[cooperthedog]

vagabondo:

Without going into the “destructive, socialistic thinking” debate, (since many business owners will condemn such practices on one hand, and accept beneficial policies in the other – e.g. we live in a mixed economy where many elements of “socialism” are considered primarily good by business owners; public education, roads, airports, enforcment of GAAP/SEC regs, business subsidies/bailouts, the Fed manipulating employment, economic growth, etc.), I’ll comment on the employer/employee relationship.

Employers take on the risk of running a business. They may experience windfalls or bankruptcy, and willinging accept these risks (many times mitigated by gov’t subsidies, limited legal liability, and using investor capital – and offset by overregulation & high taxes). The 100% commissioned salesperson analogy you made is a very good comparison, and as such the commissioned salesperson doesn’t expect any raises, security, benefits, etc. and willing trades such for the opportunity to make more money.

Employees generally seek stability, steady income, set working hours, etc. and as a trade-off they accept a set wage vs. a percentage of the profits (or losses). Therein lies the “entitlement”. The nature of the relationship implies (but does not guarantee) stability of wages (which some view as wages keeping pace w/ inflation). When times are good, and profits are fat, most employees don’t share the wealth, but when times are lean, they share the pain. I think that issue, along with your other anology of asking your customers for a “raise” falls into the employer category (accepting volatility in profits for the bulk of the reward) and thus an poor comparison since you explicitly accepted those risks, while the employee signed on for stability, which they are providing to you and expecting in kind. I agree that seeking other employment is the best solution, but the turnover costs are expensive to both parties, particularly the employer.

Both types are needed, as a world made up of all “employees” would lack risk tasking, starting new ventures, growth, etc. A world of “employers” would amount to good ideas not being implemented, project delays, instability, etc.

Also, you could view the teacher’s union through the lens of capitalism. They are a “company” operating to maximize profit. They are supplying a “commodity” (labor) to the education market. In fact they have essentially cornered the market, and there happens to be no effective anti-trust laws (which would be destructive socialism) on the books to keep their power in check. Thus you either submit to their demands or go without their services, much like dealing with the oil industry (maybe we should start trading education futures on the NYMEX). Can you honestly say that if your business was one of only a few providers that you’d lower your prices & thus profits, when time are lean? Times are lean around the world for many, and I don’t see Monsanto (or any other commodity producer) giving a break to anyone. Discussing these issues will lead to a venomous attack.

[cooperthedog]

vagabondo:

Without going into the “destructive, socialistic thinking” debate, (since many business owners will condemn such practices on one hand, and accept beneficial policies in the other – e.g. we live in a mixed economy where many elements of “socialism” are considered primarily good by business owners; public education, roads, airports, enforcment of GAAP/SEC regs, business subsidies/bailouts, the Fed manipulating employment, economic growth, etc.), I’ll comment on the employer/employee relationship.

Employers take on the risk of running a business. They may experience windfalls or bankruptcy, and willinging accept these risks (many times mitigated by gov’t subsidies, limited legal liability, and using investor capital – and offset by overregulation & high taxes). The 100% commissioned salesperson analogy you made is a very good comparison, and as such the commissioned salesperson doesn’t expect any raises, security, benefits, etc. and willing trades such for the opportunity to make more money.

Employees generally seek stability, steady income, set working hours, etc. and as a trade-off they accept a set wage vs. a percentage of the profits (or losses). Therein lies the “entitlement”. The nature of the relationship implies (but does not guarantee) stability of wages (which some view as wages keeping pace w/ inflation). When times are good, and profits are fat, most employees don’t share the wealth, but when times are lean, they share the pain. I think that issue, along with your other anology of asking your customers for a “raise” falls into the employer category (accepting volatility in profits for the bulk of the reward) and thus an poor comparison since you explicitly accepted those risks, while the employee signed on for stability, which they are providing to you and expecting in kind. I agree that seeking other employment is the best solution, but the turnover costs are expensive to both parties, particularly the employer.

Both types are needed, as a world made up of all “employees” would lack risk tasking, starting new ventures, growth, etc. A world of “employers” would amount to good ideas not being implemented, project delays, instability, etc.

Also, you could view the teacher’s union through the lens of capitalism. They are a “company” operating to maximize profit. They are supplying a “commodity” (labor) to the education market. In fact they have essentially cornered the market, and there happens to be no effective anti-trust laws (which would be destructive socialism) on the books to keep their power in check. Thus you either submit to their demands or go without their services, much like dealing with the oil industry (maybe we should start trading education futures on the NYMEX). Can you honestly say that if your business was one of only a few providers that you’d lower your prices & thus profits, when time are lean? Times are lean around the world for many, and I don’t see Monsanto (or any other commodity producer) giving a break to anyone. Discussing these issues will lead to a venomous attack.

[cooperthedog]

vagabondo:

Without going into the “destructive, socialistic thinking” debate, (since many business owners will condemn such practices on one hand, and accept beneficial policies in the other – e.g. we live in a mixed economy where many elements of “socialism” are considered primarily good by business owners; public education, roads, airports, enforcment of GAAP/SEC regs, business subsidies/bailouts, the Fed manipulating employment, economic growth, etc.), I’ll comment on the employer/employee relationship.

Employers take on the risk of running a business. They may experience windfalls or bankruptcy, and willinging accept these risks (many times mitigated by gov’t subsidies, limited legal liability, and using investor capital – and offset by overregulation & high taxes). The 100% commissioned salesperson analogy you made is a very good comparison, and as such the commissioned salesperson doesn’t expect any raises, security, benefits, etc. and willing trades such for the opportunity to make more money.

Employees generally seek stability, steady income, set working hours, etc. and as a trade-off they accept a set wage vs. a percentage of the profits (or losses). Therein lies the “entitlement”. The nature of the relationship implies (but does not guarantee) stability of wages (which some view as wages keeping pace w/ inflation). When times are good, and profits are fat, most employees don’t share the wealth, but when times are lean, they share the pain. I think that issue, along with your other anology of asking your customers for a “raise” falls into the employer category (accepting volatility in profits for the bulk of the reward) and thus an poor comparison since you explicitly accepted those risks, while the employee signed on for stability, which they are providing to you and expecting in kind. I agree that seeking other employment is the best solution, but the turnover costs are expensive to both parties, particularly the employer.

Both types are needed, as a world made up of all “employees” would lack risk tasking, starting new ventures, growth, etc. A world of “employers” would amount to good ideas not being implemented, project delays, instability, etc.

Also, you could view the teacher’s union through the lens of capitalism. They are a “company” operating to maximize profit. They are supplying a “commodity” (labor) to the education market. In fact they have essentially cornered the market, and there happens to be no effective anti-trust laws (which would be destructive socialism) on the books to keep their power in check. Thus you either submit to their demands or go without their services, much like dealing with the oil industry (maybe we should start trading education futures on the NYMEX). Can you honestly say that if your business was one of only a few providers that you’d lower your prices & thus profits, when time are lean? Times are lean around the world for many, and I don’t see Monsanto (or any other commodity producer) giving a break to anyone. Discussing these issues will lead to a venomous attack.

[cooperthedog]

vagabondo:

Without going into the “destructive, socialistic thinking” debate, (since many business owners will condemn such practices on one hand, and accept beneficial policies in the other – e.g. we live in a mixed economy where many elements of “socialism” are considered primarily good by business owners; public education, roads, airports, enforcment of GAAP/SEC regs, business subsidies/bailouts, the Fed manipulating employment, economic growth, etc.), I’ll comment on the employer/employee relationship.

Employers take on the risk of running a business. They may experience windfalls or bankruptcy, and willinging accept these risks (many times mitigated by gov’t subsidies, limited legal liability, and using investor capital – and offset by overregulation & high taxes). The 100% commissioned salesperson analogy you made is a very good comparison, and as such the commissioned salesperson doesn’t expect any raises, security, benefits, etc. and willing trades such for the opportunity to make more money.

Employees generally seek stability, steady income, set working hours, etc. and as a trade-off they accept a set wage vs. a percentage of the profits (or losses). Therein lies the “entitlement”. The nature of the relationship implies (but does not guarantee) stability of wages (which some view as wages keeping pace w/ inflation). When times are good, and profits are fat, most employees don’t share the wealth, but when times are lean, they share the pain. I think that issue, along with your other anology of asking your customers for a “raise” falls into the employer category (accepting volatility in profits for the bulk of the reward) and thus an poor comparison since you explicitly accepted those risks, while the employee signed on for stability, which they are providing to you and expecting in kind. I agree that seeking other employment is the best solution, but the turnover costs are expensive to both parties, particularly the employer.

Both types are needed, as a world made up of all “employees” would lack risk tasking, starting new ventures, growth, etc. A world of “employers” would amount to good ideas not being implemented, project delays, instability, etc.

Also, you could view the teacher’s union through the lens of capitalism. They are a “company” operating to maximize profit. They are supplying a “commodity” (labor) to the education market. In fact they have essentially cornered the market, and there happens to be no effective anti-trust laws (which would be destructive socialism) on the books to keep their power in check. Thus you either submit to their demands or go without their services, much like dealing with the oil industry (maybe we should start trading education futures on the NYMEX). Can you honestly say that if your business was one of only a few providers that you’d lower your prices & thus profits, when time are lean? Times are lean around the world for many, and I don’t see Monsanto (or any other commodity producer) giving a break to anyone. Discussing these issues will lead to a venomous attack.

[cooperthedog]

vagabondo:

Without going into the “destructive, socialistic thinking” debate, (since many business owners will condemn such practices on one hand, and accept beneficial policies in the other – e.g. we live in a mixed economy where many elements of “socialism” are considered primarily good by business owners; public education, roads, airports, enforcment of GAAP/SEC regs, business subsidies/bailouts, the Fed manipulating employment, economic growth, etc.), I’ll comment on the employer/employee relationship.

Employers take on the risk of running a business. They may experience windfalls or bankruptcy, and willinging accept these risks (many times mitigated by gov’t subsidies, limited legal liability, and using investor capital – and offset by overregulation & high taxes). The 100% commissioned salesperson analogy you made is a very good comparison, and as such the commissioned salesperson doesn’t expect any raises, security, benefits, etc. and willing trades such for the opportunity to make more money.

Employees generally seek stability, steady income, set working hours, etc. and as a trade-off they accept a set wage vs. a percentage of the profits (or losses). Therein lies the “entitlement”. The nature of the relationship implies (but does not guarantee) stability of wages (which some view as wages keeping pace w/ inflation). When times are good, and profits are fat, most employees don’t share the wealth, but when times are lean, they share the pain. I think that issue, along with your other anology of asking your customers for a “raise” falls into the employer category (accepting volatility in profits for the bulk of the reward) and thus an poor comparison since you explicitly accepted those risks, while the employee signed on for stability, which they are providing to you and expecting in kind. I agree that seeking other employment is the best solution, but the turnover costs are expensive to both parties, particularly the employer.

Both types are needed, as a world made up of all “employees” would lack risk tasking, starting new ventures, growth, etc. A world of “employers” would amount to good ideas not being implemented, project delays, instability, etc.

Also, you could view the teacher’s union through the lens of capitalism. They are a “company” operating to maximize profit. They are supplying a “commodity” (labor) to the education market. In fact they have essentially cornered the market, and there happens to be no effective anti-trust laws (which would be destructive socialism) on the books to keep their power in check. Thus you either submit to their demands or go without their services, much like dealing with the oil industry (maybe we should start trading education futures on the NYMEX). Can you honestly say that if your business was one of only a few providers that you’d lower your prices & thus profits, when time are lean? Times are lean around the world for many, and I don’t see Monsanto (or any other commodity producer) giving a break to anyone. Discussing these issues will lead to a venomous attack.

[cooperthedog]

Someone told me 4/3 of people have trouble with fractions…

[cooperthedog]

Someone told me 4/3 of people have trouble with fractions…

[cooperthedog]

Someone told me 4/3 of people have trouble with fractions…

[cooperthedog]

Someone told me 4/3 of people have trouble with fractions…

[cooperthedog]

Someone told me 4/3 of people have trouble with fractions…

[cooperthedog]

Technically, a patriot is a someone who espouses the “official” values of the nation, typically via ritual or ceremony (flags, pledges, etc.).

One can demonstrate degrees of patriotism, from the shallow (e.g. purchasing a “support our troops” bumper sticker, yet opposing additional personal payments (taxes) to support the actual war/troops), to the ultimate sacrifice (giving your life in combat).

The problem is that our founding fathers version of patriotism was focused on defending/supporting our *system* of government (i.e. the Constitution) vs. individual leaders, institutions, or objects. The current administration likes to do alot of flag waving and associate its values and authority as absolute, which I would label as nationalism. I think a true patriot is someone who is willing to defend the Constitution, question and change their appointed leaders, & sacrifice for their country (physically or financially).

As for the BSC bailout, I think it was a necessary evil. Credit markets seizing up, banks failing, etc. can cause untold damage to all. Also, this gov’t giveaway isn’t much different from all the rest, “privatize the gains & socialize the losses” – its how our “free”-market works…

[cooperthedog]

Technically, a patriot is a someone who espouses the “official” values of the nation, typically via ritual or ceremony (flags, pledges, etc.).

One can demonstrate degrees of patriotism, from the shallow (e.g. purchasing a “support our troops” bumper sticker, yet opposing additional personal payments (taxes) to support the actual war/troops), to the ultimate sacrifice (giving your life in combat).

The problem is that our founding fathers version of patriotism was focused on defending/supporting our *system* of government (i.e. the Constitution) vs. individual leaders, institutions, or objects. The current administration likes to do alot of flag waving and associate its values and authority as absolute, which I would label as nationalism. I think a true patriot is someone who is willing to defend the Constitution, question and change their appointed leaders, & sacrifice for their country (physically or financially).

As for the BSC bailout, I think it was a necessary evil. Credit markets seizing up, banks failing, etc. can cause untold damage to all. Also, this gov’t giveaway isn’t much different from all the rest, “privatize the gains & socialize the losses” – its how our “free”-market works…

[cooperthedog]

Technically, a patriot is a someone who espouses the “official” values of the nation, typically via ritual or ceremony (flags, pledges, etc.).

One can demonstrate degrees of patriotism, from the shallow (e.g. purchasing a “support our troops” bumper sticker, yet opposing additional personal payments (taxes) to support the actual war/troops), to the ultimate sacrifice (giving your life in combat).

The problem is that our founding fathers version of patriotism was focused on defending/supporting our *system* of government (i.e. the Constitution) vs. individual leaders, institutions, or objects. The current administration likes to do alot of flag waving and associate its values and authority as absolute, which I would label as nationalism. I think a true patriot is someone who is willing to defend the Constitution, question and change their appointed leaders, & sacrifice for their country (physically or financially).

As for the BSC bailout, I think it was a necessary evil. Credit markets seizing up, banks failing, etc. can cause untold damage to all. Also, this gov’t giveaway isn’t much different from all the rest, “privatize the gains & socialize the losses” – its how our “free”-market works…

[cooperthedog]

Technically, a patriot is a someone who espouses the “official” values of the nation, typically via ritual or ceremony (flags, pledges, etc.).

One can demonstrate degrees of patriotism, from the shallow (e.g. purchasing a “support our troops” bumper sticker, yet opposing additional personal payments (taxes) to support the actual war/troops), to the ultimate sacrifice (giving your life in combat).

The problem is that our founding fathers version of patriotism was focused on defending/supporting our *system* of government (i.e. the Constitution) vs. individual leaders, institutions, or objects. The current administration likes to do alot of flag waving and associate its values and authority as absolute, which I would label as nationalism. I think a true patriot is someone who is willing to defend the Constitution, question and change their appointed leaders, & sacrifice for their country (physically or financially).

As for the BSC bailout, I think it was a necessary evil. Credit markets seizing up, banks failing, etc. can cause untold damage to all. Also, this gov’t giveaway isn’t much different from all the rest, “privatize the gains & socialize the losses” – its how our “free”-market works…

[cooperthedog]

Technically, a patriot is a someone who espouses the “official” values of the nation, typically via ritual or ceremony (flags, pledges, etc.).

One can demonstrate degrees of patriotism, from the shallow (e.g. purchasing a “support our troops” bumper sticker, yet opposing additional personal payments (taxes) to support the actual war/troops), to the ultimate sacrifice (giving your life in combat).

The problem is that our founding fathers version of patriotism was focused on defending/supporting our *system* of government (i.e. the Constitution) vs. individual leaders, institutions, or objects. The current administration likes to do alot of flag waving and associate its values and authority as absolute, which I would label as nationalism. I think a true patriot is someone who is willing to defend the Constitution, question and change their appointed leaders, & sacrifice for their country (physically or financially).

As for the BSC bailout, I think it was a necessary evil. Credit markets seizing up, banks failing, etc. can cause untold damage to all. Also, this gov’t giveaway isn’t much different from all the rest, “privatize the gains & socialize the losses” – its how our “free”-market works…

[Author]

Posts