Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 62 of 62
  1. #61
    Mar 2001

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    I'm wondering if our buddy CWiz here has ever been in a union. I was once upon a time when I took a part time job in college for a little extra spending money. My wife was for ~10 years as a teacher. We're both in pretty solid agreement that the "benefits" were paltry compared to the dues.

    I've worked for two companies with union shops. At both the shop guys were a good group for the most part. Some were slackers, some worked very well, not all that different from what you find in the white collar world. The biggest differences, IMHO? Most of the union guys were pretty darned particular about not doing anything that "wasn't their job" and most were content to stay in their union class for eons rather than trying to become more valuable.

    Wiz's arguments about job safety and the like are laughable. Industry has been tightly regulated in the safety department since long before you drew your first breath. Even OSHA has been around since 1970 and that was decades after safety changes gained traction in the workplace.

    Does stupid stuff still happen because of lousy, money-grubbing management? Sure, but that is far more often the exception rather than the rule.

    I am curious. You talk of profit as though it's a dirty word. Do you think a company can exist without it? Without profit a company can not afford to pay their workers more. Without profit a company can not grow to employ more workers. You seem to advocate that a company take all profit and distribute it to their workers. Ever heard of the Soviet Union? How about communist Poland? How about Czechoslovakia? All died because they had governments that "knew" what was best, took all profit, and redistributed in the best way possible.

    I've had the privilege of travelling to those countries, just a few short years after each left Communism. I gotta tell you, it was difficult to believe how spartan things were. It was equally hard to find locals complaining with most remarking about how much better things were. The approach isn't even in the same league with the brand of capitalism that's in effect here.

    You take issue with the relative distribution of money. You know what? I agree that it's out of whack with respect to certain isolated examples. The multi-million dollar golden parachutes given to executives leaving behind crippled companies anger me. A company I was at died of such an affliction. Yet I'm also able to look around and see those are the anomolies rather than the rule. In my perspective, the greatest incentive for making one's self better is the knowledge that your standard of living can improve if you're good, work hard, have the talent, and a little good luck never hurt.

    You seem to want all the reward without any risk. Companies should reward their employees by distributing the profit. Why? Does everyone deserve to partake equally? Is this what you propose? If not, then what? What's your justification? Why do you feel your system would work?

  2. #62
    Nov 2001
    E n g l a n d

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Getting back to the subject of "change" for a minute, I thought it would be interesting to compare the professional backgrounds of the many candidates.

    So I compiled a quick list:


    Hillary Clinton - Lawyer
    Barack Obama - Lawyer
    John Edwards - Lawyer
    Bill Richardson - Career Politician
    Dennis Kucinich - Career Politician
    Joe Biden - Lawyer/Career Politician
    Mike Gravel - Career Politician/Failed businessman
    Chris Dodd - Lawyer


    John McCain - Naval Aviator/Career Politician
    Mitt Romney - Successful Businessman/Administrator/Politician
    Mike Huckabee - Pastor/Politician
    Rudy Giuliani - Lawyer/Politician
    Ron Paul - Doctor/Air Force Flight Surgeon/Career Politician
    Fred Thompson - Lawyer/lobbyist/Politician/Actor
    Duncan Hunter - Army/Lawyer/Career Politician
    Tom Tancredo - Teacher/Career Politician

    A few things that spring to mind about this are:

    a) There's FAR too many @^%$* lawyers & other tapeworms.
    b) The Democrats need to get out more.
    c) Romney aside, there's bugger all experience there of running any sort of business - and you want them to run the world's biggest economy?

    I think that if you really want to 'change' things a good place to start would be the calibre and background of the candidates.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts