Thread: Craigslist notice??.

Tweet

I don't think anyone here is saying that profit is bad, just that greed is. My son was laid off almost 2 years ago along with 20 others. His job is now in China. The place that he worked had a local profit of around $80,000,000, This move was to increase the local profit by $3 million- 20 jobs lost overseas for 3 million additional profit, My job was lost 16 years ago "Job elimination for payroll reduction" and I was lucky. I was one of the early to go and got severance pay . They soon learned how to get around that. 6 years later the company no longer existed, however the CEO and his buddies got 2 to 5 mill bonuses each of those years and even made our pension fund almost worthless. I have no problem with profits but not at any cost.

Originally Posted by 53 Willys

I don't think anyone here is saying that profit is bad, just that greed is. My son was laid off almost 2 years ago along with 20 others. His job is now in China. The place that he worked had a local profit of around $80,000,000, This move was to increase the local profit by $3 million- 20 jobs lost overseas for 3 million additional profit, My job was lost 16 years ago "Job elimination for payroll reduction" and I was lucky. I was one of the early to go and got severance pay . They soon learned how to get around that. 6 years later the company no longer existed, however the CEO and his buddies got 2 to 5 mill bonuses each of those years and even made our pension fund almost worthless. I have no problem with profits but not at any cost.

I would propose that you're in more of a minority than you think when it comes to your statement about disdain, or lack of, for profit. Just by posting on this thread you're showing your comparative uniqueness. I doubt there are very many people on this forum who even read this thread after maybe looking at it once, much less put their oar in the water. Many, if they think about this stuff at all, which in the entirety of the population is a sadly small number (Leno doesn't make up those vacuous Jay Walking segments)don't believe it's worth bothering with because they don't believe they can change anyone's mind or they may feel insecure about their position. Personally I don't think that should be the point, it's more important to challenge some folks to think outside their presets, and reinforce beliefs some already hold that they worry others don't share. And then there's the kiss of death: they might get a "like" hit as you (Edit: and I ) did from Alan!

Part of the problem is that the examples from your own family can't be addressed in a quick, pithy response......................certainly not in a 30 second commercial or on a bumper sticker. It's like trying to desribe to a newb how a carburetor works. They need a lot of additional understanding of a broad range of information in order for the explanation of the carb itself to be intelligible and accurate. Sure, you could say "it mixes air and fuel which makes the car go". Which is fine as far as it goes, but is pactically useless for trouble shooting a problem or explaining how to improve it. And we have many examples of that in our daily discourse.

The "Occupy" group is an example of what happens when people learn from bumper stickers without benefit of knowing anything. Many of them claim to be college educated, but maybe all they did was attend school for a goodly number of years. In parts it's because they've bought into the propaganda. "Get a degree and you've got it made". Work is about doing something of value to your fellow man that he in turn exchanges mutually agreed value for. If someone believes that having a degree, any degree, is all that's necessary, they will be disappointed when nobody else appreciates their knowledge of Advanced Underwater Basket Weaving enough to pay them.

You'll see these Occupiers holding up signs like "End Money". They obviously have no idea of what money is. It's merely an IOU or voucher that represents value exchanged with someone else, not some item that has intrinsic value unto itself.

All of the above is a very tiny iceburgh tip in considering what would be necessary to have a meaningful discussion about jobs in an economy..............and already anyone who's read this far is bored to tears unless they have learned to learn and want to learn.

That's why the demonization of others works; be it corporations, competing political groups, those perceived to be wealthier, fat cats, and on and on. It appeals to basic instincts that don't require thought, only emotion. A politician who sells "I'll give you more stuff that we take away from the evil guy......" has a much easier time of it than the guy saying something like "We're going to have to work hard over a long period of time to solve this problem. Here are the 100 thing we need to do to just get started (or perhaps back on track)......."

Back to your personal example. There are likely many reasons why that whole thing turned out the way it did. It might have been incompetence on the part of management, or an outmoded technology/service/product, or too much government meddling that twisted the market out of shape, or dozens of other factors. Most likely some lethal combination of things. Blaming it on so called greed is quick and easy to say, but may not be accurate. And if we don't have an accurate diagnosis of the cause of a problem it's almost impossible to affect a proper cure.

Again I'll return to the Occupy crowd. One way to distill their mantra is that "We need to take from the 1% and give to the 99%!" This is one of those "Be careful what you wish for" moments. They're thinking within what they think they know about our country. If you expand the field of play to include the entire population of the planet, the top 1% would be just about the entire population of this country. We're that well off in, not just money, but in availability of food, clothing, shelter, clean water, sewage handling, and on and on. I'd bet theat most Occupy whiners would change their tune if it was THEY who had to be taken from......................just sayin'.

Originally Posted by Evolvo

34_40, your correct, the politicians greased the skids, but who greased the politicians (this is getting weird) and got them to make it easier to take our jobs overseas. IMO it was professional lobbyists working for the Plutocracy. OCCUPY CHR

But which group of constituants elected these people to protect and serve them? As I said. The Politicians only want money to spend, it's the easiest thing for them to do and makes them feel some self worth I think...

And if you want to use history and the unions, it was the unions who had to fight greedy corporations/owners and crooked politicians to make a better life for all!

Henry Ford first gave 5 dollar workdays and a scant couple years later, he's hired thugs to beat down a labor effort... what does it mean today? Not much as Detroit is a vacuum!

Like I said earlier, the only think I can control is my vote! It'll never go for an incumbent!

Originally Posted by Evolvo

I hope we're allowed to carry on this exchange, it's fun.

As long as you keep it civil and I see no links to "waywardly political web sites" this thread will allowed to be open. If I see anything amiss, this thread and all future political discussion will be persona non grata on this forum.


Enough said.

Bill S.

Originally Posted by mrmustang

As long as you keep it civil and I see no links to "waywardly political web sites" this thread will allowed to be open. If I see anything amiss, this thread and all future political discussion will be persona non grata on this forum.

Enough said.

Bill S.

Well Bill it does seem some old coot asked you to do something about that very topic.

Originally Posted by 1gary

Well Bill it does seem some old coot asked you to do something about that very topic.

Yes, but you are neither owner of the site, nor it's only moderator

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I doubt any of us will ever change someone else's opinion, but with this being an election year I know it will at least help to keep an awareness in peoples' brain when it's time to pull the curtain and do the deed on election day next November!!!!! A lot of politicians would like to extend that government control to include our Hot Rods and race cars, too. At the very least, reading someone else's opinion on an issue leads us to more thought and hopefully more research on that issue.... Learning is never a bad deal, and a modicum of respect for conflicting opinions is part of that learning deal too.... (Now who was it that just reminded me of that not so long ago??????)

Indeed, but as we have seen in the past (and the reason why we rarely allow threads like this to exist here), cars and politics do not mix. Feelings get hurt, noses get pushed out of joint, and people leave the forum in a huff. Not only is the counter productive, but it brings the whole forum down to a "us vs them" mentality. When that happens, and people start taking sides in a heated disagreement, nobody wins. Again, so far, this thread has remained mild, as long as it stays this way, it will be allowed to progress. If not, it gets shut down and archived.

All I (and Brent) ask is for people to not embarrass themselves and act like the responsible adults that I know you are in real life.


Bill S.

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Yes, but you are neither owner of the site, nor it's only moderator





Indeed, but as we have seen in the past (and the reason why we rarely allow threads like this to exist here), cars and politics do not mix. Feelings get hurt, noses get pushed out of joint, and people leave the forum in a huff. Not only is the counter productive, but it brings the whole forum down to a "us vs them" mentality. When that happens, and people start taking sides in a heated disagreement, nobody wins. Again, so far, this thread has remained mild, as long as it stays this way, it will be allowed to progress. If not, it gets shut down and archived.

All I (and Brent) ask is for people to not embarrass themselves and act like the responsible adults that I know you are in real life.


Bill S.

Whoa Bill I never make claims to either of those titles.Simply put I mistakenly started this mess and asked to be respected to put a end to it projecting what you just posted above.To be blunt,it has no place on a forum like this one in my opinion.

Originally Posted by 1gary

Whoa Bill I never make claims to either of those titles.Simply put I mistakenly started this mess and asked to be respected to put a end to it projecting what you just posted above.To be blunt,it has no place on a forum like this one in my opinion.

"Started this mess", yes, while you did start the topic, you later admittedly realized you could've read your own link! And saved yourself a headache??

Actually, I thank you for creating an opportunity for us to have a respectable exchange of viewpoints and ideas! While this isn't really auto related, out choices in the near future will certainly have an impact on us and our cars!

Originally Posted by 1gary

Whoa Bill I never make claims to either of those titles.Simply put I mistakenly started this mess and asked to be respected to put a end to it projecting what you just posted above.To be blunt,it has no place on a forum like this one in my opinion.

And thankfully this is not a forum of one opinion being oppressive to the whole, and we generally show respect in what we post. We likely have some members (or guests) who either 1) don't open this thread and don't care to read the dialog, or perhaps expand their understanding of whichever side they take; or 2) open the thread, scan the latest entry shaking their heads in dismay. Uncle Bob mentioned earlier that a lot of people had probably quit reading part way through his dialog, and in another place mentioned "Roger gets it" (thank you, Bob). For me, Bob very definitely "gets it", and he is very talented in his expression of his viewpoint. I read every word of every post on this thread, and I look forward to Bob's latest insights. I find that as I read Bob's posts, my head is generally nodding vertically, even for those places where I have to go back and re-read parts to understanding the reasoning. For some others my head tends to shake side to side as I wonder at the inequity of the statements, but I still read every word.

Neither side is perfect (it is not a perfect world), but as we look back at history there have been many, many of the highest respected leaders who have addressed similar situations. Today, in this election year rhetoric, we seem to have shifted from "Let's lift up the poor." to "Let's pound down the rich." Winston Churchill once said, "I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." Another popular target, which I tire of hearing about, is "...the 1%" and the need for them to "...pay their share", to be "redistributed" to the lower/middle income classes. I heard it said on a national commentary that if our collective leaders were truly concerned this would be a world view, as we are indeed in a shrinking world of technology, and they would assess that we are the richest major country in the world, and if you compare average household incomes on a world basis then the "1%" cuts deep into the US population, down to those who are bringing home incomes well below the national median of ~$28,000. Are we all ready to accept a, say 30% reduction in our taxable income in order to "share the wealth"? I believe this falls into the "Be careful what you ask for" category.

Those "Five Great Sentences" pretty much boil down to a simple mathmatical fact - Sharing of the wealth means that in each successive round of sharing there will be less to share, until there is eventually nothing left to share. I've been exposed to some of the writings of C.S. Lewis recently, and I note a quote that he made long ago, which to me shows that history tends to repeat, or perhaps that we humans seem to have a hard time learning from our mistakes.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C. S. Lewis

Originally Posted by mrmustang

As long as you keep it civil and I see no links to "waywardly political web sites" this thread will allowed to be open. If I see anything amiss, this thread and all future political discussion will be persona non grata on this forum.

Enough said.

Bill S.

I doubt any of us will ever change someone else's opinion, but with this being an election year I know it will at least help to keep an awareness in peoples' brain when it's time to pull the curtain and do the deed on election day next November!!!!! A lot of politicians would like to extend that government control to include our Hot Rods and race cars, too. At the very least, reading someone else's opinion on an issue leads us to more thought and hopefully more research on that issue.... Learning is never a bad deal, and a modicum of respect for conflicting opinions is part of that learning deal too.... (Now who was it that just reminded me of that not so long ago??????)

Originally Posted by Evolvo

Seems it's a two way street. I won't convince you and you won't convince me. You turn to those in the media who support your view and I do the same to have my beliefs validated.

In the interest of maintaining (hopefully) the civility that Bill has so far tollerated I'm not going to destroy each of the mistatements you've attempted to attribute to me. I'll just give some background and "suggestions" that might be of interest to the more open minded.

I don't seek media validation of my views, but I might suggest that links like you put up earlier to a Comedy Central clown aren't that encourageing for you. My views on what we've been discussing are based on personal experience over the past 50 years. I've actually been a union member, learned first hand how they can hamper a highly motivated employee, and how negotiated "benefits" can undermine productivity, however unintentional it may or may not be. (and yes, management shares blame by agreeing to some of the contract provisions that ultimately harm the business)

I've worked for employers large and small, each experience benefited me in some way, including basic jobs as a pre-teen and teenager that instilled a work ethic foundation. We didn't consider ourselves poor, we weren't trained to be victims, but I began work early out of necessity. (BTW, you undermine your credibility by saying Gingrich proposed not paying the youngsters, he in fact did encourage a wage, but the larger message in his proposal that is clear to an open mind is the concept of teaching work ethic, not enslaving kids. I recognize the objective from your side is to destroy him, but just be patient, he'll do that for you). What I learned by doing is that minimum wage jobs are a foundation building experience, not the end objective.

I've started my own business from practically nothing and built it into an entity that served it's customers wants/needs and as a result it was pretty profitable. I didn't need a media or political minder to direct me how to do it, in fact as "management" it was my job to figure out how to do what we did of value for our customers IN SPITE of over regulation, again, intended or not, that impeded reasonable performance. It was also my job to employ folks who could help achieve the goals of the business. Yes, I couldn't have done it alone, but they were well compensated for their contribution. And the reason they worked for me was that they recognized that the structure I assembled allowed them greater return on their efforts than they could accomplish for themselves. It was a win win, as it is for the vast majority of business be they corporations, partnerships, or individually owned. A labor union wouldn't have benefitted my employees, in fact it would have cost the higher producers income because they would have had to carry the weaker producers. In our environment the weaker producers didn't last long because they were bad for morale, which would have ended up cheating our customers as well as the other employees.

The notion proffered that those who don't support endless imposition of regulation means desiring NO regulation is a false premise. A couple examples. At a basic level, I'm very much in favor of regulating traffic flow at intersections with stop signs or traffic signals. I'm all in favor of regulating the behavior of murderers and rapists. Practical regulation is necessary to assist cooperation in societies. BTW, assist is the operative word there. Again, a concept for the open minded within the context of some of the recent talking points. It seems perfectly natural for most to accept the right of a union worker (or any worker for that matter) to go on strike when they feel that working conditions have become too onerous. If not on strike, then resignation. However, some of the folks who readily recognize that as reasonable, demonize the business owner/manager who reacts the same way. In the final analysis, actual business owners who survive (more fail than succeed) understand that it's the customers of their enterprise who determine how much profit the company makes. Sure, it's up to the business managers to marshall the resources to control that profit (or loss sometimes), but without the customer exchanging value for value in the first place there is not opportunity for profit. (not going to address the false exchange forced by politicians in league with so called crony capitalists here) If government makes it too onerous to operate in one environment the owners go on a form of strike, if they don't resign. They will seek a more favorable operating climate to support the profit their customers allow. If they don't make the changes necessary, they run the risk of becoming non-competitive and losing market share to the point where they can no longer survive. Politicians of course don't want to take the blame for creating the negative operating environment, so gin up notions about greed. Again, appeal to emotion rather than rational evaluation. Examples of this within our own borders are the city of Detroit, and the State of California. Detroit is way further down the path that California, and California could turn it around if they have the will, but time will have to reveal that.