Hi. My name is... Robert Smith
Posted by Boborobdos 12 years ago to The Gulch: Introductions
I'm very happy to have landed in the Gulch... I hope to get some insights for when I watch and discuss the movie.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
Hello all...
I have read through about 1/4 of this thread.
It has helped me to complete a lot of thoughts. So thanks for that.
I found Morry's lengthy comment particularly interesting and I have to agree, ..."EXTREMELY"!
I find myself swirling around in the same way with the term "TOLERANCE", or the idea that we "should practice tolerance". And I am requesting / inviting perspective on this.To be clear, it seems there is no limit to how much this concept can bug me. But I think I have found a group of people who can dial it in.
I'm a full time, (43 year old), adult student in Idaho. And I'm attending a rather new, (liberal establishment), community college. So for me "Tolerance" is more of an issue than a topic. And while I've completed my sociology and communications requirements. I still have two years to go.
Rob
Thanks for validating my thought.
Rob
Rob
Rob
What do you think of those folks who get a bonus in their SS just because an illegal alien with a forged card happened to pick their numbers?
(BTW, it's a question, not something that might suggest that I think the practice is OK. It isn't.)
Rob
Any withholding taxes sent in their name becomes part of their total, and there is no theft when they receive monies deposited in their account. The deposits were made, and forfeited by the identity thief.
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/SB-S...
"Consider the notion that this is a site where people are dedicated to the premise that collectivism and communism are taboo. Unions are a form of both"
While I would agree that a union can be, and often tends towards, collectivism; it is not a certainty. At it's core, a union is just a group of people with common economic interests acting in concert. Said another way, a st of people working 'corporately' torwards a common economic goal set. I've been a member of two unions; worked at numerous merit shops, and for government agencies; in my experience nothing is nearly as collectivist as government. the average attitude of a union member is only a mild case.
To Boborobdos, I've worked many types of jobs from minimum wage on up. Never have I been 'bullied' inot a job. I would challenge you to find such a person. I don't think they exist.
And religion that has eternal damnation if you believe that.
Rob
Rob
you have to sign up for the Newsletter. you can do it right here.
here's a snippet:
"Hot in Galt's Gulch Online
Apparently, Ayn Rand was wrong... about EVERYTHING
Gulch members had some fun recently when new Gulch member "Boborobdos" introduced himself to the community as an admirer of the book... then proceeded to explain why Ayn Rand had it all wrong.
Suffice it to say, things got a little hot. Read more..."
Got a link? Seem to have missed it.
Rob
One also has to take into account customer loyalty. Every marketing textbook will tell you it is 10x more costly to get a new customer than to retain an existing one, meaning that repeat business is more profitable business. Ripping off your customers is really bad for repeat business and more expensive in the long run. A pure market actually encourages honesty and good business because of the freedom of choice of all participants. It is when you seek to limit this freedom via unions or government that corruption creeps in. That is not to say that all businessmen are honorable, only that in a free market, dishonorable businessmen don't last long.
It's like which bible do you want to believe? The one Fred Phelps believes in, or the one Bishop Spong believes in.
BTW - if you really want to go into interpretation of the Bible, let's get down to the one _I_ believe - the King James version - not some televangelist's version or new translation. And you might be interested or not, but Christianity is wholly commensurate with market economics because both are based on choice and accountability - one temporal, the other spiritual.
Rob
I find that you wouldn't tolerate something you personally disagree with on this forum. Ayn Rand herself was an atheist.
More from Rozar: "When you deal in degrees of right and wrong you lose the ability to distribute justice equally, it becomes subjective."
I do so love black and white extremists! Here we go...
Sure there are most certainly degrees of right and wrong. 10 mph over the speed limit in a school zone or hospital zone is far more dangerous than ten mph over when it's in a 75 mph zone.
Stealing bread because one is hungry is far different than Enron where stealing (enough that some folks killed themselves) wasn't the same thing as stealing bread.
We most certainly need moderation, judgment, and common sense in our legal system.
May I suggest that you watch Dr. Gupta Sunday evening on CNN? The degrees of difference between medical pot and other drugs is extreme (nobody ever overdosed on pot and died), but the penalties are among the most extreme.
Rob
I'm stating that by the mere fact that you were born does not grant you the right to anything more than your own mind. You have no right to medicine, housing or jobs or anything else. All of these things are someone else's property that they can do whatever with at the discretion of their mind, because it's theirs.
Oh (giggle giggle) it's so much fun using right wing arguments...
Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Now, if one follows the "logic" of anti abortion folks... Well, you get the idea.
But also, people die without health care. The best example is diabetes where with early treatment folks can live a long and productive life. Without treatment parts start to get cut off and people go blind.
Besides, it's generally far more economical to treat things early.
So, even though I imagine most folks around here would be pro-choice in the abortion issue as they are in so many other issues, I think it's time to consider: How can anyone claim to be "pro-life" and at the same time deny health care to another?
And for the rest of your "argument" that folks aren't "entitled...."
Consider that as a Nation we have built an excellent road system available to anyone rich or poor. Is that "socialism" or is simply making things easier for the worker to get to the job?
Housing... A rare thing I agree with Joe Arpaio on is to use of tents and peanut and butter.
And, a final note on health care...
We have a wide variety of folks at work, some of who take the bus to work. Folks with TB can spread it, particularly after symptoms develop. However, without health care these folks with a horrible contagious disease continue to spread it because they don't get medical care early. If they happen to sit next to one of the folks at my workplace to takes the bus, and then I sit next to them at lunch... I'm optimistic that you can see it's in both your and my interest to see that everyone stays healthy.
Rob
Don't want anyone's life to change unless they want it changed.
I find it kinda sad that you are willing to die rather than get some help from society, but that is certainly your choice.
But, please understand that in America most folks are part of society. Do you use roads? Do you enjoy the common protection we get from our military?
BTW, as nice a person as you might be I choose not to have you around me if you have not done your best to remain healthy. I don't deny you your path, but I don't want you carrying something to me or my kin that might have been cured. I hope you understand that is my choice.
Rob
The Affordable Health Care is a zeppelin that is going to crash and burn. It relies too heavily on people like me to sign up. Good luck with that. You can’t keep Obama in office forever. I also intend to boycott any business that promotes this nonsense.
Rob
Rob
It's like education... Even though you may not have kids you sure do benefit from America having well educated citizens.
(Yes, education needs a lot of fixing but it's better than no education)
Rob
Tell me, who would you rather pay for, a fat cat who decides what your coverage should be, or a civil serpent? (yes, I picked that from spell check!)
I find it amazing that folks deny that eventually they will have health problems that will drain them.
Rob
I agree with the statement from the Declaration of Independence. However this does not mean that people can do nothing and get everything they want or need. It means we are all free to do with our life what we will and it is up to us to do it. Nobody, including the government has the right to take my life, my freedom, or prevent my pursuit of happiness.
However things like Universal Health care do take away my freedoms at the very least. I do not want to fund the health care of "society". If I decide someone I know could use some help, and I have the means, I have the freedom of choice to help them. It's amazing how generous many people really are by choice, without the government forcing this upon them.
Shriner's Hospitals are an excellent example, again where doctors and staff aren't in it just for the money and a lot of kids are helped.
Rob
Rob
Rob
I think the right wing has hijacked much of Ayn Rand's work, (much like some "Christians" have hijacked the bible) and in many strange ways twisted it to support their own agendas.
It's fun showing just how ludicrous the right wing is when they do that.
The book: Pretty much all of it. My favorite parts, strangely both in the book and the movies, are when Dagney trades her necklace for the bracelet, thus speaking volumes, and the first train over the Metal rails. There were a few moments in the film when the production value slipped slightly, but that was minor compared to the triumph of the moment.
Rob
I was asking more about what you got out of Atlas philosophically. Referring to the bracelet scene (one of my favorites as well), you stated "thus speaking volumes."
What were the volumes that you got out of that moment?
BTW, "Dagney" is spelled "Dagny."
I liked the notion that she was able to assert herself so completely and the wife was so completely clueless about how things really work. I had a wife like that once.
The train thing was simply raw feeling good about the whole situation that brought it to that point.
I've always been curious if the Engineer of that train was paid as a union member, if he was a scab, or some other way was found to drive the train. Except for Dagny standing up to the silly union thug and showing just how petty his "demands" were it wasn't followed up as to how the Engineer was chosen, unless I simply missed it.
Rob
When you responded to RockyMountainPirate's question of "Have you read the book?" with "Yes, several times." we thought you meant you actually read it from cover to cover - not that you read ABOUT it.
You should give the book a shot. Nothing speaks for the book better than the book. You may be surprised to learn that it's not what you think.
In the meantime, welcome to the Gulch. We're glad to have you and look forward to watching you evolve.
P.S. You don't have to end each of your posts with "Rob." We know it's you.
Hey, I heard that!
I can get away with it because I address him as Mr. Desapio. :)
Regards,
O.A. Just in case you didn't know... :)
Instead of abusing you have a chance to teach here. Are you up to it?
Rob
Guess you don't know the answer either. Maybe you can call in and ask Rush.
Rob
You are becoming way too predictable....
Quite frankly it could be said in a very broad way that I was quite over qualified as Howard Roark was played, and figuratively shot down for many of the same reasons. Until I learned how different I was I was very confused. "The Fountainhead" helped my enlightenment, but it wasn't exclusive.
Rob
You are a walking, talking, contradiction: on one hand you promote unions, and then you denounce them.
You claim that they are the last hope for the workers, and then tell us that you joined one in protest, and "never needed or wanted a union to bargain for me".
Talk to the hand. I have better things to do with my bandwidth....
And use the same logic.
This is becoming way too boring...!
So I am a slow reader. ;-)
Except that other nations have proven that health care is both a smaller part of GNP and less expensive per person.
America with its system is 18, 19, or 20.
Have you investigated SS, Medicaid, and Medicare? For some conditions you don't need to be 65.
If as you say some are cheating the system a legitimate illness should be a shoo in.
Rob
What I don't understand is: why do you wish to take this chance away and let 'em die just so you personally can get what you want?
Dathan
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre... U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds."
No "force" necessary for most folks. Other countries have adopted it through their assorted legislative processes and we have gotten thus far with Obamacare via the legislative process in spite of the lies that have had to be overcome.
Rob
To be fair I see your point, we do have control over our government, we elected our leaders and not enough people raised their voices in protest when things like this happened. But your approving the tyranny of the majority. You're saying that personal judgement doesn't matter if the majority agrees it's good for you. There's no way any human should have to live their life. If I want to smoke and drink and party till I die that's my choice. It's my choice if I want to trust modern medicine. It's NOT my choice if I want to pay taxes, or pay for other people's medicine.
That fact remains today.
The midterm elections of 2010 prove that ObamaCare would have been a major 'fail' in a Democracy....
Nope. Obamacare passed muster through the Supreme Court. Further, AGAIN, why do I have to pay for wars I don't want? We are a society. Unless you want to drop out and go somewhere else you need to comply with the rules.
For reasons enumerated earlier (contagious diseases, etc.) it benefits all to be covered.
We truly are a society. Get used to America.
If you don't like it, rather than telling someone else to get another job, or increase their value, etc., YOU are free to find a country that suits you more. Go there if America isn't good enough for you.
Rob
But your point about "No "force" necessary for most folks means force is necessary for the rest. This was Hitler's argument.
But more generally, democracy means everyone will have to follow the majority to participate in the society. We are not arguing this. We are arguing the specific applications of this policy. There are more women than men in the USA. If the women vote to force all jobs to go to women, then by your logic, it's good enough for most folks.
Democracy is not an excuse for crime - that is a mob mentality, and it is the argument you fall back to every time (I was hoping for something more in pressing you, but back to the same spot). The flaw in your position is that you are merging democracy with morality. Democracy is a means to realize morality when properly applied, not a moral perfection of its own. But democracy depends on clear thinking by the majority, and that is the nature of this dialog - to clarify thinking and to challenge points. The reason this post is so long is because, as you have called out, it is full of strawman arguments. But the main one is yours - you relegate the point of challenge to a challenge of democracy as soon as your primary point fails.
I'm bored now.
Bye.
BTW, George Washington grew hemp. Why can't we do that now?
Oh, George also owned slaves.
I'm glad things change, except that hemp thing.
Rob
The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over 'stupid vs. non-stupid'.
They are only supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
You are not only beating a dead horse, but the wrong horse to boot.
Why do you think you know more than the SCOTUS? What are your credentials to discuss law?
BTW, I can't help but wonder... Clarence Thomas's marriage to a white woman was illegal not so long ago. I wonder if that had any influence on the vote for same sex marriage?
Rob
Absolutely false. I am arguing that it is less expensive and we would get better care, as has been demonstrated time and again.
Better results, less cost! Ayn Rand would approve.
Rob
Btw your statement, better results for less cost applies to every human endeavor. I'm sure Karl Marx would approve of better results and less cost in most situations. The flip side of that is not everyone wants to cut corners and save money. Some people want to take the long road just for the hell of it and that's terrific.
Rob
"Obamacare Poll: Most Americans Still Oppose Health Care Law"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/27...
The minority of Americans (Rob is their lobbyist) are forcing their wants on the majority of us.
That means that only 35% disapprove of the law. The rest either approve of it where it is, or want it to go FARTHER.
Seems to me you are in the minority by a wide margin when it comes to Universal Health Care.
Did you ever hear of "figures don't lie, but some liars sure can figure?"
Remember, much of the disapproval of the law is that it didn't go far enough.
That's called compromise. Obama hit somewhere near the middle.
Rob
So, as you tell others to choose more to their liking it works for you too. Take your skills, selfish attitude, and noise to some other place. America has decided for itself.
Rob
Rob
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163253/americ...
or:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...
or:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...
The health care should be the same for ALL Americans.
Rob
Please make sure both ends of the bungee cord are tied off before you try to make those kind of leaps of logic. Otherwise it is likely you will be crushed.
Rob
BTW, you really shouldn't try to tell folks what I'm "thinking." Just accept the fact that Congress has exempted itself.
Rob
So far, everyone understands where you are coming from. Congratulations!
When, and if, the Congress convenes in some grassy field, they will be sitting under an OSHA free sky. As of now, they are using a building that adheres to OSHA guidelines...proved by your own findings.
Other laws were not part of the discussion, and you are trying to jump track...to avoid the inevitable head-on collision.
Fact is that our society has many people who earned their retirement. We also need to admit that there are health reasons why some folks can't work. Further, there are also folks who can't get a job because they are too old, the wrong color, or the wrong religion.
Why do so many draw such heavy lines? "Them & Us" is usually motivated by either fear or greed.
Rob
Rob
He was referring to the 47% of Americans that do not pay any income taxes, and stating (correctly) that there was no chance of them voting for anyone that would change that statistic.
He was telling it like it is...that a fiscal conservative was already 47% behind, and getting tougher.
That's not what I got from the clip I saw. BTW, what do you think of all those corporations who through legal gyrations have off shore operations to avoid American taxes? I wish I could do that as in individual, but alas it's denied me no matter how much I make unless I incorporate or move elsewhere..
Rob
The "47%" statistic has been floated around for quite a while, and long before Romney's speech.
Accurate, or not, it has acquired it's own unique place in American political discussions:
"47% will pay no federal income tax"
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes...
" "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said."
http://www.bing.com/search?q=47%25+of+am...
"Income Tax: 47% Of American Households Won't Pay ANY This Year, New Report Says"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07...
"
47% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax
Tax day is just Christmas for many."
http://www.newser.com/story/85517/47-of-...
I could do this all night...but just accept the fact that I was right.
Rob
Corporate taxation is the antithesis to a robust economy, and hence, jobs.
Corporate taxation in excess drives our producers offshore, along with the money blood flow.
One more point is that many have the mindset that for some reason we _owe_ the government and that paying taxes is an expression of gratitude or civic duty - as if that money was the government's in the first place! This is wholly false. The government didn't earn that money. It demands it as a cost of society, but not because it is providing value commensurate with its cost. There is no better example of this than our massive $16 Trillion debt.
I think you're falling for msnbc b.s. People who earned their retirement are not moochers, and there are some people who cannot work, but the entitlement programs are so abused, and the gov encourage them to be abused (advertising food stamps etc)...and "the wrong color" comment you just made is nonsense. Business owners who are hiring want good workers, period, age, skin color, and religion is not a factor. Where do you get this from?
Define "them and us", and also "fear and greed".
"Them and us" is often a tactic used by leaders to rouse up the masses. Whether pitted against the darn government, Muslums, or "fags" (as in the case of the ripe rev. Phelps) some pending apocalypse because it's "their" fault is often used.
Fear and Greed speak for themselves.
BTW, are you falling for rush limbaugh bs? See, I can use lower case too.
Rob
Can you say that sometimes unions are good for society?
Rob
Unions? A cancer. Yes, unions served their purpose for a time securing safe working conditions and a fair wage for their members. That time is long past. Employers, I've been one 3 times in my life, have to treat people with respect by offering a solid wage, health care, time off, and vacation time to keep quality people. If McD's in NYC, or any business, is treating its employee's poorly, those employees can always quit. If enough people quit and continue to quit the company is no more, right? Does a union need to collect money from the employees to tell them to quit a job where they aren't being treated properly? Hardly. The union is there simply to strong-arm an owner into acquiescing to the demands of his/her subordinates - the people he agreed to pay wages to for a level of service rendered so they could survive. Look to Detroit for the shining example of unions and what they can do.
No business is exempt from OSHA guidelines.
You are living in the Grapes of Wrath era, and need to check a calendar.
But Congress is.
Rob
OSHA made them put in seat belts...so they wouldn't fall out of their chairs as they slept.
Next will be inflatable bags, since Pelosi hit her head on the desk.
You were joking? Right???
Rob
But it doesn't matter, because it is not exempt from the OSHA guidelines, or the handicap laws for that matter. Federal buildings are the first to meet those standards....
Hence: 'You were joking? Right???'
"Consider the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. For all its good intentions, OSHA is considered by many companies a bane of their existence, the source of a constant stream of regulations and enormous costs, often for relatively small benefits. Sometimes the rules are important. Sometimes they are silly. Either way, it’s no concern of our national legislature, which, in its wisdom, has exempted itself.
OSHA Exemption
Actually, the entire federal government is exempted from OSHA. But federal agencies are at least required to develop operational rules that are “consistent with” OSHA standards. This minimal requirement doesn’t include Congress, which turns out not to be an agency."
Is Bloomberg a sufficient authority for you: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08...
Rob
This began with your thinking that Congress was a "business".
Nobody is really alone. It takes society to build the infrastructure for folks to make money from it. That includes roads, schools, a healthy labor pool, and defense. That's not "socialism" but common sense.
Please tell me, which "individual" created the highways, airports, sewers, and water?
The point is that society creates an environment within which some individuals can produce and distribute more than they otherwise might.
How many cars can be made without someone else mining the iron for steel or rubber for the tires? How can one of your alleged super achievers survive if he had to gather and hunt their own food?
Nobody does it alone anymore. Society makes it possible.
Rob
As for your coporation being a person I know that its a degree of legalese that I am not that well acquainted with. I can look at a corporation as an entity before I designate it as a person. I'm sure that the "person" status conveys some legal aspect that you are trying to make - here is your opportunity.
Just one small aspect of professionals, doctors. Many work for the military that pays far below what a doctor can make outside. Doctors Without Borders offers fine medical care for free. Kids don't pay for care at Shriners' Hospitals.
Even the alleged "evil" abortion doctors who allow women to control their own bodies only make about $55,000 each year.
See: http://www.simplyhired.com/salaries-k-ab... "Average Abortion Doctor Salaries
The average salary for abortion doctor jobs is $55,000. Average abortion doctor salaries can vary greatly due to company, location, industry, experience and benefits."
The very low average is because so many donate their time. IOW, not everyone works for the "paycheck."
In fact from a personal point of view I'd be suspect of a doctor who was in it just for the money. Sadly too many are, but there are still some who are in medicine just to help people.
Rob
But, time and again labor is discounted when it comes to earning a living wage. That's why they gang up and protect themselves. Might you please consider the notion that some corporations are out to exploit others? MickyD's is an excellent example.
Rob
I could never staff any of my business with people who were not paid well. I paid for quality, personality and professionalism. If I hadn't I would never have lasted as long as I did.
Really? I thought corporations were for one thing: TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE INVESTORS.
A meal at McD's selling for $8 has to turn a profit. Where exactly do you think that profit comes from when there are 24-35 people working that store? Wages. That is not greed its the proper business model built to make a profit using an unskilled, inexperienced labor force which is paid according to their skillset (or lack thereof) . No one, not yet, is forced to work at McD's.
From each according to their ability. To each according to their need. Who determines this, you? Pelosi? Obama? H. Clinton (she does have a quote)? Or perhaps everyone should receive one-livable wage regardless of their skills?
The tire supplier is also a private enterprise founded by some person risking all they owned to build a business. They are in business because someone builds cars and needs tires. Same with the steel supplier, glass, upholstery, wires, spedometer cables.... All private enterprises. And what they build, a car, is sold, at a profit to you or to me. We get to use that car that we bought on roads that we paid for, and are maintained at our expense.
At most, society is a collection of specialists, specialized labor. I don't need to mine and smelt my own steel, because someone has gone through risk and hard work and the learning curve to produce steel at a reasonable cost to me, and for a profit for them.
You are a specialist, as well in whatever you do, you don't slaughter your own cows, because someone else does it do you, at a profit. Society is composed of individuals each and every one seeking their own personal satisfaction, gain, survival.
I don't spend my working life looking for ways to shift the fruits of my labor to someone else's survival. And I know they are not either.
You are parroting Obama way too much and buying into the same nonsense. Those roads were built by a company employed by society's agent - the government. The company made a profit (value to them) and society got the roads to use to facilitate travel and trade (value to them). Both profit - literally. A standard market transaction which liberal know-nothings try to pervert to justify more government spending.
This is the fundamental flaw in these liberal claims - that somehow roads, bridges, and other public works were created by charity. They weren't. Churches and museums are built by charity. At some point everything else comes down to profit. All you have to do is look for it. And these public works in no way take away from the efforts of those who use them! That is the second half of this pernicious liberal lie - that somehow a business' success is dependent on these things provided by "government". That is a wholly offensive statement to any entrepreneur as it undermines all the blood, sweat, and tears they invested to make their business. Businesses succeed DESPITE the government - not because of it!
It took Obama 2 weeks to leave that bumper sticker quote behind him...PLEASE don't tell me that we are looking forward to another 1 1/2 weeks of shaking this replay off.... ;-)
I live in the real world. Not everyone has choices and the brain power to "make it happen."
I saw a comedian a few years ago with Parkinson's disease. She was shaking on the stage and said something along the lines of, "Sure I got choices... I wanna be a brain surgeon."
Why don't you want to accept the notion that this world isn't perfect and understand that there are different people in it?
Rob
With your example, you just managed to piss in your Post Toasties!
She was disabled, but had the gumption to find a way to make a living nonetheless.
No government entity did this for her...and no union demanded that she be able to perform on stage.
Throw out your Piss Toasties, and look for an example that actually supports your entitlement view of the world....
That's a fact.
Rob
Yes. It can (I realize there is some corruption) lead to folks getting by on a little less for awhile so they as a group can get a better wage. At Micky D's if an individual hits the street they are immediately replaced. The corporation / owner has all the cards. When employees can act together (as individuals can do, for example no single person can win a war, remember Ender is fictional) we as human beings act as a group to improve things.
Besides, a corporation is simply a bunch of people who have gotten together to run a business. Why can't a union be a bunch of people gathered together to provide labor?
Rob
Isn't McD providing the opportunity? There are many levels of skill in companies. The more skill one provides the more cards one holds. The idea is to move out of the first level of employment. The problem with how unions set up, the lowest common denominator unskilled labor position gets paid eventually as a higher skilled position. It is not free market and is irrational from the company's perspective. It's one reason pension plans of lowest skilled workers can bring down a company due to salary and benefits. What is the incentive for an unskilled laborer to move into the next bracket? Time in the position with one company should only be one of many factors in wage increases and pension. It has become the number 1 factor through unionized labor.
How many part timers at McDonald's are eligible for the retirement plan?
Rob
Any, here is what I found about Hostess...
"Dow Jones Uncovers Alleged Looting At Hostess Amid Talk Of ‘Shared Sacrifice’ By Execs
April 4, 2012
DJ Creditors Say Hostess May Have 'Manipulated' Executive Pay
By Rachel Feintzeig
Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW
Rob
When a company is facing bankruptcy and restructuring, it is a time of great turmoil within the organization. The role of the CEO,CFO, CTO, etc. is very stressful and demanding, Often, they no longer have their jobs after the re-structuring. A company will pay a high premium to get the most skilled CEOs at this particular point. I am not saying that corruption never happens, I am providing some objective support for compensation and parachutes.
Why do I see so many around here blaming the Union with little or no information, yet when it comes to management there isn't ever enough "information?"
More: "When a company is facing bankruptcy and restructuring, it is a time of great turmoil within the organization. The role of the CEO,CFO, CTO, etc. is very stressful and demanding, Often, they no longer have their jobs after the re-structuring. A company will pay a high premium to get the most skilled CEOs at this particular point. I am not saying that corruption never happens, I am providing some objective support for compensation and parachutes."
ROFL... A Golden Parachute for the
pilot and crew as the plane goes into the ground. They get praised for a job well done and everyone else dies.
That's the image I have for management that crashes a company into bankruptcy.
Rob
Never said or implied any such thing. In fact the unions are sadly far too often used to shield those who are only marginally qualified over those who might excel.
I've NEVER said Unions are good. I simply think that it should be a free market where a bunch of owners of a corporation can talk with a bunch of workers. Why do so many have a problem understanding the notion of equality? Isn't that what America is about?
Sadly there are some laws in place that are very bad, but that doesn't change the fundamental notion that folks should be able to negotiate from an equal basis.
Rob
Human beings do not improve things... a human being improves him/her self and that improvement extends to those around them. If enough do this society changes (The United States of America as opposed to the rest of the world - Jamestown is a pretty good example about individualism over the cooperative)
Pretty much only when it's a government program might it work as you suggest.
ROFL AJA... Very few folks build a company so others might work. They generally do it for power and money or money and power.
Rob
Jamestown was a corporation as a business venture, to make money (for the British empire). It was run cooperatively until people started dying. Only when the seed was distributed among the remaining settlers and they were told to fed for themselves did the colony make a resurgence. In other words a cooperative/ communist approach failed and self interest saved the colony.
I believe you meant Jamestown...
Quite right!
O.A.
Sometimes when I am in a hurry and flustered I feel I am likely to get my own name wrong. :)
People work for money, nothing else. If you enjoy your work as well, then good on ya'. And as for power, it isn't about power to control other's lives, it is about power to control your own. And part of the machinery assembled to give someone money and power, a corporation, are employees. Each employee freely chooses to do the job in exchange for the pay. It is a very simple deal struck between free persons. Each party gives and gets an agreed value. Unions and their intervention on behalf of one party, skew the exchange of value. They coerce the employer to pay more for the same work/value.
Let's see how that worked out: "Captain John Smith became the colony’s leader in September 1608 – the fourth in a succession of council presidents – and established a “no work, no food” policy."
BTW, it didn't solve the root problems.
As they say, "And there is MORE!" Let's take a look at when they really turned the corner and enjoyed financial success with tobacco. From the same page: "The first documented Africans in Virginia arrived in 1619. They were from the kingdom of Ndongo in Angola, West Central Africa, and had been captured during war with the Portuguese. While these first Africans may have been treated as indentured servants, the customary practice of owning Africans as slaves for life appeared by mid-century. The number of African slaves increased significantly in the second half of the 17th century, replacing indentured servants as the primary source of labor."
BTW, in America we finally decided that people can't be "property" when slavery ended. What's the justification for "property" being people?
Rob
http://hallingblog.com/corporations-have...
Twain talked about a union for riverboat captains and they did not violate anyone's rights, did a number of positive moves for navigation on the major rivers. When they were no longer as relevant, they went away.
An excellent perspective for a union. My own "shop" doesn't have a union, notwithstanding an election several years ago.
Ben & Jerry's is an excellent example how they can both pay a livable wage (almost twice the minimum) and get by. You can get more information at: http://www.benjerry.com/activism/peace-a...
Rob
Just curious...since I don't know.
I've been unable to get any solid answer. Please check out: Is Ben & Jerry's unionized?" found at: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/18/...
Rob
Unions, and the Democrat Party, are one and the same...so Rozar's hopes that "government isn't backing the unions" have been dashed decades ago.
Alternately, Rozar has link under Entertainment to a "Cracked" magazine put-down of "Atlas Shrugged" in which they note that while many CEOs claim to embrace the book and movie, in fact, most of the bad guys are themselves other CEOs.
Then you get into tax breaks. Objectivists argue well that you should be able to keep your money or get it back, especially if you are a corporation. But in a society where taxes are pervasive, one entity's breaks are everyone else's burdens. The practical effect can be seen in Detroit where GM especially but all the automotives cleared out whole neighborhoods of homes, sending people into other communities to pay taxes there, while GM et al did not pick up the tab for their own properties. It's complicated. Better to live your own life and mind your business.
Yet, at the same time I remember old Newt saying: "Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising."
First, what's going to become of those janitors who were supporting families? Oh! I get it, they can get money from the kid working as a janitor. That and a couple more folks working at MickyD's will almost make ends meet. Second... Well, there really is no second until you can explain child labor and how it exploits kids.
Rob
BTW, Japan has excellent health care for every one, yet it costs much less than Americans pay per person:
Check out: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
Rob
You post: "Perhaps it has something to do with decades where Japan didn't have to pay for a military?"
Was the news about Japan's new aircraft carrier wrong this week? Hmmmm, looks pretty real to me.
Not really. Are you trying to relate the cost of their military to the cost of medical care? Seems like apples and oranges to me.
The cost per person is less in Japan.
MOF, we are on par with Cuba, usually around 19 or 20 when it comes to health care based upon longevity and infant birth statistics. Yet, Cuba's cost is far less than ours. Further the "socialized" medical care in the other top industrialized countries (better than America) also cost way less than our care.
Our care has costs driven up by corporations committed to make money for the stockholders and little else.
There are excellent examples of how treatment can be given without extreme costs to patients through the Catholic health care systems and the Shriners. Certainly our military doctors aren't driven by a profit motive.
Rob
It is morally dishonest for people pushing nationalized healthcare to purposely use those statistics above. and the damage that misinformation has and is causing-makes Enron scandals look like child's play.
What about the other 20 countries that have done better than the US. Japan, England, etc. Are you suggesting that the US is the only country that counts in the convoluted way you've tried to explain?
Rob
Are you suggesting we can compare two different sets of data per grouping andand come up with a rational conclusion?
Can you show us WHERE that is in WHO standards? After all, you CLAIM America has a different standard than the rest of the world but excuse me if I ask for proof. I suggest, because it's YOUR claim we are treated differently that YOU prove it. The WHO would be a good place to start.
Oh, and please don't ask me to prove your what I see as your loony theory. Any AFA, or any other sites with an agenda don't count. WHO would be perfect.
Rob
Rob
The difference between the first and third world is hardly aven comparable.
http://hallingblog.com/us-health-care-ho...
If we could repair every ailment with 100% certainly then your premise would have weight. A doctor can still do his very best, using everything at his disposal to save someone and a patient can still die.
I know sometimes folks accuse me of being a little dense, however...
Please explain to be how the cost of defense in Japan contributed to better and reduced health care?
I'm just not able to make the connection.
Now, the carrier from Faux news: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/06/......
Last I heard helicopters were aircraft. And, it's still a very big boat.
Rob
Please explain how that affects the per person cost and why it is still less than what Americans spend.
Rob
If the government spends the entire ten grand on the project it counts as ten grand spent for patient care. Regardless of where the money comes from the OVERALL cost per patient is less than in America.
It's not what each patient pays, it's what it costs to treat each patient, regardless of where the money comes from.
Rob
Posted by AJAshinoff 17 minutes ago
the influx of government monies directly lowers cost to the consumer. Eg. if a procedure cost $10,000 and the government is paying $8,000 it leaves the consumer to pay $2,000."
Nope. The per person is averaged over the entire population and it's determined just how much is spent. It doesn't matter if the cost is subsidized or not.
It costs each Japanese citizen so much. It doesn't matter where the money comes from.
Rob
it does MATTER to the people it actually comes from!
I think I finally understand where your coming from. Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to fantasyland.
Do you want America to compete in a far market in the auto industry? Great. Then you should be a strong advocate for universal health care administered by Uncle Sam.
Why? BECAUSE the Japanese, Canadian, England, and the rest of the manufacturers don't have to dangle heath insurance (and those expenses) to assure their employees are healthy.
Consequently they can sell their cars at a more competitive price. AND THERE'S MORE! Because their economy spends less on Health Care per person than we do they get a lot more bang for their buck.
Rob
Not only better health care but less expensive.
BTW, Doctors are ALREADY forced to work for below what there might be a "market value" for their services. Insurance companies set rates so the fat cats can have their limos. AND the stockholders, my my, the stockholders.
And when an insurance companies' portfolio slumps up go the rates.
And look at how the insurance companies "protect" doctors from mal practice! If we had universal health care those costs would be taken out of the hands of fat cat insurance companies and put directly into medical care. If a doctor has truly screwed up an investigation should be held to determine the future of prospects.
BTW, if the patient dies should the doctor be paid? It certainly is a failure as I see it if they are charging for it.
Rob
Bit NO on "If a business doesn't want to partner with a union it shouldn't have to, can we agree to that?"
I repeat, why should management have a bunch of investors on one side ganged up against an individual? If individual workers can gain strength with a common interest that should be allowable, just as corporations gain strength from combining their resources.
Again, why do you advocate inequality in America? Why is a worker any less important than management?
Rob
Rob
Once again: EVEN PLAYING FIELD.
It's that simple.
Rob
"Union and civil-service rules made it virtually impossible to fire anyone. A six-step disciplinary process provided job protection to anyone with a pulse, regardless of poor performance or bad behavior. Even the time-honored management technique of moving someone up or sideways where he would do less harm didn't work in Detroit: Job descriptions and qualification requirements were so strict it was impossible for management to rearrange the organization chart. I was a manager with virtually no authority over personnel. "
And quite frankly that sucks. It's too bad our political leaders didn't have the guts to stand up for the people they were elected to serve.
We MUST get rid of the bad rules and make sure the playing field gets even again.
Both management and unions should work under the notion that if they kill the golden goose it's bad for everyone.
Rob
Respectfully,
O.A.
It's a bigger problem than that.
And how do you stop corporations that might be foreign owned from buying political favors? That's a double edge sword.
That's really tricky without government regulation. So, the question becomes, "Where to regulate."
Without some sort of oversight what interest will anyone have in ending bad practices? The trick is to make it minimally impact the negotiation process without tilting the playing field.
My idea would not to touch unions or owners. Let them spend their money. However for politicians ALL contributions should be made available to the public by candidates. This would include indirect contributions (as in PACs) so that the American Public would know who is trying to buy our government.
More from OA: "The government fines and even breaks up companies when they feel they are too big for their britches."
Not lately. "Too Big To Fail" seems to be the latest cry. Do you have an example of a company that was broken up since Ma Bell that turned out to be a huge failure. In fact the merger between Comcast and NBC with the vertical integration and potential for a monopoly sure deserves a close look. The public can't win when there is an unregulated monopoly. You know, no competition.
"They will not reproach the unions though because they are largely a giant monolithic voting block. Many of the politicians are beholding to them."
There are many politicians that are beholding to corporations too. Adolph Coors and the Koke Brothers are excellent examples.
From both directions it's bad. At this point I again think that daylight is best so the American Public see who is supporting who. Then they can decide if it's better to have a politician bought and paid for by the Koke Brothers, Monsanto, China, Japan, or a Teachers', Police, Fire, or Grocery store union.
Each voter can then decide for themselves.
There should be no political input into the negotiation between management and labor as possible. It should be the job (interesting theory anyhow) for our government to assure a level playing field and that's it.
BTW, OSHA (even though there are abuses) and other things relating to health and safety shouldn't be left to a political process but a common sense one. We don't want anyone dead if something could have been done about it.
Rob
It is an interesting book or movie plot point, but has it really occurred? Please give an example.
Rob
This won't be acknowledged, whatever.
You do, however, have the patience of Job!
I agree that letting them go to a foreign power was a mistake.
Rob
Most recently in the America Invents Act, Congress stripped the patent rights from a little known company, Data Treasury. They had patents covering certain check verification systems that the big banks infringed. One line in that legislation stripped ONE company of particular patent rights so the big banks would not have to pay for stealing. If you go to Data Treasury's website there is a link telling you how these investors were defrauded by Big Banks and their government.
As Paul Harvy would say: And there's more!
Part of that is: "There has been controversy concerning the company. In 2004, the New York Times characterized DataTreasury as "a company whose only business, other than one client, appears to be suing other companies."[3] The banking industry has accused DataTreasury's lawyers of patent trolling and DataTreasury themselves of abusing the patent system by buying the patents they are enforcing.[6] The Senate version of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (which was never enacted) contained an amendment, lobbied for by banks, tailored to protect banks from DataTreasury infringement litigation.[6] On the other hand, in 2010, just after DataTreasury won their first lawsuit, Claudio Ballard, who founded the company, was named inventor of the year.[7]" Yup, lots of folks wanna smear that company.
Looks to me like the big banks (corporations) are the guilty party and they are the ones who are the looters.
Doesn't remind me of government fraud or influence so much as the attack by Wesley Mouch on Rearden egged on by other corporations. That's not intrinsically government's fault but in fact is the fault of corporate manipulators who bend government to their will and evil plans.
Rob
Fair enough. There is a place for law. Corporations should not be allowed to practice cronyism any more than unions. Politicians should be held accountable also. Corporations have money, but so do the unions. The unions also have political organization and many more votes than any corporation. Which do you suppose is likely to exert greater political pressure? Votes and intimidation are weighted in favor of the unions.
Unregulated monopolies? Have no competition? Free markets would deal with that and not all monopolies are bad.
Google search keywords, “justice department fines 2013” returned About 43,100,000 results. A plethora of fines levied against businesses recently.
https://www.google.com/search?noj=1&...
A google search of “Justice department fines business” returns with About 21,200,000 results.
Why the unions good, corporations bad, inclination? Are all big union leaders pure, while the motives of all corporations are by virtue of their object being profit inherently evil? Isn’t the further acquisition of money the union’s object also?
I have no beef with the rank and file, but the leadership is no more pure than the politician that they purchase.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/03/union-...
Cronyism is not acceptable regardless of the source.
OSHA is an agency that has served its purpose and exceeded it. It has become another money making enterprise for the gov’t. and a burden to industry.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stosse...
We grant gov’t too much power and it sells it while it grows enormous and yet many cry “give me more.” There is the true villain, for the gov’t is the only body that can legally use force and we sanction the abuse with our ambivalence.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Rob
From there:All of which means that the real change in the cost of a Big Mac, or the dollar menu, if McDonald’s workers were paid $15 an hour is: nothing. For production costs simply do not determine the prices that can be achieved in a competitive market."
IOW, it will only change their profits. So, who is greedier? The workers who sweat and toil each hour, or the investors who put their money down and grab it back with both hands?
BTW, there is some discussion about automation and how that might cost some jobs, thus shooting the Union in their own footsies.
It will be interesting to see how this negotiation shakes out.
Negotiation???? Something you believe in, right AJA?
Rob
why is it you think you have a right to tell others what they can do with their money, time, property and labor? How are you better than an apologist for a slave owner?
Now to address the specific: "why is it you think you have a right to tell others what they can do with their money, time, property and labor?"
I'm advocating no such thing. The union and the corporation (both groups of people) can negotiate. I don't advocate where it comes out.\
Rob
"The artificially high wages forced on the economy by compulsory unionism imposed economic hardships on other groups—particularly on non-union workers and on unskilled labor, which was being squeezed gradually out of the market. Today’s widespread unemployment is the result of organized labor’s privileges and of allied measures, such as minimum wage laws. For years, the unions supported these measures and sundry welfare legislation, apparently in the belief that the costs would be paid by taxes imposed on the rich. The growth of inflation has shown that the major victim of government spending and of taxation is the middle class. Organized labor is part of the middle class—and the actual value of labor’s forced “social gains” is now being wiped out.
Labor’s concern was aroused only in defense of its rights; still, whoever defends his own rights defends the rights of all. But labor was pursuing a contradictory policy, which could not be maintained for long. In many issues—notably in its support of welfare-state legislation—labor violated the rights of others and fertilized the growth of the government’s power. And, today, labor is in line to become the next major victim of advancing statism."
Rob
Nope. Please quit trying to put forward something that isn't real.
Let me detail it again: A group of investors vs. a group of laborers.
It's that simple.
I advocate no government intervention or any special advantages for either side.
Rob
What part of "I advocate no government intervention or any special advantages for either side," don't you understand?
Clue: You really do look kinda silly when you try to make up my position and then argue against it.
Just in case you've never heard of it check this out: "what is a straw man argument ? | www.mathematicsofscience.com
www.mathematicsofscience.com/What_Is_a_S......
A straw man argument is an argument in which the oppositions true point of view is ignored and a substitute, false argument is imposed. And the argument is imposed without ever really having the true oppositions viewpoint heard and argued."
I can understand how some folks in their enthusiasm can jump into such a mode in order to "win" at any cost, but the fact is that now you have been informed of what you are doing. If you choose to do it again it's my inclination that you are doing it willfully and with the knowledge of what you are doing. Quite frankly sir, I find such to be quite dishonest.
As a reminder here is my position: I advocate no government intervention or any special advantages for either side.
Do you need me to clarify it anymore?
Rob
Rob2: "First, what's going to become of those janitors who were supporting families? Oh! I get it, they can get money from the kid working as a janitor. That and a couple more folks working at MickyD's will almost make ends meet. Second... Well, there really is no second until you can explain child labor and how it exploits kids."
Rob3:"Ben & Jerry's is an excellent example how they can both pay a livable wage (almost twice the minimum) and get by."
Rob,
I am responding directly to your comments in all cases. Rob 1. An emotionally charged statement that grants virtue to one side and vice to the other. You clearly advocate for one group here.
Rob2: Teens working a part-time position violates child labor laws????? The rest of your statement stands to show bias.
Rob3: "living wage" inherently is a concept which requires govt intervention in the labor market. No free market advocate would use that phrase. Oh, and unions use that phrase all the time.
"I advocate no government intervention or any special advantages for either side." The three quotes above are in conflict with this statement. I am not putting words in your mouth, You are being deceptive.
Here goes kahling again: "Rob3: "living wage" inherently is a concept which requires govt intervention in the labor market. No free market advocate would use that phrase."
I'm for a free market in most cases. (I have some very carefully thought out exceptions I'll get to later.)
Are you opposed to a man negotiating for a wage that he can support his family with? Yes or no will suffice...
Are you opposed to him working with like minded men who are also trying to negotiate against the Corporate group? Yes or no will suffice.
To me negotiating anything less than a living wage would be against what Ayn Rand believed in.
Corporate Bosses and their cronies certainly get way more than a living wage and the divide is getting bigger. Generally it is because a product is produced and value is added, but sadly too often there are those who loot and manipulate Wall Street rather than contribute anything for what they get.
What do you think of those looters?
Rob
It is amazing how you leftists can twist your brains to make an argument to accommodate your preconceived notions. In logic, it is called pepito pricipcii, or, begging the question. The undefined "living wage" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. You say "I'm for a free market in most cases. (I have some very carefully thought out exceptions I'll get to later.)". You mean that Capitalism cannot work without government intervention or as a caretaker. Also this "Yes or no will suffice." courtroom claptrap is just your way to interrogate a witness. I don't think khalling needs to jump to your snappy commands
Really??? Is that the best you got?
Run out of reasonable discussion?
As for exceptions, enough of your straw men. I'll let you know when I want to discuss it.
BTW, I NEVER said that Capitalism cannot work without government intervention or as a caretaker. In fact I strongly support a mostly free market place.
An example of something government is good for is to set standards. How much is a pound, how long is a foot, and a whole bunch of standards.
Or, would you suggest that we all accept different standards depending upon who we are dealing with?
Rob
mostly free market place."
Or do you weakly support a
totally free marketplace?
I have thought for a long time
that one can be as precise
with words as one can be
with mathematics.
Your"mostly free" is as wishy-
washy as Nancy Pelosi's
utterances.
No Government is not needed
to set standards. The free
market is perfectly capable
of doing so.
When will you have more
exceptions?
Rob
What was your point, again?
Why do you object to management grouping their huge resources and object to individuals gaining strength from each other? Seems like a double standard to me.
Rob
Any negotiation of this type works best when made from a position of mutual benefit. The worker has more or improved skills and can produce more and the employer has a need for those skills or production. It can't work from the position of just 'I need more.'
Prove your worth, you can get more. Just be there with no or minimal skills, you get what you're worth.
Rob
Working together is part of what has made America great.
Rob