Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

    Interesting show.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUZkxyYJUk


    J.C.

  • #2
    Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

    Great examples of the real effects of Government meddling.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

      Brilliant stuff. I have the entire series on DVD.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

        Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
        Brilliant stuff. I have the entire series on DVD.
        What? Stossel series? Where do you get it. I find his reports an interesting way of looking at situations. I'm sure it's not perfect and misses some stuff...but interesting.

        I parallel this one to how people never look at the "big picture" in relation to what I do. They are sure they have done all of the research to determine that they want a tankless, radiant, solar, geothermal.

        But they almost always leave something out of the equation.


        J.C.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

          Google John Stossle and I think you can find it there. We have it at the school. It's 4 DVD's. I'm not sure who ordered it but I can find out for you.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

            A low minimum wage may help a waitress so she gets tips, but for the majority of poor working slobs it means working two or three jobs. Not the worst thing for a young single person living at home trying to save up for a car but a bad idea for parents who need a living wage and need to be around their children. Not everyone can be a trademan. Now if you want to see a good interview with Stossel, watch this!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9C...eature=related

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

              I stopped reading at "Fox News".

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

                Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                A low minimum wage may help a waitress so she gets tips, but for the majority of poor working slobs it means working two or three jobs. Not the worst thing for a young single person living at home trying to save up for a car but a bad idea for parents who need a living wage and need to be around their children. Not everyone can be a trademan. Now if you want to see a good interview with Stossel, watch this!

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9C...eature=related
                Frank, I think the problem is that the cost to society is higher than the benefit. If a large number of jobs are cut because of min wage rules, then are we helping on the whole or hurting?

                It is sad to say but it is NOT a right that everyone should be guaranteed a reasonable wage. Doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution. In my view, we are all responsible to make someothing out of ourselves so that we can earn a wage. That means that the compensation should be proportional to the value we provide. If it's only $3 and hour and it takes $9 to survive, then it is up to the individual to improve his/her skills or otherwise make himself/herself more valuable. We don't live in a communist society where everyone is guaranteed to get what they need. In the US, if you're not a good hunter, you better become a good farmer. If you can't hunt and you can't farm.... you're not going to eat. It's a powerful incentive, no?

                The problem with a high minimum wage is that it isn't free. There is a cost to society. Our government loves to dabble in things that they have no business dabbling in, like this. It is really a redistribution of wealth, which under the Constitution the Government is not empowered to do. We can all feel sorry for those that are struggling. We have charities and churches and private non-profits that provide aid. We can all give to those charities if we elect to. But that should be our choice... not Uncle Sam's. We already provide taxpayer supported free education through 12th grade, and subsidized higher education. Given all that, isn't it reasonable to let people take the ball at some point?

                I admit that I am very anti-Government intervention. The free market (in this case, for labor) may not be perfect. However, a free market will always do a better job than Government.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

                  Originally posted by Andy_M View Post
                  Frank, I think the problem is that the cost to society is higher than the benefit. If a large number of jobs are cut because of min wage rules, then are we helping on the whole or hurting?

                  It is sad to say but it is NOT a right that everyone should be guaranteed a reasonable wage. Doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution. In my view, we are all responsible to make someothing out of ourselves so that we can earn a wage. That means that the compensation should be proportional to the value we provide. If it's only $3 and hour and it takes $9 to survive, then it is up to the individual to improve his/her skills or otherwise make himself/herself more valuable. We don't live in a communist society where everyone is guaranteed to get what they need. In the US, if you're not a good hunter, you better become a good farmer. If you can't hunt and you can't farm.... you're not going to eat. It's a powerful incentive, no?

                  The problem with a high minimum wage is that it isn't free. There is a cost to society. Our government loves to dabble in things that they have no business dabbling in, like this. It is really a redistribution of wealth, which under the Constitution the Government is not empowered to do. We can all feel sorry for those that are struggling. We have charities and churches and private non-profits that provide aid. We can all give to those charities if we elect to. But that should be our choice... not Uncle Sam's. We already provide taxpayer supported free education through 12th grade, and subsidized higher education. Given all that, isn't it reasonable to let people take the ball at some point?

                  I admit that I am very anti-Government intervention. The free market (in this case, for labor) may not be perfect. However, a free market will always do a better job than Government.
                  Andy the same can be said of goods made by slave labor or more costly goods made by Americans, "the cost to society". I'm not advocating a communistic redistribution of wealth, but for God's sake pay a dam living wage at the very bottom of the ladder. I want the folks who are raising kids and working those jobs to take care of their kids and not be gone sixteen or more hours a day. Restructure pay scales to pay according to age, family status and some other criteria. We are constantly redistributing wealth by professionals, business owners, CEO's and others including Union workers, raising prices, demanding greater wages and benefits and so on. Why must the lowest of the low in our society be the one to suffer the most? I don't buy it Andy, and it makes me furious! IF we really want folks at the bottom to raise themselves up, pay them a wage that allows it to happen, be realistic and realizes plenty of the minimum wage earners are raising kids, possibly single Moms who were married to bums and are trying their best to stay off public assistance. I always believed a great society is judged by how the lowest among them is treated.

                  There will always be a need for unskilled or low skilled jobs, although programs such as "undercover Boss", have proven some of those low skill jobs are not so easy. I say if you are going to cap the minimum wage because of the cost to society, then stand up and cap the maximum wage!

                  Andy, ever wonder how many jobs were cut to pay for upper management and CEO salaries and bonuses. How easy it is to take from those who have the least to give. Let's keep our boots firmly on the necks of the weak because it would be too challenging to raise the bar. If we were going to compensate folks for the value they provide I believe we need to rethink a lot of salaries, starting at the top! The girl or guy at the register in McDonalds makes good on my order, which is more than I can say for our well paid politicians, CEO's, and many profesionals across the board.
                  I can think of many CEO's who ruined their companies, ruined their stockholders and walked away with million. Did society decide the the value they provided, I never got a chance to vote!
                  Last edited by Frankiarmz; 01-23-2011, 11:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

                    Well, I think we are going to disagree on this one. I don't see any relationship to slave labor at all. Slaves had no choice. Employees can always walk down the road and find another job.... or work on their skills and get a better job.

                    As for executive bonuses and salaries, yes, it is certainly true that had those payments not been so high many low-paid people may have had jobs. But what does that mean? In one case, you have the board of directors of a private business interest deciding what to pay to whom, with the firm's own money. They are not obligated to pay what you, I or anyone else thinks is fair. We have no standing with a private firm, they can screw it all up if they like. In the other case, you have the Government deciding what private business interests have to pay for low-end labor again with the firm's money. I don't think that Government in the US has any authority, per the Constitution, to do that.

                    Getting back to the issue of executive pay, what the public CAN do, is buy stock in the company. Then, if you don't like the way the Board is running things, you have a vote for every share you own.

                    This executive pay issue and a government imposed minimum wage is really two completely different animals. I don't think we really want the Government telling business what it should pay anyone. If they make good choices, they'll do well... if they make poor choices, they will go under.

                    If I want to pay a kid $5 to sweep my floor, and the kid wants to do it, great... I see no problem with that, as everyone is happy. On the other hand, if I want to pay $5 and the kid thinks his particular floor sweeping expertise merits $9, who is stopping him from finding someone else's floor to sweep? Now, that's a free market economy. But does it really seem reasonable for the Government to say I have to pay $7.50? In that case, I'll just sweep the floor myself, to no economic benefit to the kid or the economy. And that is really about the only thing that minimum wage laws really accomplish.
                    Last edited by Andy_M; 01-23-2011, 11:59 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

                      Originally posted by Andy_M View Post
                      Well, I think we are going to disagree on this one. I don't see any relationship to slave labor at all. Slaves had no choice. Employees can always walk down the road and find another job.... or work on their skills and get a better job.

                      As for executive bonuses and salaries, yes, it is certainly true that had those payments not been so high many low-paid people may have had jobs. But what does that mean? In one case, you have the board of directors of a private business interest deciding what to pay to whom, with the firm's own money. They are not obligated to pay what you, I or anyone else thinks is fair. We have no standing with a private firm, they can screw it all up if they like. In the other case, you have the Government deciding what private business interests have to pay for low-end labor again with the firm's money. I don't think that Government in the US has any authority, per the Constitution, to do that.

                      Getting back to the issue of executive pay, what the public CAN do, is buy stock in the company. Then, if you don't like the way the Board is running things, you have a vote for every share you own.

                      This executive pay issue and a government imposed minimum wage is really two completely different animals. I don't think we really want the Government telling business what it should pay anyone. If they make good choices, they'll do well... if they make poor choices, they will go under.

                      If I want to pay a kid $5 to sweep my floor, and the kid wants to do it, great... I see no problem with that, as everyone is happy. On the other hand, if I want to pay $5 and the kid thinks his particular floor sweeping expertise merits $9, who is stopping him from finding someone else's floor to sweep? Now, that's a free market economy. But does it really seem reasonable for the Government to say I have to pay $7.50? In that case, I'll just sweep the floor myself, to no economic benefit to the kid or the economy. And that is really about the only thing that minimum wage laws really accomplish.
                      Andy, I agree that we must disagree on this one, but not before knocking it around a bit more. Your first scenario dismisses value for work theory if pay is an indiscriminate thing. Regarding becoming a stockholder, maybe you have not had much experience in this area. Ever hear of carly fiorina and what she did to Lucent Technologies? Thousands lost their jobs, stock back split more times than I can count and she exicted with millions. When the deck is stacked against you, your shareholder votes are worthless! This scenarion repeated itself many times in recent years. Problem has been when business have not done well, shareholders have suffered, not over paid CEO's.

                      " Employees can walk down the road and find another minimum paying job", that sure solves the problem of the student trying to studying and work through college, or the single Mom trying to support he famlily and still have a little time for them. I am not suggesting we pay those at the bottom what trades people earn, but given the abuses at the upper and top ranges of employment, there is room for review. There is justification to lift up the lowest among us, because those at the top are not giving value for work.

                      Average rent in my town is $1000.00 a month for a one bedroom apt. Now you go right ahead and pay that "kid" $5, but if an adult is working to "better" himself or support his family I agree you sweep the floor yourself and pocket that generous economic windfall.

                      I do want the government telling business owners what to pay workers at the very least! I want them to be told to give their workers a 15 minute break every four hours, a chance to use the bathroom. I want them to be told to treat them with some respect, not sexually harass them, issue proper safety gear, training, instruction, supervision if necessary.

                      I don't want minimum wage left to the discrimination of employers. I can see it now, millions of Americans out of work and CEO's still abusing the system while communist chinese owned factories pop up all over our country The factories have plenty of jobs but pay $2.00 a day, desperate Americans fill the positions and take up residence in tents and shantys around the factories. No thanks Andy, drop a bomb now and let AMerica go out with a shred of dignity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

                        Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                        Andy, I agree that we must disagree on this one, but not before knocking it around a bit more. Your first scenario dismisses value for work theory if pay is an indiscriminate thing. Regarding becoming a stockholder, maybe you have not had much experience in this area. Ever hear of carly fiorina and what she did to Lucent Technologies? Thousands lost their jobs, stock back split more times than I can count and she exicted with millions. When the deck is stacked against you, your shareholder votes are worthless! This scenarion repeated itself many times in recent years. Problem has been when business have not done well, shareholders have suffered, not over paid CEO's.

                        " Employees can walk down the road and find another minimum paying job", that sure solves the problem of the student trying to studying and work through college, or the single Mom trying to support he famlily and still have a little time for them. I am not suggesting we pay those at the bottom what trades people earn, but given the abuses at the upper and top ranges of employment, there is room for review. There is justification to lift up the lowest among us, because those at the top are not giving value for work.

                        Average rent in my town is $1000.00 a month for a one bedroom apt. Now you go right ahead and pay that "kid" $5, but if an adult is working to "better" himself or support his family I agree you sweep the floor yourself and pocket that generous economic windfall.

                        I do want the government telling business owners what to pay workers at the very least! I want them to be told to give their workers a 15 minute break every four hours, a chance to use the bathroom. I want them to be told to treat them with some respect, not sexually harass them, issue proper safety gear, training, instruction, supervision if necessary.

                        I don't want minimum wage left to the discrimination of employers. I can see it now, millions of Americans out of work and CEO's still abusing the system while communist chinese owned factories pop up all over our country The factories have plenty of jobs but pay $2.00 a day, desperate Americans fill the positions and take up residence in tents and shantys around the factories. No thanks Andy, drop a bomb now and let AMerica go out with a shred of dignity.
                        Frank, I can't argue with you about Ms. Fiorina. She is unquestionably scum in my book. After Lucent, HP hired her and she systematically dismantled that iconic technology firm, laying off 30,000 and turning HP into a cheap hawker of low quality commodity PCs. I have several friends that "used" to work at HP. Here in Silicon Valley, "The HP Way" was legend... today it is just a memory.

                        But all that is immaterial. Let's agree that she was a unethical at best and a crook at worst. Is this somehow an argument for The Federal Government taking over and controlling business? Honestly, that's really out there. This is the United States, not a communist regime where the governmnet dictates pay. A stupid board of directors is allowed to hire bad CEOs and pay them crazy amounts with insane golden parachutes. Government can't pre-empt that. And I agree, the shareholders can't do much to pre-empt it either. But I want to remind you that Carly got canned from HP, and here in CA has a very poor reputation in the tech industry. I strongly suspect she's done here.

                        Your arguments for a minimum wage are rooted in the fact that you are a kind and decent person. The issue is that the minimum wage accomplishes the opposite of what you want to see. If jobs completely disappear because government dictates that they pay a certain amount that is too high for the value contributed, then how does that help anyone? You are missing the point that if Government forces business to PAY more than a job is worth, then business simply won't have those positions, period. You may not like it, but business is based on being able to make a profit off of the value of each employee. In a free market, employers are in competition for labor and will pay what the person's contribution is worth, in the context of profitability. Business is not running a charity or benevolent society. The positions at the bottom of the pay scale contribute the least value to the organization, and thus they are the ones that business least needs. If they cost more than they're worth, those jobs are the first to go. Sorry to say... but that's just the facts of the matter. Some jobs are simply not worth the minimum wage, which means that business is losing money by filling that position. That just doesn't make any sense.

                        I owned a small business. We had skilled labor that made far in excess of minimum wage. I also had a guy, Lou, that did errands for me, and cleaned up the shop. He was a great guy, very hard worker. In 2001, after the dot com bubble burst (hit hard here) and the WTC disaster, things really slowed down. I had to cut costs across the board, and that included payroll. Guess who had to go? I couldn't get rid of one of the higher paid guys, because they generated necessary value. Lou lost his job. If min wage wasn't a law, Lou could have kept his job a while longer or maybe not lost it at all. He was nearly 60 years old, married, grown kids. It was very sad for me (he took it well, though). But in the end, the needs of the many have to outweigh the needs of the few.

                        Here's another story, since you mentioned the bathroom. I worked two jobs to get through college. One of them was auto mechanic. One of the other guys would disappear to the john for 30-40 minutes at least once every day. Now, half the time he would go in with a newspaper. No one liked it. The service manager didn't like it, and the other mechanics didn't like it because he would time his disappearance so that he pulled the easier jobs (flat rate shop). You could hear the cars pulling in and out of the service bays from inside the john. But guess what, there was nothing that management could do. On top of that, we were union and the management was afraid of the union. The Assistant Service Writer got fed up and jumped on the guy's case, and had a union grievance filed against him. It was all completely absurd. He wasn't even a good mechanic.

                        One more story. In my world, we have to take a 30 minute lunch break. Sounds like a good thing, right? It's not. If an engineer, program manager, or other "carpet person" has to get something done, very many would rather skip lunch to finish. It could be the difference between getting out of the office at 8 pm instead of 8:30 pm. So, many do just that - ignoring the 30 minute minimum lunch law. As management, though, you have to not only allow the 30 minute lunch, but if you know someone is skipping, you have to actually insist that they take the 30 minutes, thanks to the law and the threat of an employee complaint. Now, these are salaried-exempt people. We don't monitor when they show up and we don't monitor when they leave, and no one cares how long they stay at lunch or of they take 10 coffee breaks or if they do 8 hours, 6 hours or 11 hours. We don't for the most part care about any of it, as long as they get their job done and are somehow coordinating with others on the team. But the 30 minute lunch is mandatory, even for salaried-exempt. Stupid.

                        I am sure that there are employers that mistreat employees. I am equally sure that there are employees that screw the employer. I'm understand that allowing the free market to run doesn't guarantee a utopia, but I believe that it will end up doing a better job than government bureaucratic regulation. I have personally found myself in circumstances where I didn't like the deal I was getting from the employer. I held my tongue, collected the paycheck, and found myself a better situation. I'm not saying that is always easy, and I'm not saying it is fair (whatever that means). What I am saying is that it is none of Government's business. Government's job is defined in the Constitution. You either believe that a free market is self-regulating in the most efficient possible way, or you don't. The very smart guys that wrote the Constitution believed in free markets, and minimum intervention. I tend to side with them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

                          "What I am saying is that it is none of Government's business. Government's job is defined in the Constitution. You either believe that a free market is self-regulating in the most efficient possible way, or you don't. The very smart guys that wrote the Constitution believed in free markets, and minimum intervention. I tend to side with them."

                          Andy, no disrespect to you or the framers of the Constitution, but this is a world they did not envision. Our businesses do need government oversight with minimum and maximum wages, salaries, bonuses to prevent the rampant abuses we have seen. Your bathroom story was believable so belive mine of the many elderly bag packers I know in the food stores who stand for long hours and have to beg to use a bathroom or have something to eat. I have thoughts for another thread you might find of interest. I would really appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks. Frank B.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 10 Political Promises Gone Wrong...

                            Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                            Andy, no disrespect to you or the framers of the Constitution, but this is a world they did not envision. Our businesses do need government oversight with minimum and maximum wages, salaries, bonuses to prevent the rampant abuses we have seen. Your bathroom story was believable so belive mine of the many elderly bag packers I know in the food stores who stand for long hours and have to beg to use a bathroom or have something to eat. I have thoughts for another thread you might find of interest. I would really appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks. Frank B.
                            Frank, what is it exactly that the founding fathers failed to envision? Didn't they have employers and employees in the 18th century? Wasn't there conflict between labor and management? Didn't they have poor people and rich people? Didn't they have unemployment? Weren't some people lazy and other industrious? Didn't they have skilled labor and unskilled labor? Are the basic laws of supply and demand different today?

                            The line about the founding fathers not envisioning our world is frequently offered by those that want big government to ride in on a silver stallion and fix everything. It ignores history and reality, which we are living though today, that government meddling always succeeeds only in breaking the system worse. And it is always the population that is hurt, the very ones you want to help. That's the tragic irony of it.

                            Our form of Government was never designed to be a social architect, advocate of the little guy, or the champion of the elderly or the infirm. Communism is designed to do that. Our government was based on Government specifically NOT infringing rights and allowing people the freedom to chart their own course. Even back in Jefferson's time, and before, there were little guys, elderly and infirm. How did they survive without big brother? Seems to me that we were better off when people took care of their own, including themselves, rather than relying on Uncle Sam. He isn't any good at it.

                            Socialism and communism attempt to control business (socialism) and business and society (communism). It doesn't work. China knows this and since 1979 they've moved strongly to introduce capitalism into their economy. With pretty good results. We on the the other hand, dismiss the free-market founding fathers that " didn't envision the modern world" and look to government regulation as the answer.

                            So who is moving in the right direction? Which way seems to be working better? Seems quite clear to me that if we continue to increase those policies that have resulted in our social and economic decline, we're going to continue to decline.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X