[vagabondo]

Cooper,

'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).'

I will focus on Non-Union employment here. Employment in general is a false sense of stability/security. In my view, it is not an entitlement trade-off with the employer. Just about every state in the union is At Will employment. Except for discrimination and a few other exceptions, any employee can be terminated for any reason at any time. The stability of the wage argument must be based on the fact that there is fundamental job stability. I believe we as a society have shifted to this belief that our jobs are stable and thus our wages should at minimum track inflation.

This shift, coinciding with the ever expanding state and federal government, is why the response to off-shore outsourcing creates an entitled bitterness. We say, "How dare the Chinese take OUR jobs" instead of saying, "How can we compete".

'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).'

The problem I see here is that unlike the oil industry, "consuming" education is legislated. In fact, you do have a choice about the teachers' union services, though. You can choose private education. But for argument sake, lets take private schools out of the mix. Anti-trust is an irrelevant argument since I don't have a choice regarding whether or not I want to educate my kids (whether public or private) and for how long. In many cases, I do have a choice with the oil industry. I can choose to not drive my car and ride my bike to work. If the distance to and from work is too far to bike, I can choose to move closer to my job. I can choose to buy wool carpet for my house instead of synthetic. I can choose to have my groceries bagged in paper. Paying taxes, and by extension, paying the Teachers Union is not a choice.

"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."

There is a reason for patent protection and patent expiration. The pharma industry, for example, gets more or less 17 years to recoup their R&D and earn a profit on a drug that actually makes it to the market. You can, and many do, argue that those profits are excessive. But there is a point at which that patent become unprotected knowledge and competition quickly comes and levels the field. In our shrinking world, if a product is producing high degrees of profit, competitors will eventually enter the market. Not so with public education. The Teachers Union is an organization that operates under completely different rules than any other organization I can think of. They are protected indefinitely and generate revenue regardless of whether or not you use their serivces.

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

'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).'

I will focus on Non-Union employment here. Employment in general is a false sense of stability/security. In my view, it is not an entitlement trade-off with the employer. Just about every state in the union is At Will employment. Except for discrimination and a few other exceptions, any employee can be terminated for any reason at any time. The stability of the wage argument must be based on the fact that there is fundamental job stability. I believe we as a society have shifted to this belief that our jobs are stable and thus our wages should at minimum track inflation.

This shift, coinciding with the ever expanding state and federal government, is why the response to off-shore outsourcing creates an entitled bitterness. We say, "How dare the Chinese take OUR jobs" instead of saying, "How can we compete".

'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).'

The problem I see here is that unlike the oil industry, "consuming" education is legislated. In fact, you do have a choice about the teachers' union services, though. You can choose private education. But for argument sake, lets take private schools out of the mix. Anti-trust is an irrelevant argument since I don't have a choice regarding whether or not I want to educate my kids (whether public or private) and for how long. In many cases, I do have a choice with the oil industry. I can choose to not drive my car and ride my bike to work. If the distance to and from work is too far to bike, I can choose to move closer to my job. I can choose to buy wool carpet for my house instead of synthetic. I can choose to have my groceries bagged in paper. Paying taxes, and by extension, paying the Teachers Union is not a choice.

"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."

There is a reason for patent protection and patent expiration. The pharma industry, for example, gets more or less 17 years to recoup their R&D and earn a profit on a drug that actually makes it to the market. You can, and many do, argue that those profits are excessive. But there is a point at which that patent become unprotected knowledge and competition quickly comes and levels the field. In our shrinking world, if a product is producing high degrees of profit, competitors will eventually enter the market. Not so with public education. The Teachers Union is an organization that operates under completely different rules than any other organization I can think of. They are protected indefinitely and generate revenue regardless of whether or not you use their serivces.

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

'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).'

I will focus on Non-Union employment here. Employment in general is a false sense of stability/security. In my view, it is not an entitlement trade-off with the employer. Just about every state in the union is At Will employment. Except for discrimination and a few other exceptions, any employee can be terminated for any reason at any time. The stability of the wage argument must be based on the fact that there is fundamental job stability. I believe we as a society have shifted to this belief that our jobs are stable and thus our wages should at minimum track inflation.

This shift, coinciding with the ever expanding state and federal government, is why the response to off-shore outsourcing creates an entitled bitterness. We say, "How dare the Chinese take OUR jobs" instead of saying, "How can we compete".

'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).'

The problem I see here is that unlike the oil industry, "consuming" education is legislated. In fact, you do have a choice about the teachers' union services, though. You can choose private education. But for argument sake, lets take private schools out of the mix. Anti-trust is an irrelevant argument since I don't have a choice regarding whether or not I want to educate my kids (whether public or private) and for how long. In many cases, I do have a choice with the oil industry. I can choose to not drive my car and ride my bike to work. If the distance to and from work is too far to bike, I can choose to move closer to my job. I can choose to buy wool carpet for my house instead of synthetic. I can choose to have my groceries bagged in paper. Paying taxes, and by extension, paying the Teachers Union is not a choice.

"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."

There is a reason for patent protection and patent expiration. The pharma industry, for example, gets more or less 17 years to recoup their R&D and earn a profit on a drug that actually makes it to the market. You can, and many do, argue that those profits are excessive. But there is a point at which that patent become unprotected knowledge and competition quickly comes and levels the field. In our shrinking world, if a product is producing high degrees of profit, competitors will eventually enter the market. Not so with public education. The Teachers Union is an organization that operates under completely different rules than any other organization I can think of. They are protected indefinitely and generate revenue regardless of whether or not you use their serivces.

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

'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).'

I will focus on Non-Union employment here. Employment in general is a false sense of stability/security. In my view, it is not an entitlement trade-off with the employer. Just about every state in the union is At Will employment. Except for discrimination and a few other exceptions, any employee can be terminated for any reason at any time. The stability of the wage argument must be based on the fact that there is fundamental job stability. I believe we as a society have shifted to this belief that our jobs are stable and thus our wages should at minimum track inflation.

This shift, coinciding with the ever expanding state and federal government, is why the response to off-shore outsourcing creates an entitled bitterness. We say, "How dare the Chinese take OUR jobs" instead of saying, "How can we compete".

'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).'

The problem I see here is that unlike the oil industry, "consuming" education is legislated. In fact, you do have a choice about the teachers' union services, though. You can choose private education. But for argument sake, lets take private schools out of the mix. Anti-trust is an irrelevant argument since I don't have a choice regarding whether or not I want to educate my kids (whether public or private) and for how long. In many cases, I do have a choice with the oil industry. I can choose to not drive my car and ride my bike to work. If the distance to and from work is too far to bike, I can choose to move closer to my job. I can choose to buy wool carpet for my house instead of synthetic. I can choose to have my groceries bagged in paper. Paying taxes, and by extension, paying the Teachers Union is not a choice.

"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."

There is a reason for patent protection and patent expiration. The pharma industry, for example, gets more or less 17 years to recoup their R&D and earn a profit on a drug that actually makes it to the market. You can, and many do, argue that those profits are excessive. But there is a point at which that patent become unprotected knowledge and competition quickly comes and levels the field. In our shrinking world, if a product is producing high degrees of profit, competitors will eventually enter the market. Not so with public education. The Teachers Union is an organization that operates under completely different rules than any other organization I can think of. They are protected indefinitely and generate revenue regardless of whether or not you use their serivces.

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

'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).'

I will focus on Non-Union employment here. Employment in general is a false sense of stability/security. In my view, it is not an entitlement trade-off with the employer. Just about every state in the union is At Will employment. Except for discrimination and a few other exceptions, any employee can be terminated for any reason at any time. The stability of the wage argument must be based on the fact that there is fundamental job stability. I believe we as a society have shifted to this belief that our jobs are stable and thus our wages should at minimum track inflation.

This shift, coinciding with the ever expanding state and federal government, is why the response to off-shore outsourcing creates an entitled bitterness. We say, "How dare the Chinese take OUR jobs" instead of saying, "How can we compete".

'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).'

The problem I see here is that unlike the oil industry, "consuming" education is legislated. In fact, you do have a choice about the teachers' union services, though. You can choose private education. But for argument sake, lets take private schools out of the mix. Anti-trust is an irrelevant argument since I don't have a choice regarding whether or not I want to educate my kids (whether public or private) and for how long. In many cases, I do have a choice with the oil industry. I can choose to not drive my car and ride my bike to work. If the distance to and from work is too far to bike, I can choose to move closer to my job. I can choose to buy wool carpet for my house instead of synthetic. I can choose to have my groceries bagged in paper. Paying taxes, and by extension, paying the Teachers Union is not a choice.

"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."

There is a reason for patent protection and patent expiration. The pharma industry, for example, gets more or less 17 years to recoup their R&D and earn a profit on a drug that actually makes it to the market. You can, and many do, argue that those profits are excessive. But there is a point at which that patent become unprotected knowledge and competition quickly comes and levels the field. In our shrinking world, if a product is producing high degrees of profit, competitors will eventually enter the market. Not so with public education. The Teachers Union is an organization that operates under completely different rules than any other organization I can think of. They are protected indefinitely and generate revenue regardless of whether or not you use their serivces.

[vagabondo]

Am I correct in assuming that it is the statement at the end of the month that gets reported (like a balance sheet)? If this is correct, pay your balance (or what you think it will be) before the statement closes and the report will show at most a nominal/small number. This is easy to do now with electronic banking.

[vagabondo]

Am I correct in assuming that it is the statement at the end of the month that gets reported (like a balance sheet)? If this is correct, pay your balance (or what you think it will be) before the statement closes and the report will show at most a nominal/small number. This is easy to do now with electronic banking.

[vagabondo]

Am I correct in assuming that it is the statement at the end of the month that gets reported (like a balance sheet)? If this is correct, pay your balance (or what you think it will be) before the statement closes and the report will show at most a nominal/small number. This is easy to do now with electronic banking.

[vagabondo]

Am I correct in assuming that it is the statement at the end of the month that gets reported (like a balance sheet)? If this is correct, pay your balance (or what you think it will be) before the statement closes and the report will show at most a nominal/small number. This is easy to do now with electronic banking.

[vagabondo]

Am I correct in assuming that it is the statement at the end of the month that gets reported (like a balance sheet)? If this is correct, pay your balance (or what you think it will be) before the statement closes and the report will show at most a nominal/small number. This is easy to do now with electronic banking.

[vagabondo]

Here’s my point. I have worked for small (and I mean handfull of people small) and Fortune 500 companies. For the last 7 years, I have owned a chemical company. This is not a business in a vacuum. I have a very good finger on the pulse of the global economy. In the course of business, I deal with dollar issues, energy issues, transportation issues, environmental issues, customs issues, employee issues, customer compliance and many other issues. Much like a 100% commissioned sales person, I live and die by the customer and the sale. If sales are below budget, I must adjust my business to survive.

When I discuss challenges to businesses that affect the bottom line I usually get a different reaction from employees than from employers. I am not trying to generalize, but rather point out an observation. My experience in these discussion always tend to fall on what the employee thinks he/she deserves. And if they don’t get what they think they want, they (sometimes) complain. Understandable, since I myself want to make more money every year. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. As I have a choice to continue my business or find something else to do, so do my or any other employees. But do I deserve a raise? Do I go to my customer and say, “Hey, Mr. Customer, I didn’t make as mush as I wanted this year, give me more orders?” Of course not. I am suggesting that if you don’t like the pay, find other employment. Entitlement is when you think you have a right to something. In this case, employees are upset because they think they have a right to a raise that equals cost of living increases. I think this is very destructive, socialistic thinking.

Speaking of destructive, socialistic thinking…the Teachers Union is a totally different discussion. Whereby I must reduce expenses when leaner times are about, the TU could care less. So what if tax revenue is down, I want more money? Can’t find it you say? Then raise taxes! Try to suggest reducing admin, or some of the redundancies in public education will lead to a venomous attack.

[vagabondo]

Here’s my point. I have worked for small (and I mean handfull of people small) and Fortune 500 companies. For the last 7 years, I have owned a chemical company. This is not a business in a vacuum. I have a very good finger on the pulse of the global economy. In the course of business, I deal with dollar issues, energy issues, transportation issues, environmental issues, customs issues, employee issues, customer compliance and many other issues. Much like a 100% commissioned sales person, I live and die by the customer and the sale. If sales are below budget, I must adjust my business to survive.

When I discuss challenges to businesses that affect the bottom line I usually get a different reaction from employees than from employers. I am not trying to generalize, but rather point out an observation. My experience in these discussion always tend to fall on what the employee thinks he/she deserves. And if they don’t get what they think they want, they (sometimes) complain. Understandable, since I myself want to make more money every year. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. As I have a choice to continue my business or find something else to do, so do my or any other employees. But do I deserve a raise? Do I go to my customer and say, “Hey, Mr. Customer, I didn’t make as mush as I wanted this year, give me more orders?” Of course not. I am suggesting that if you don’t like the pay, find other employment. Entitlement is when you think you have a right to something. In this case, employees are upset because they think they have a right to a raise that equals cost of living increases. I think this is very destructive, socialistic thinking.

Speaking of destructive, socialistic thinking…the Teachers Union is a totally different discussion. Whereby I must reduce expenses when leaner times are about, the TU could care less. So what if tax revenue is down, I want more money? Can’t find it you say? Then raise taxes! Try to suggest reducing admin, or some of the redundancies in public education will lead to a venomous attack.

[vagabondo]

Here’s my point. I have worked for small (and I mean handfull of people small) and Fortune 500 companies. For the last 7 years, I have owned a chemical company. This is not a business in a vacuum. I have a very good finger on the pulse of the global economy. In the course of business, I deal with dollar issues, energy issues, transportation issues, environmental issues, customs issues, employee issues, customer compliance and many other issues. Much like a 100% commissioned sales person, I live and die by the customer and the sale. If sales are below budget, I must adjust my business to survive.

When I discuss challenges to businesses that affect the bottom line I usually get a different reaction from employees than from employers. I am not trying to generalize, but rather point out an observation. My experience in these discussion always tend to fall on what the employee thinks he/she deserves. And if they don’t get what they think they want, they (sometimes) complain. Understandable, since I myself want to make more money every year. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. As I have a choice to continue my business or find something else to do, so do my or any other employees. But do I deserve a raise? Do I go to my customer and say, “Hey, Mr. Customer, I didn’t make as mush as I wanted this year, give me more orders?” Of course not. I am suggesting that if you don’t like the pay, find other employment. Entitlement is when you think you have a right to something. In this case, employees are upset because they think they have a right to a raise that equals cost of living increases. I think this is very destructive, socialistic thinking.

Speaking of destructive, socialistic thinking…the Teachers Union is a totally different discussion. Whereby I must reduce expenses when leaner times are about, the TU could care less. So what if tax revenue is down, I want more money? Can’t find it you say? Then raise taxes! Try to suggest reducing admin, or some of the redundancies in public education will lead to a venomous attack.

[vagabondo]

Here’s my point. I have worked for small (and I mean handfull of people small) and Fortune 500 companies. For the last 7 years, I have owned a chemical company. This is not a business in a vacuum. I have a very good finger on the pulse of the global economy. In the course of business, I deal with dollar issues, energy issues, transportation issues, environmental issues, customs issues, employee issues, customer compliance and many other issues. Much like a 100% commissioned sales person, I live and die by the customer and the sale. If sales are below budget, I must adjust my business to survive.

When I discuss challenges to businesses that affect the bottom line I usually get a different reaction from employees than from employers. I am not trying to generalize, but rather point out an observation. My experience in these discussion always tend to fall on what the employee thinks he/she deserves. And if they don’t get what they think they want, they (sometimes) complain. Understandable, since I myself want to make more money every year. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. As I have a choice to continue my business or find something else to do, so do my or any other employees. But do I deserve a raise? Do I go to my customer and say, “Hey, Mr. Customer, I didn’t make as mush as I wanted this year, give me more orders?” Of course not. I am suggesting that if you don’t like the pay, find other employment. Entitlement is when you think you have a right to something. In this case, employees are upset because they think they have a right to a raise that equals cost of living increases. I think this is very destructive, socialistic thinking.

Speaking of destructive, socialistic thinking…the Teachers Union is a totally different discussion. Whereby I must reduce expenses when leaner times are about, the TU could care less. So what if tax revenue is down, I want more money? Can’t find it you say? Then raise taxes! Try to suggest reducing admin, or some of the redundancies in public education will lead to a venomous attack.

[vagabondo]

Here’s my point. I have worked for small (and I mean handfull of people small) and Fortune 500 companies. For the last 7 years, I have owned a chemical company. This is not a business in a vacuum. I have a very good finger on the pulse of the global economy. In the course of business, I deal with dollar issues, energy issues, transportation issues, environmental issues, customs issues, employee issues, customer compliance and many other issues. Much like a 100% commissioned sales person, I live and die by the customer and the sale. If sales are below budget, I must adjust my business to survive.

When I discuss challenges to businesses that affect the bottom line I usually get a different reaction from employees than from employers. I am not trying to generalize, but rather point out an observation. My experience in these discussion always tend to fall on what the employee thinks he/she deserves. And if they don’t get what they think they want, they (sometimes) complain. Understandable, since I myself want to make more money every year. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. As I have a choice to continue my business or find something else to do, so do my or any other employees. But do I deserve a raise? Do I go to my customer and say, “Hey, Mr. Customer, I didn’t make as mush as I wanted this year, give me more orders?” Of course not. I am suggesting that if you don’t like the pay, find other employment. Entitlement is when you think you have a right to something. In this case, employees are upset because they think they have a right to a raise that equals cost of living increases. I think this is very destructive, socialistic thinking.

Speaking of destructive, socialistic thinking…the Teachers Union is a totally different discussion. Whereby I must reduce expenses when leaner times are about, the TU could care less. So what if tax revenue is down, I want more money? Can’t find it you say? Then raise taxes! Try to suggest reducing admin, or some of the redundancies in public education will lead to a venomous attack.

[Author]

Posts