Unions stealing "occupy bostons" thunder

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Like Thomas J. Flatley who came here from Ireland in 1950 with $32 in his pocket, he only ended up making about $1.6 Billion. Gave millions back to charities. His business continues even though he passed on.

My wife and her family came here when she was 11, father died shortly after,mom was dirt poor and didnt speak english, she put her self through college working nights, her brothers opened their own business and put themselves through school. All are very, very successful.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Most jobs went over seas so that companies could pad their pockets, make no mistake about it. Consumers never reap the benefits when a company saves money, the owners or the investors do.

True - but its because its too expensive to manufacture here. If it were cheaper, they would not go overseas.

If Verizon cuts the benefits that so many think are too good, do you think that you as a consumer will reap some savings off your monthly bill? If you think that keep dreaming....

I agree, but as a consumer I can go elsewhere and so can employees. If VZ cant get the people to do the jobs, they'll have to improve wages and benefits to attract employees.

Im not saying its a perfect system, its not. I'm saying its not some trap or conspiracy, many work the system to their benefit. It takes sacrifice and work. I think the majority of americans are afraid of hard work. Its much easier to be cynical and blame the man than picking up a shovel and digging through the BS.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

If Verizon cuts the benefits that so many think are too good, do you think that you as a consumer will reap some savings off your monthly bill? If you think that keep dreaming....

I know you mention Verzion to make a point but have you ever had a Verizon guy come to your house? I can honestly say that there was 1 guy that actually was good out of probably 10 I've had come over. The others were the laziest "I'm beating the system" types of guys I've ever met. I have friends that used to work for Verizon, believe me the stories are insane. Guys getting all over other guys that have more than 4 completes in a day etc, etc. They are purposely underperforming so expectations aren't too high.

To follow up to your point, if a company like Verizon continues to increase benefits the consumer will bear the additional cost as an increase in their bill. In a free market, that is where competition steps in .

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I know you mention Verzion to make a point but have you ever had a Verizon guy come to your house? I can honestly say that there was 1 guy that actually was good out of probably 10 I've had come over. The others were the laziest "I'm beating the system" types of guys I've ever met. I have friends that used to work for Verizon, believe me the stories are insane. Guys getting all over other guys that have more than 4 completes in a day etc, etc. They are purposely underperforming so expectations aren't too high.

To follow up to your point, if a company like Verizon continues to increase benefits the consumer will bear the additional cost as an increase in their bill. In a free market, that is where competition steps in .

First I will say I am one of those guys. Second work is like a marathon some guys are extremely fast, but make many errors, others are very slow and make very few errors, then there are alot of guys in between. When I started 15 years ago a guy had to do 2- 2.5 repairs a day. Then it was raised every year. The number is not so much for us as much as it is to keep from paying managers their yearly bonuses for not making their quota. When you make the number they say, hmm he made it we need to raise the bar. At what point does the bar stop being raised? Seriously there is way more to doing a job than most people think, like not climbing a pole in front of your house until you inspect that pole, and the ones on each side. This alone takes approximately 10-15 minutes per pole. Multiply that by the number of climbs it takes for a guy working off of a ladder all day and you start to see some discrepancy between ladder guys, and bucket truck guys. But we all have the same target number. So my friend it is not as simple as you make it seem.

As your second point Verizon is not increasing prices to pay more for us, we are pretty much looking to keep what we have. They will not however lower your bill if we settle for less. In the free market the consumer is going to set the price, right now Verizon is beating the pants off of the competition when it comes to that. FWIw they made in the neighborhood of 16 Billion last year and because of tax loopholes paid very little in income tax.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Attachment 48778

If the "owners" own everybody and everything and the media and what you see and hear, then it follows that Carlin, being owned, is a schill for the "owners." I would, therefore, be wary of what he says--might be some sort of trap laid by the "owners." Oh, oh . . . we are all owned . . . this forum is OWNED . . . all these posts must be propaganda paid for and ordered by the "owners." But, of course, you can trust me and Spence.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I thought you were for the bailout? Some disaster was supposed to happen without it? Is it the HUGE risks and the miserable failure that you object to? Then why bail them out? Why reward the miserable failure? Do the bonuses put tens of thousands out of work?

I think the bailout was probably necessary to stop a cataclysmic chain of events. Even I didn't realize the degree to which our economy was channeled through so few bottlenecks.

That being said, the bigger issue seems to be the one way valve attached to the system. Taxpayers bail out the banks, but seem to have little leverage after the fact.

The protesters not only don't like the banks, or the bailouts that you approve of, but they also don't like capitalism. They want to eliminate capitalism. To them, apparently, the essence of capitalism is the creation of a 1% which sucks the life out of the 99% simply because that is their goal. Capitalism isn't about private property ownership, private investment to promote private business, a symbiotic financial relationship with free market enterprise for them-- it is the destruction of all that. I don't think they have a clear concept of what the word means. People use "capitalism" to mean all sorts of things, good or bad. Like most "systems," it depends on who use them and to what ends that create good or bad outcomes. Capitalism, for the most part, has facilitated some of the greatest economic good. Some "miserable failures" have resulted from its misuse. I don't know, nor do I suspect many of the prostesters know, what economic/financial method they want to replace capitalism. It sounds like they want more government control--some form of socialism.

I don't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism. The debate in this country isn't about free markets vs socialism. It's more like a fantasy free market vs a managed market. Even the most liberal of proposals don't look much at all like real socialism. Given a Republican President and Congress our economy will still look more like a managed market than a true free market.

If anything, this movement -- in the US at least -- is fueled by a simple frustration as is the Tea Party. Like the Tea Party the crazies get most of the attention, but the undercurrent is very similar.

Wha??? How did the so-called "American Dream" get involved with all this mess? What the heck IS the American Dream? What is your idea of the American Dream? Do the protesters have the same vision of an American Dream that you do?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but still to the point. I think the protesters think that the game has become increasingly rigged. Some of this might be to naivety of those just entering the workforce and some could be the expectations we put on ourselves.

I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system (government and private) is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value.

The bottom bottom line is that we need transformative leadership. While not the disaster some would make him out to be, Obama has not lived up to expectations and the GOP field isn't offering anything really new.

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

First I will say I am one of those guys.

Maybe you were the 1 out of 10 that came to my house that was good

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Second work is like a marathon some guys are extremely fast, but make many errors, others are very slow and make very few errors, then there are alot of guys in between.

I could be wrong but my feeling is the Union as a whole takes care of the guys that are average or subpar but not much for the great ones.

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

When I started 15 years ago a guy had to do 2- 2.5 repairs a day. Then it was raised every year. The number is not so much for us as much as it is to keep from paying managers their yearly bonuses for not making their quota.

I’m in sales and I have to produce each year and build off the year before. If I don’t they will be looking for someone to replace me. It not only makes me work harder and try to achieve more, but it also gives me satisfaction in reaching a new goals.

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

When you make the number they say, hmm he made it we need to raise the bar. At what point does the bar stop being raised? Seriously there is way more to doing a job than most people think, like not climbing a pole in front of your house until you inspect that pole, and the ones on each side. This alone takes approximately 10-15 minutes per pole. Multiply that by the number of climbs it takes for a guy working off of a ladder all day and you start to see some discrepancy between ladder guys, and bucket truck guys. But we all have the same target number. So my friend it is not as simple as you make it seem.

Great point, I totally agree that it’s not apples to apples (my buddy’s were more in the city and didn’t have to deal with poles too much). But if productivity stays the same and does not increase then it would be hard to justify future raises etc. Maybe the system to evaluate needs to be changed so that guys aren’t hitting say 4 completes before lunch and expected to shut down for the day by their peers.

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

As your second point Verizon is not increasing prices to pay more for us, we are pretty much looking to keep what we have. They will not however lower your bill if we settle for less. In the free market the consumer is going to set the price, right now Verizon is beating the pants off of the competition when it comes to that. FWIw they made in the neighborhood of 16 Billion last year and because of tax loopholes paid very little in income tax.

They is not only the managers and Verizon executives, “they” are the shareholders. Verizon has a very high stock dividend yield and many investors (some probably guys on this site) are the “they” sharing in the profits via stocks, dividends, 401K etc.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the bailout was probably necessary to stop a cataclysmic chain of events. Even I didn't realize the degree to which our economy was channeled through so few bottlenecks.

The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."

That being said, the bigger issue seems to be the one way valve attached to the system. Taxpayers bail out the banks, but seem to have little leverage after the fact.

Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.

I don't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism. The debate in this country isn't about free markets vs socialism. It's more like a fantasy free market vs a managed market. Even the most liberal of proposals don't look much at all like real socialism. Given a Republican President and Congress our economy will still look more like a managed market than a true free market.

One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism. As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.

If anything, this movement -- in the US at least -- is fueled by a simple frustration as is the Tea Party. Like the Tea Party the crazies get most of the attention, but the undercurrent is very similar.

If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but still to the point. I think the protesters think that the game has become increasingly rigged. Some of this might be to naivety of those just entering the workforce and some could be the expectations we put on ourselves.

"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?

I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system (government and private) is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value.

"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.

The bottom bottom line is that we need transformative leadership. While not the disaster some would make him out to be, Obama has not lived up to expectations and the GOP field isn't offering anything really new.

-spence

Transform what to what? Obama is trying to transform. Too much of us are resisting his transformation. But he may yet succeed. Give him Health Care and another term. So what is it, Spence, that needs to be transformed?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I could be wrong but my feeling is the Union as a whole takes care of the guys that are average or subpar but not much for the great ones.

*THIS* is my biggest issue with Unions and is the source of most trouble when dealing with them.

Unions result in no incentive to excel.

Whether it is a teacher's union, Verizon union, Teamsters or any other Local union - the guys who excel are reprimanded (or worse) by their coworkers. If one guy works too hard or puts in too much effort, it makes the lazy bum in the other truck look bad. There's also no incentive to excel because most union contracts provide guidelines of the work required. The union employees are only obligated to do the minimum required work and then that's it.

I know a number of union truck drivers. They get more leisure reading done during a work-week than I do in a year. Why? Because when they are running ahead of their minimum schedule, they sit at the loading dock and kill time as opposed to calling in for another load.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

*THIS* is my biggest issue with Unions and is the source of most trouble when dealing with them.

Unions result in no incentive to excel.

Whether it is a teacher's union, Verizon union, Teamsters or any other Local union - the guys who excel are reprimanded (or worse) by their coworkers. If one guy works too hard or puts in too much effort, it makes the lazy bum in the other truck look bad. There's also no incentive to excel because most union contracts provide guidelines of the work required. The union employees are only obligated to do the minimum required work and then that's it.

I know a number of union truck drivers. They get more leisure reading done during a work-week than I do in a year. Why? Because when they are running ahead of their minimum schedule, they sit at the loading dock and kill time as opposed to calling in for another load.

Let pose this question. In school, elementary through college, would you agree that some people (5% maybe) are at the top of the class, some (15% maybe ) are at the bottom of the class, and everyone else is pretty much considered average? Also some people reach that upper percentile, and average percentile based on a grading curve.

Well unfortunately businesses don't work that way. They grade everyone the same no matter what. We always help the slower guys when our work is done , so that the job gets done here. It doesn't matter if I am a little faster or slower to my coworkers. It is the guys that work so fast that they do not follow all safety practices, and someone gets hurt or worse killed. We have had numerous injuries and deaths in the last 5 years from that. Why shouldn't there be a level playing field?

Let me pose this ? Should a business owner who hires non resident or non citizens, be allowed to work the same projects as legitimate businesses that follow the hiring rules?

Not every union works the same, trade unions are way different than public sector unions, which are way different than union shops at a business. There are bad apples everywhere. Show me a family that can own a home or even rent one here in the north east on a salary of $12.00 an hour.

There is no use in explaining it though, cause if you are against ii, you are against it.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Let pose this question. In school, elementary through college, would you agree that some people (5% maybe) are at the top of the class, some (15% maybe ) are at the bottom of the class, and everyone else is pretty much considered average? Also some people reach that upper percentile, and average percentile based on a grading curve.

Well unfortunately businesses don't work that way. They grade everyone the same no matter what. We always help the slower guys when our work is done , so that the job gets done here. It doesn't matter if I am a little faster or slower to my coworkers. It is the guys that work so fast that they do not follow all safety practices, and someone gets hurt or worse killed. We have had numerous injuries and deaths in the last 5 years from that. Why shouldn't there be a level playing field?

You are using a union working environment to describe every working environment. If every business operated with a union, then yeah, the way you described it is how jobs get done. But the reason for that is because unions have collectively decided what baseline performance is required. Then, the lazy guys that are slow or suck at their job gets to coast by as long as they do the minimum amount of work. This results in the guys who work faster, having to pick up there slack.

However, in a non-union business, those guys that consistently under-perform and are always behind are fired. Then, they workers like yourself that are good at your job and consistently perform well are promoted or given a performance-weighted raise.

There shouldn't be a level playing field because the bum down the hall that does the minimum amount of work necessary to collect his pension in 25 years shouldn't get paid the same (or with the same scheduled raises) as a work who does a consistently good job and tries to go above and beyond do perform well.

I run a business that runs on the non-union method and I know a lot of other non-union businesses that run the non-union method.

Let me pose this ? Should a business owner who hires non resident or non citizens, be allowed to work the same projects as legitimate businesses that follow the hiring rules?

Nope, but a business doesn't have to be union in order to assure quality, American workers.

Not every union works the same, trade unions are way different than public sector unions, which are way different than union shops at a business. There are bad apples everywhere. Show me a family that can own a home or even rent one here in the north east on a salary of $12.00 an hour.

Businesses aren't here to make sure Dad gets paid enough so that Mom and the kids can stay home and live in their 3 bedroom house. Long gone are the days of a single working parent and a stay-at-home mom being the norm.

There is no use in explaining it though, cause if you are against ii, you are against it.

Unions have an "Us vs.Them" mentality when dealing with employers. Your posts are pretty consistent with sticking to the cliche Union talking points. Unions aren't the only guilty party, big business definitely is to blame as well. But don't try telling me that Unions are the innocent little guy in all of this.

[TheSpecialist]

The union I work for doesn't dictate baseline performance, the companies work practices do.

The problem in America is everyone wants to be rich, no one wants to be satisfied end of story.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

The union I work for doesn't dictate baseline performance, the companies work practices do.

My understanding is that the union and company typically set guidelines for performance through the Collective Bargaining Agreement.I'd bet in the CBA there is a very explicit, clearly-articulated framework for what is expected of each union worker and an equally excruciating process for how you fire a bad worker.

No other thoughts on my opinions on the lack of incentive to do more than the minimum necessary?

[Piscator]

GE (who I do not work for) looks at their entire NON-Union work force every single year. They look at the top 10% performers, The middle 80% performers and the bottom 10% performers at ALL levels. They call it "rack and stack". They get rid of the bottom 10% EVERY YEAR, work one on one on how the remaining 80% can get better and give the top 10% above average raises and stock options (regardless of level, it is all based off of performance).

Not a bad model for someone that's motivated. Unlike a Union it rewards those that achieve and cuts the fat off those that do not perform.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Piscator

GE (who I do not work for) looks at their entire NON-Union work force every single year. They look at the top 10% performers, The middle 80% performers and the bottom 10% performers at ALL levels. They call it "rack and stack". They get rid of the bottom 10% EVERY YEAR, work one on one on how the remaining 80% can get better and give the top 10% above average raises and stock options (regardless of level, it is all based off of performance).

Not a bad model for someone that's motivated. Unlike a Union it rewards those that achieve and cuts the fat off those that do not perform.

When did they start doing that...I worked for GE for 9 years and never heard of it......

[The Dad Fisherman]

Found some info on it.......looks to be a Jack Welch concept at GE that is not used there anymore...


Vitality curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"GE is by far the most famous company to utilize this form of corporate management. However, since Jack Welch's departure from the company, less emphasis has been placed on eliminating the bottom 10% and more emphasis placed on team-building."

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Found some info on it.......looks to be a Jack Welch concept at GE that is not used there anymore...


Vitality curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"GE is by far the most famous company to utilize this form of corporate management. However, since Jack Welch's departure from the company, less emphasis has been placed on eliminating the bottom 10% and more emphasis placed on team-building."

It still is very well alive, my wife works for GE and is in HR, she does it every year and it still continures under Immelt..........

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

When did they start doing that...I worked for GE for 9 years and never heard of it......

Wife has been with them for almost 13 years and has it every year still. Goes from Jan-March typically. She is in HR. Some of it has been minimized a bit from the Welch days due to large layoffs and GE actively selling buying of businesses but it is still very much alive and practiced. Basically it's all level exempt employees involved and happens arounf review time.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I think a lot of it might also n=be getting minimized due to it not really being as functional a way to manage as originally thought.....what if your people in the bottom 10 are still meeting or exceeding their goals? Just not by as much of a margin as the higher percentage. do you chitcan a person for actually meeting his goals?

was reading a couple of articles on this after you brought it up and found that a lot of companies are shying away from this approach as it has also brought about a lot of Falsifying of information, sand-bagging numbers, and was counter-productive to Morale.

Seems to me it would also undermine the Team Concept that a lot of companies try to establish.

just saying....it might not be the end-all be-all, but it has some merit and probably works well in certain environments.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

My understanding is that the union and company typically set guidelines for performance through the Collective Bargaining Agreement.I'd bet in the CBA there is a very explicit, clearly-articulated framework for what is expected of each union worker and an equally excruciating process for how you fire a bad worker.

No other thoughts on my opinions on the lack of incentive to do more than the minimum necessary?

YOur understanding is wrong. The company sets work standards, and safety practices, as well as productivity numbers. The union's position has been and will always be work to the company's rules. The problem is the people who excel in productivity often skip safety steps to speed up the productivity. The company always looks the other way until someone gets hurt or killed, then if you were only lucky enough to be injured they will suspend you from work with out pay when you are healthy enough to come back.
That is the biggest problem in America is everyone has an understanding but no one knows the facts. It's not like it was in the old days.

[JohnnyD]

I apologize for my misinformed view on how the standards are set. Not living that aspect of dealing with unions, my understanding is definitely limited. I do have to contest one statement though:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

The problem is the people who excel in productivity often skip safety steps to speed up the productivity.

There's a difference between being thorough yet efficient with your time - something that produces a quality product/performance in a quicker amount of time - and haphazard laziness that results in being done quicker but at the expense of poor results and potential danger.

There have been a few times now that you've stated blatantly that if someone excels at their job then they must be cutting corners, and I just can't agree with that. I have employees that do high quality work in an hour that takes other employees 1.5-2 hours. I have also let go employees that will do a job in an hour, didn't care about the quality and had no intentions of improving.

Excelling at a job means doing a better job than the typical employee - whether it is through higher quality of work or a more efficient use of time - while not sacrificing other aspects of the work (protocol, safety, etc).

Let me ask you this: have you never heard of a union worker that does quality work, up to safety standards and finishes quickly being told that they need to "slow down" or "find something else to do for a little bit"? If so, you'll be the first union employee I've ever met to say that.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I apologize for my misinformed view on how the standards are set. Not living that aspect of dealing with unions, my understanding is definitely limited. I do have to contest one statement though:

There's a difference between being thorough yet efficient with your time - something that produces a quality product/performance in a quicker amount of time - and haphazard laziness that results in being done quicker but at the expense of poor results and potential danger.

There have been a few times now that you've stated blatantly that if someone excels at their job then they must be cutting corners, and I just can't agree with that. I have employees that do high quality work in an hour that takes other employees 1.5-2 hours. I have also let go employees that will do a job in an hour, didn't care about the quality and had no intentions of improving.

Excelling at a job means doing a better job than the typical employee - whether it is through higher quality of work or a more efficient use of time - while not sacrificing other aspects of the work (protocol, safety, etc).

Let me ask you this: have you never heard of a union worker that does quality work, up to safety standards and finishes quickly being told that they need to "slow down" or "find something else to do for a little bit"? If so, you'll be the first union employee I've ever met to say that.

I can tell you for a fact, that out of 35 guys the top 4 producers have been caught skipping safety to increase productivity numerous times. I have witnessed it myself. On top of it we are going back on more of their jobs because something wasn't done right as compared to a guy that takes the time to do it right the first time.

I don't know what business you are into but the problem is that blanket negative, misinformed statements about unions, are like stereotyping people, sure there are some bad systems and some bad apples, but alot more good compared to the bad.

As far as your last statement, we take non productive time, until upper management decides to move the bar again an increase the number. We don't call the shots the managers do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."

No, what was remarkable about the situation was the potential for short-term credit, which most companies rely upon for operations, would have blown up. Instead of the weak being culled out we would have likely seen otherwise stronger companies burn up their cash trying to stay alive. This would have been much more serious that the bad situation we actually saw...and it appears we were very close.

Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.

I think it's a reasonable argument that reduced federal power would bring less potential for federal abuse, but the flip side is less beneficial oversight. Believe it or not a lot of Federal regulations are positive and I don't think the States are equipped to make up the balance.

One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism.

Yes, and the Tea Party spits on black people.

As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.

So you're saying it's all a "spectrum"?

If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?

I think the two movements are a reflection of the undercurrent (frustration with the "system" be it government, private industry or a combination) expressed through two large lenses that make up the USA.

The Tea Party might not have camped out, but then again they probably had to be at work in the morning.

"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.

Don't understand this paragraph.

Transform what to what? Obama is trying to transform. Too much of us are resisting his transformation. But he may yet succeed. Give him Health Care and another term. So what is it, Spence, that needs to be transformed?

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, what was remarkable about the situation was the potential for short-term credit, which most companies rely upon for operations, would have blown up. Instead of the weak being culled out we would have likely seen otherwise stronger companies burn up their cash trying to stay alive. This would have been much more serious that the bad situation we actually saw...and it appears we were very close.

What bad situation? If the bailouts were restorative, than all they did was restore us to a position that the next crisis can be bailed out. Never mind that a bad private sector credit situation was transferred or transformed into a bad Federal Government credit situation. But, I guess we've learned that Federal debt is irrelevant.

I think it's a reasonable argument that reduced federal power would bring less potential for federal abuse, but the flip side is less beneficial oversight. Believe it or not a lot of Federal regulations are positive and I don't think the States are equipped to make up the balance.

Federal power does not have to be reduced, per se. It must be constrained to its constitutional limits. Within those limits, those enumerations, it is all powerful.

The most beneficial oversight would be that which constrains government to its proper role.

Federal regulations can be positive when they regulate Constitutionally derived legislation. When Federal regulations intrude on State or local power, or on individual rights, they grow the power of Central Government and diminish the rest, and they nullify the Constitution. In so doing, if not checked, such regulations also can, eventually, nullify the need of States, or individual rights, and thus create, rather than a federal sysem of government, a centrally administered all powerful government--the administrative State rather than a representative form of government with checks and balances.

Yes, and the Tea Party spits on black people.

Is this supposed to be a response to my pointing out that some of the Wall Street Occupiers stated that one of their goals was the elimination of capitalism, which was a response to your statement that you didn't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism? What is the parallel? I said "some" of the occupiers not the entire, rather incoherent, "movement." There was an alleged instance of a supposed Tea Partier spitting on a black man. To say that the Tea Party spits on black people is incredible and has no relation to the discussion.

So you're saying it's all a "spectrum"?

There you go with the "all" thing again. Spectrums can be perceived in every aspect of existence, excepting the possibility of a basic unit of matter. That everything may be seen as existing on a spectrum is, in itself, a duh observation. Inferences and speculations may be inferred from such observation --but even those inferences and speculations can be on a spectrum. I assume there is a grand spectrum of spectrums--or various and even contradicting spectrums of spectrums, and maybe and infinite number of dimensions inhabiting the same space and the spectrums therein. As far as degrees of "free market" and degrees of "socialism" I prefer greater degrees of free market to greater degrees of socialism--especially since a totally free market as a whole system beyond a single buyer and seller is an extremely ephemeral possibility, as is likewise, a purely and totally socialistic economic form of government given human nature.

I think the two movements are a reflection of the undercurrent (frustration with the "system" be it government, private industry or a combination) expressed through two large lenses that make up the USA.

The Tea Party might not have camped out, but then again they probably had to be at work in the morning.

Isn't there always some undercurrent of frustation with government. To claim that as a similarity is another duh observation and not instructive as to the intentions of the two movements.

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

Being relative, then, it's not a point of discussion, so why point it out. Besides, the protesters being angry about the "game" being increasingly rigged is hypocritical, since they want to rig it in their favor.

Don't understand this paragraph.

It was an attempt to deconstruct your vague somewhat amorphous even vaporously mystical paragraph:

"I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system {government and private} is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value."

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

I do agree that our current trajectory is not sustainable. I think one of, if not the main, reason is that our current trajectory is being guided more by central government administrative "experts" rather than innovative entrepeneurs who can think outside the administrative box. If our future political leadership sticks to constitutional governance and lets the market be mostly free and self regulating so that innovaters can operate and profit, the fiscal task will be much less daunting--though daunting will always exist. Without daunting , stagnation creeps in. But if the innovation must come from central planners, and the fiscal issues are government issues, adaptation will stagnate. If we insist on "leading" by government oversight and regulation, we can look forward to leading from behind.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think we'd both agree that our current trajectory (in many regards) in not sustainable. Regardless of ones politics, our future leadership will be required to lead America into an even more competitive global economy, with at present less than firm footing and the daunting task of addressing our fiscal issues. This will require innovative thinking...not just lower taxes and less regulation. Doesn't mean we have to give up our identity, but we have to adapt so that we can continue to lead.

-spence

I think you stole this blather from an Obama telepromoter...maybe we've located the thief....


Steve Jobs was a pretty innovative thinker.....

HuffPo:

"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform."

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I can tell you for a fact, that out of 35 guys the top 4 producers have been caught skipping safety to increase productivity numerous times. I have witnessed it myself. On top of it we are going back on more of their jobs because something wasn't done right as compared to a guy that takes the time to do it right the first time.

I don't know what business you are into but the problem is that blanket negative, misinformed statements about unions, are like stereotyping people, sure there are some bad systems and some bad apples, but alot more good compared to the bad.

As far as your last statement, we take non productive time, until upper management decides to move the bar again an increase the number. We don't call the shots the managers do.

It surprises me how little non-union workers actually understand about how unions do work. Judging from the rhetoric you'd think some people here actually worked in administration and dealt with unions on an adversarial basis. But it turns out they do neither.

[scottw]

What does the Energy Dept claim as holding up Fisker(Solyndra II) and their production of the Goredsel?



The Energy Department confirmed this week that it has eased expectations after conditionally approving the loan to Fisker and has made allowances for scaling back projections in the final loan agreement. But the agency declined to make public those adjusted terms, including projected car sales volume or milestones the company must meet in connection with its $529 million loan. Agency officials attributed Fisker's delays to regulatory hurdles and issues beyond the company's control.($100,00 price tag and 20mpg might be a couple of "issues"....more "innovative thinking" funded by US taxpayers

sidenote: The Fisker commitment was questioned by some from the start, partly because of the company's political connections. A key investor is a venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, whose partners include former Democratic vice president Al Gore. The investment house raised $2 million for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

It surprises me how little non-union workers actually understand about how unions do work. Judging from the rhetoric you'd think some people here actually worked in administration and dealt with unions on an adversarial basis. But it turns out they do neither.

I've done both. Worked as union worker for 4 years. The mentality was always us vs. them. People did the minimum they had to do and cried foul at the smallest slight. Guaranteed pay raises resulted in the people who worked there 15 years+ being some of the laziest people I'd ever worked with. They cruised through the day and didn't give a damn.

On the other side of the coin, I have 5 union guys working for me as I type this. I'd also be working but because California allows unions to run-a-muck out here, I can't touch my own equipment. As such, my client's labor costs alone are going to be $11,000 out here in San Francisco, as opposed to $3500 for the exact same job we just finished in Boston.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What bad situation? If the bailouts were restorative, than all they did was restore us to a position that the next crisis can be bailed out. Never mind that a bad private sector credit situation was transferred or transformed into a bad Federal Government credit situation. But, I guess we've learned that Federal debt is irrelevant.

If anything it was a stopgap measure. I agree though, the banks should have had more responsibility to the taxpayers aside from just paying back the loans.

Federal regulations can be positive when they regulate Constitutionally derived legislation. When Federal regulations intrude on State or local power, or on individual rights, they grow the power of Central Government and diminish the rest, and they nullify the Constitution. In so doing, if not checked, such regulations also can, eventually, nullify the need of States, or individual rights, and thus create, rather than a federal sysem of government, a centrally administered all powerful government--the administrative State rather than a representative form of government with checks and balances.

I'm sure many Federal regulations you'd probably assert are not Constitutional others would argue in many ways increase our freedoms and are beneficial to business.

By providing a common Federal standard, businesses aren't burdened by a myriad of redundant and unnecessary state regulations. Several medical device customers I work with actually like the fact in the US they only have to deal with the FDA while in the EU there are multiple regulatory agencies. Similarly, another manufacturer I was speaking with this week, who plans expansion into Europe, is faced with the daunting prospect of managing product specifications that will be different in nearly every country...even though the product is essentially identical.

Constitutionality is certainly a required test for all laws, but the idea that everything is black and white only works in a vacuum.

Is this supposed to be a response to my pointing out that some of the Wall Street Occupiers stated that one of their goals was the elimination of capitalism, which was a response to your statement that you didn't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism? What is the parallel? I said "some" of the occupiers not the entire, rather incoherent, "movement." There was an alleged instance of a supposed Tea Partier spitting on a black man. To say that the Tea Party spits on black people is incredible and has no relation to the discussion.

It was a reference to a focus on a tree rather than a forest.

As far as degrees of "free market" and degrees of "socialism" I prefer greater degrees of free market to greater degrees of socialism--especially since a totally free market as a whole system beyond a single buyer and seller is an extremely ephemeral possibility, as is likewise, a purely and totally socialistic economic form of government given human nature.

I think most Americans prefer a greater degree of free market, though I'd also think most Americans would say that too pure a free market would be inherently destructive.

That being said, I think what we have today in the grand scheme of things, isn't anywhere near being close to a "greater degree of socialism".

Isn't there always some undercurrent of frustation with government. To claim that as a similarity is another duh observation and not instructive as to the intentions of the two movements.

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

Being relative, then, it's not a point of discussion, so why point it out. Besides, the protesters being angry about the "game" being increasingly rigged is hypocritical, since they want to rig it in their favor.

I wouldn't say they're trying to rig anything in their favor, rather just undo some of the "rigging" that has arguably gotten us off track.

I do agree that our current trajectory is not sustainable. I think one of, if not the main, reason is that our current trajectory is being guided more by central government administrative "experts" rather than innovative entrepeneurs who can think outside the administrative box. If our future political leadership sticks to constitutional governance and lets the market be mostly free and self regulating so that innovaters can operate and profit, the fiscal task will be much less daunting--though daunting will always exist. Without daunting , stagnation creeps in. But if the innovation must come from central planners, and the fiscal issues are government issues, adaptation will stagnate. If we insist on "leading" by government oversight and regulation, we can look forward to leading from behind.

Nobody is asserting that the Government should be the primary innovator to drive the market. The government sets conditions, regulates and for the many decades of Keynesian thinking has also rightly or wrongly tried to keep everything between the lines.

I'm not sure what basis there is for an argument that states minimal or strict behavior always is better. If there was no FDA would the states be able to regulate less effectively or more? There are plenty of examples where deregulation at the federal or state level has not led to any benefit for the consumer or public.

I also don't think to say there's room for interpretation, as long as it's done within the system, is in any way not adhering to the Constitution. Even passionate issues like Roe, where the pure Constitutionality argument is perhaps weaker, are still considered settled by the majority of people and backed by judicial findings.

Ultimately I think issues need to be evaluated in context of reality, where things really sit today and not some purist theoretical world that is the fancy of academics.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm sure many Federal regulations you'd probably assert are not Constitutional others would argue in many ways increase our freedoms and are beneficial to business.

You've made a general thesis here, now what is your proof? What specific regulations and how do they increase our freedoms beyond what is garanteed in the Constitution?

By providing a common Federal standard, businesses aren't burdened by a myriad of redundant and unnecessary state regulations. Several medical device customers I work with actually like the fact in the US they only have to deal with the FDA while in the EU there are multiple regulatory agencies. Similarly, another manufacturer I was speaking with this week, who plans expansion into Europe, is faced with the daunting prospect of managing product specifications that will be different in nearly every country...even though the product is essentially identical.

In another thread you didn't trust States to regulate because they might do so too much in FAVOR of business, but here you argue that it is better for business to have Central regulation. Anyway, would it even be possible for States to have regulation on interstate commerce that would conflict with each other? Isn't that exactly one of the reasons the Constitution was written--to correct the problem of commercial warfare between the States? The Federal regulation of such warfare is CONSTITUTIONAL! States do have various regulations on business, and businesses which are national tend to adhere to the most stringent so they can be legal in all States. What is unconstitutional about the FDA is its unelected plenipotential power--executive, legislative, and judicial power, and one of the most damaging things beyond that is its overstrict regulation which distorts the market in favor of the richest businesses and artificially raises costs--massively in the case of drugs. This also creates a corrupt relationship between government and business with which "most people" are frustrated.

Constitutionality is certainly a required test for all laws, but the idea that everything is black and white only works in a vacuum.

I don't know how black and white could work in a vacuum since white implies light reflecting on matter. The Constitution certainly is not a vacuum, nor is it in a vacuum. It is a framework for government based on nature, human nature, and allows for an actual humanity to govern itself.

I think most Americans prefer a greater degree of free market, though I'd also think most Americans would say that too pure a free market would be inherently destructive.

Actually, no. It is the corruption of the market that would be destructive. PURE market forces dictate value to both buyer and seller. If one cheats, he distorts the transaction, and the aggregate of such cheating would destroy the market.

That being said, I think what we have today in the grand scheme of things, isn't anywhere near being close to a "greater degree of socialism".

In the grand "spectrum" of our Constitutional history, we have a greater degree of socialism now than in the beginning. The "vector" has been in that direction and threatens to accelerate.

I wouldn't say they're trying to rig anything in their favor, rather just undo some of the "rigging" that has arguably gotten us off track.

Since the Occupiers have not had a coherent statement of purpose, it's not possible to say. But many of the "spontaneous" demands (free education, forgiveness of all debt, etc.) rig in their favor.

I'm not sure what basis there is for an argument that states minimal or strict behavior always is better.

Better than what? Better than Federal minimal or strict behavior? What's better got to do with it? Each has its Constitutional domain.

If there was no FDA would the states be able to regulate less effectively or more? There are plenty of examples where deregulation at the federal or state level has not led to any benefit for the consumer or public.

The greatest "benefit" for the public that the Constitution grants is optimal personal freedom. If you believe that constricting that benefit in favor of some perceived temporary consumer benefit by creating a permanent judicial precedent to do so is a good and greater "benefit," that is a greater degree of socialism to which I don't agree.

I also don't think to say there's room for interpretation, as long as it's done within the system, is in any way not adhering to the Constitution. Even passionate issues like Roe, where the pure Constitutionality argument is perhaps weaker, are still considered settled by the majority of people and backed by judicial findings.

Being settled by a majority of people in individual States is a far cry from the SCOTUS imposing a Federal mandate that is not in the Federal Constitutional domain.

Ultimately I think issues need to be evaluated in context of reality, where things really sit today and not some purist theoretical world that is the fancy of academics.

-spence

A relativist speaking about the context of reality begs the question of which or whose reality? And if you don't apporve of "the fancy of academics" ruling from "some purist theoretical world," I would think, then, you would disapprove of SCOTUS rulings which are exactly that. They use academically inspired theories such as Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principle of Fairness, and Rule According to Higher Law, to get around the plain words in the Constitution. These are the fancy academic theories used to philosophically justify what are obviously unconstitutional decisions.