over cracked paint and other issues on its A350 planes. Boeing shares surged on news of the order.
Our return to brick and mortar schooling is upon us and like any back-to-school season, we are filled with anticipation, hope, and curiosity. To finally have our classrooms filled with children is a gift that we have longed for over this past challenging year. With all this excitement, we need to ensure we are planning with our students in mind.
Specifically, prioritizing their social and emotional health. It’s no secret that our world faced incredible trauma during the pandemic. As educators, it’s important that we increase our empathy and focus on the tools and practices that will support awareness and expression of emotions and dialogue, rather than focus on punishment-oriented outcomes. I’m not suggesting that we should conduct therapy sessions, as that is not in our training and we have school psychologists to collaborate with in those situations.
One of the main things we can commit to doing is increasing empathy in our classrooms. We can employ restorative practices, a social science that studies how to build classroom community and strengthen relationships. The idea is that when we feel part of a supportive community where we belong, we respect those around us and become accountable for our actions.
It’s about building community and using authentic dialog when responding to challenging behavior in an effort to “make things right.” When these practices are put in place, teachers and students can work together to foster safe learning environments through community building and constructive conflict resolution.
Have you considered bringing restorative practices into your classroom? It is crucial for educators to plan for opportunities to create and sustain a culture where all learners are accepted, embraced, and heard. When developing restorative practices in your classroom, you should first establish a culture of trust and respect.
A good starting point is to identify the current issue/s in your class, identify the root causes, and then create an activity where you can facilitate restorative practices. There are many ways to begin implementation. For those of you who think restorative practice may add value to your classroom, here are two activities that can help get you started:
Restorative Circles provide an opportunity to have all students share, and listen truthfully in a way that allows the members in the circle to be seen, heard, and respected. Use this opportunity for students to collaboratively approach conflict within the classroom community and find a resolution.
Check out this Edutopia video to see how one school implemented a restorative circle as a means to create a safe environment for students to reflect.
Affective Language gives us the ability to identify our emotions and express them to others verbally. By using Affective Language, you can model ways of expressing our feelings and needs. There are four parts to an affective statement.
Observation: Free of labels and opinions. Makes the student feel seen and recognized by using statements such as, “I notice…” and “I hear…”.
Feelings: Express your feelings, honestly by using phrases such as, “I feel frustrated…” or “I am worried…”.
Needs: Express your needs and values by stating, “I need a safe classroom…” or “I need your help in…”.
Plans/Requests: Frame what it is that you want. For example, “Would you be ok with…” and “Next time…”.
When implementing restorative practices, it is important to take the time to conduct thoughtful preparation, and a shift in the adult mindset which requires the allocation of sufficient resources and dedication to implement new practices with consistency and sustainability.
As you begin planning for this work in your classroom, remember to take on each situation with a calm mind, questions to seek student perspective, and time to allow for students to drive the discussion.
Take these opportunities as learning moments for all community members and to open space for student voice. Below I’ve included a planning template that can support you in transforming your classroom as you lead with empathy.
Here at LINC, we begin all of our planning with the PAACC. The image you see above is our PAACC, aligned to restorative practices. This resource will support you in keeping the “why” in mind as you plan and identify student outcomes based on the restorative practices activity you choose. Click here for our free tinker template to put your planning into action.
I’d love to hear your thoughts and reflections on how we can continue to increase empathy in our classrooms as we focus on creating restorative practice activities as students return to the classroom. If you’re looking for a thought partner, connect with me via Twitter: @CarolynHanser or email: carolynhanser@linclearning.com.
On Saturday, Elon Musk promised to sell 10% of his Tesla stake after 58% of people voted in a Twitter poll shared by the Tesla CEO. Yesterday, Musk began to follow through, exercising about 2.15 million Tesla stock options and selling shares to cover the taxes he owed as a result. Prior to this week, he has only ever sold Tesla shares twice—in 2010 and 2016—for pre-tax proceeds of $617 million ($593 million of that went to cover taxes he owed on options). Tesla’s stock has risen over 13,000% since his last sale, and Musk is now worth an estimated $281 billion (based on Wednesday’s closing price).
When the world’s richest man wants cash, he can simply borrow money by putting up—or pledging—some of his Tesla shares as collateral for lines of credit, instead of selling shares and paying capital gains taxes. These pledged shares serve as an evergreen credit facility, giving Musk access to cash when he needs it. Musk currently has pledged 88.3 million Tesla shares, nearly 36.2% of his overall stake (excluding options), as of Wednesday worth more than $94 billion.
Musk is one of 32 billionaires identified in the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans to be pledging public stock of companies listed on the NYSE or Nasdaq exchanges as collateral for current or potential lines of credit, as disclosed in company filings. Other pledgers include fellow mega-pledger Oracle chairman Larry Ellison, Walmart heir Jim Walton, and private equity’s richest person, Stephen Schwarzman. (Three others pledged shares of foreign companies are not included in this report.)
Across all companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq exchanges, there are 560 executive officers and directors and 5%+ shareholders currently pledging shares; the size of the average pledge is $427 million and the aggregate value of these pledged shares is $239 billion, according to a report from Audit Analytics, an independent provider of audit, regulatory and disclosure intelligence. Within this larger group, Forbes 400 members do most of the pledging—value wise, that is. Musk’s Tesla pledge alone is 47% of that aggregate pledged share value. Removing the extreme outlier Musk, the remaining 31 Forbes 400 members account for 56% of that figure. (Data for this report were calculated Nov. 5; Tesla shares are down nearly 13% since then).
“At current interest and tax rates, it is far cheaper to borrow against the value of one’s shares than to sell them and pay taxes on the gains.”
Information on companies’ pledging policies—found in annual proxy statements—-offer a window into the murky world of billionaire borrowing. The topic entered the national microscope in June after ProPublica’s report on leaked IRS data showed that several of the richest people paid nothing in federal income taxes in certain years. Last month, a proposed wealth tax from Senate Democrat Ron Wyden failed to win political support. That measure would have taxed unrealized capital gains of America’s richest individuals.
Most details on billionaire borrowing remain private. Individuals who own less than a 5% stake in a company, or who don’t work for that company, do not report stock ownership or pledging of shares to the SEC. Many of America’s wealthiest people—232 billionaires from this year’s Forbes 400 list, to be exact—hold their fortunes primarily in private companies. Any pledges against diversified baskets of stock or private assets are not reported in company filings. Disclosure requirements also do not include reporting whether, or how much, an individual has borrowed against their pledged shares. A few billionaires Forbes contacted said they don’t have outstanding debt against their pledges.
Most larger companies don’t allow pledging: Over two-thirds (68.4%) of S&P 500 companies ban all company employees and shareholders from pledging shares for debt, 22% prohibit pledging but with exemptions for certain individuals, and only 3.4% fully permit it, according to data provided by proxy advisory firm Institutional Investors Service (ISS). “When executives or directors have a significant percentage of their equity pledged, it creates a concern from the investor perspective,” says Jun Frank, an executive director for ISS’ corporate solutions group, which advises companies on corporate governance matters.
Those concerns include margin calls: forced sales of pledged shares that can sink a company’s stock price, which risks cascading into a broader, panic-induced selloff. An example: Green Mountain Coffee Roaster’s founder Robert Stiller borrowed against his company shares to fund an increasingly extravagant lifestyle, rather than sell shares. That worked fine when the share price was rising but quickly unraveled after a short-seller called into question its accounting in May 2012. The former billionaire was forced to sell 5 million shares, worth $126 million, in one day to cover margin calls on pledged Green Mountain stock. He was then removed as Chairman of the Board.
Pledging can also create friction between directors and executive officers pledging shares and outside shareholders, says Frank: “If you no longer have certain claims to those underlying economic interests and you continue to have the voting right, that creates a mismatch between the control you can exercise over the company and the economic interest you have in the company.”
Sometimes what company founders want, in this case to pledge shares, is at odds with what board members and shareholders want, which is to disallow pledging. The software company Oracle, for example, adopted a rule in January 2018 prohibiting its directors and executive officers from pledging company shares, although one individual was exempt: Larry Ellison, Oracle’s cofounder and largest individual shareholder. But then, as now, Ellison was the only Oracle director to ever report pledging any company shares. Ellison, who boasts a fortune of over $100 billion, has been pledging shares since at least 2007, after the Securities and Exchange Commission began requiring it.
In other words, Oracle’s new pledging policy had no immediate impact on the pledging activity of its directors and executives—Ellison least of all. Since 2018, he has increased the number of his pledged Oracle shares to 317 million — worth about $28 billion — equivalent to roughly 27% of his stake and 11% of all outstanding Oracle stock. Ellison did not sell any Oracle shares between December 2010 and June 2020, a near-decade stretch of big spending for the eccentric billionaire, who splashed $300 million in 2012 to buy the Hawaiian island of Lanai and tens of millions of dollars on opulent mansions, growing a $1 billion real estate portfolio that includes at least ten properties on Malibu’s glitzy Carbon Beach.
While Oracle does not disclose how much Ellison has borrowed against his shares, his penchant for borrowing was revealed in unsealed court documents from a shareholder lawsuit. Those documents, first reported by The San Francisco Chronicle in 2006, showed that Ellison had outstanding loans of more than $1.2 billion in 2001, and that his financial adviser had warned him, “We have a freight train going down a track hitting a debt wall.” (Oracle did not respond to Forbes’ questions about its pledging policy or Ellison’s borrowing.)
Other companies find more creative ways to exempt billionaire founders from pledging bans. Take the oil and gas firm Kinder Morgan, whose prohibition on pledging comes with a caveat: shares owned “in excess of the applicable minimum ownership guidelines” are able to be pledged. The minimum ownership requirement for directors—such as executive chairman and billionaire Richard Kinder—is three times the value of their “annual cash retainer.” Helpfully, Kinder’s annual salary is $1. That means the eponymous cofounder can effectively pledge as many shares as he likes.
Kinder, whose $7.2 billion fortune makes him the 128th wealthiest American, has pledged 40 million shares of his eponymous company — 15.6% of his overall stake, worth $679 million — for the sole purpose of buying more company stock, as described in the company’s proxy statement. To date, Kinder has purchased 10 million additional shares of Kinder Morgan, financed with debt taken out against his pledged Kinder Morgan shares. A representative for Kinder Morgan confirmed Forbes’ interpretation of its pledging rules but declined to comment further.
Some companies are upfront about their exemptions, but fail to make a convincing argument for them. The medical conglomerate Danaher simply states in its 2021 proxy statement that its sibling founders, Forbes 400 members Steven and Mitchell Rales, are exempt from its pledging ban “because [their] shares had been pledged for decades.” Each brother has pledged a significant portion of their Danaher shares, a potential red flag for margin calls: Steven Rales has pledged 78% of his equity stake (just over $10 billion), and Mitchell has pledged nearly 91% of his equity stake (slightly under $10 billion). Together, their pledges are 9.4% of all outstanding Danaher stock. (Danaher and the Rales brothers did not respond to requests for comment).
Of the Forbes 400 billionaires, oil mogul George Kaiser (net worth: $10.7 billion) has the highest ratio of pledged shares to the company’s total outstanding common stock — another red flag for margin calls. His pledge of 21 million shares of bank holding company BOK Financial Corporation (worth nearly $2.3 billion) is equal to nearly 31% of all outstanding stock. But Kaiser says he only occasionally borrows against those pledged shares. “They are just low cost, back-up lines, which we have had in place for a long time and infrequently use,” he told Forbes over email.
Tesla argues that pledging creates a kind of fiduciary relationship between pledgers and shareholders. In 2018 the electric carmaker introduced a 25% loan-to-value limit on borrowing against pledged shares, arguing that pledging gives “executive officers flexibility in financial planning without having to rely on large cash compensation or the sale of Company shares, thus keeping their interests well aligned with those of our stockholders, while also mitigating risk exposure to the Company” — a stance Tesla has reiterated in subsequent proxy filings.
ISS countered this argument in its recent proxy analysis of Tesla’s corporate governance principles. “If an executive who already owns 15 or 20 percent of a company’s outstanding shares…is not already motivated to act in the interests of shareholders, there is no credible argument that increasing that stake to 25 or 30 percent will suffice to accomplish that goal,” says the report. “Perhaps a more salient, though unspoken, factor is that at current interest and tax rates, it is far cheaper to borrow against the value of one’s shares than to sell them and pay taxes on the gains.”
So just how prevalent is pledging assets to borrow among the ultra rich? “Pretty high,” responds Jason Cain, a managing director and chief wealth strategist at advisory firm Boston Private, speaking about his firm’s highest bracket of clients: those with above $500 million in assets. (Cain declined to provide an exact percentage figure). “It’s not any different than families… who borrow for homes” and other life purchases, says Cain. “Most of these clients are aware of the uses of debt and with interest rates where they have been in the recent past, they understand the arbitrage opportunity.”
Ali Jamal, and ex-Julius Baer banker and founder of Azura, a boutique wealth management firm for billionaire entrepreneurs, says that during the stock market crash of March 2020, about 70% of Azura’s clients took on leverage — by pledging shares, but also artwork and car collections — to take on debt to buy more stock. And over the past year, about 40% of Azura clients have leveraged their way into special purpose acquisition corporations. “You can borrow at 40 basis points, max 50 basis points, to have someone very smart” identify an investment opportunity, says Jamal about the appeal of leveraging into SPACs, “and if you don’t like the opportunity, you can pull your money out.”
Borrowing against one’s shares has its risks, but for these billionaires, the rewards seem to outweigh them. “It’s perfectly legal, and it’s a little hard to say it’s immoral. Like, it’s immoral to own a growth stock? It’s immoral to borrow money?” says Edward McCaffrey, a tax law professor at USC Gould School of Law who coined the popular term “Buy, Borrow, Die” to describe how the ultra-wealthy borrow to avoid paying taxes. “So the question is, why would anybody not do it?
I am a New York-based journalist covering billionaires and wealth at Forbes. I studied history at Claremont McKenna College and I’m currently receiving my M.A. in business and
Grzeskiewiecz, Grzegorz; Tomasz Kozlinski (15–17 June 2004). “High Net Worth Individuals: The Clients of Private Banking”(PDF). 8th International Conference of Doctoral Students. Brno University of Technology (Czech Republic). Archived from the original(PDF) on 24 March 2012. Retrieved 6 March 2014.
Social media platforms have long been unwelcoming to sex workers and adult content creators trying to make a living online. Even OnlyFans, the subscription-based platform that became a billion-dollar company thanks largely to sex workers monetizing their content on the platform, announced a ban on nudity and sex that would have left sex workers out to dry (yet again) … had the company not backtracked following public outcry.
The most recent attack on sexually explicit content comes from Instagram, where some accounts have lost their “link sticker” privileges for posting images that supposedly go against the platform’s community guidelines. In an absurd report from Buzzfeed, however, Stephanie McNeal details how the policing operation has gone awry.
On top of Instagram’s needless gatekeeping, which still only allows verified accounts or accounts with over 10,000 followers to share links and resources on the platform, the update was intended to block users from further spreading content that has consistently violated Instagram’s safety policies by, say, harassing other individuals or repeatedly making use of hate speech on the platform.
While that policy sounds good in theory, the problem is that the site is currently defining harassment and hate speech in some hilariously loose terms.
Fashion and lifestyle influencer Jess Bonds (@pacificnorthjess_) told McNeal that she lost her access to the link sticker after receiving a violation for “bullying/harassment.” The infraction in question? A video of Bonds jokingly slapping her friend’s boob.
“Starting October 25, you will no longer have access to the link sticker because you have shared content that violates our community guidelines.” That means Bonds loses access to a feature (the replacement of the ol’ swipe-up) that allows her to directly share affiliate links, earning commissions off the purchases her followers make … all for playfully knockin’ around her friend’s knockers.
The platform also jacked link-sticker rights from wine and lifestyle influencer Erika Altes (@whiskeyandlace) for an instance of hate speech in which she posted a pic of her brother and wrote — brace yourselves now — “boys are so gross.”
In a separate post, Altes racked up another ding after attempting to “incite violence.” The post very violently stated that Altes wanted to burn her house down after finding a dead mouse in her Yeti cooler.
In a statement, Instagram told McNeal, “We’re investigating an issue where people may have mistakenly been notified that they will be restricted, and we’re working on resolving this as soon as possible.”
Meanwhile, it would appear you’re still able (but not invited) to drop nonconsensual dick pics into my DMs at your leisure.
