DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on January 24, 2008, 11:43:10 AM
-
Open-Minded Liberals?
By Larry Elder
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Walter Cronkite, when asked whether he agreed that liberals dominated the major news media, told me, "Yes -- if by liberal you mean open-minded."
Are liberals more "open-minded" than conservatives?
To find out, a biennial survey conducted by the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies uses a scale from 0 to 100 -- 0 meaning shoot-the-person-on-sight hatred, and 100 meaning find-a-place-for-him-on-Mount-Rushmore adoration. The 2004 survey then asked 1,200 adults to define themselves politically.
Using this 0-to-100 scale, the survey asked those who described themselves as "conservative" or "extremely conservative" to rate "liberals." Average score -- 39. "Liberals" and "extreme liberals" gave "conservatives" a similar score -- 38.
But the survey then asked respondents to apply the scale to specific people. How did "extreme conservatives," in 1998, rate then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore? "Extreme conservatives" gave them both an average reading of 45. Twenty-eight percent gave Clinton a 0, with 10 percent giving that score to Gore.
How did "extreme liberals" rate President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in 2004? That group gave Bush and Cheney an average temperature of 15 and 16, respectively. Sixty percent of these extreme liberals gave Messrs. Bush and Cheney a 0. In other words, six out of ten Americans on the far left found that no evil, heinous person in the world could be worthy of more hatred than Bush and Cheney. For a little perspective, the then-alive Saddam Hussein received an average score of 8 from all Americans.
Dick Morris, a former aide to Bill Clinton, described how Clinton berated his 1996 Republican opponent, former Sen. Bob Dole. President Clinton said, "Bob Dole is not a nice man. Bob Dole is evil. The things he wants to do to children are evil. The things he wants to do to poor people and old people and sick people are evil. Let's get that straight."
After Republicans took control of the House in the mid-'90s, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., compared the newly conservative-controlled House to "the Duma and the Reichstag." Dingell referred to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the parliament of the German Weimar Republic that brought Hitler to power.
Comparing Republicans to Nazis remains a favorite pastime of some Democrats. Billionaire Democratic contributor George Soros said the Bush White House displays the "supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany," and that the administration uses rhetoric that echoes his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,'" Soros said, "it reminds me of the Germans."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean characterized the contest between Democrats and Republicans as "a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
Last week at my local barbershop, the barber working at the chair next to mine, and his customer, discovered that I voted for George W. Bush. Shocked! Shocked! The customer stammered, "Why?"
Not particularly interested in a political discussion, I said something about keeping the country safe, opposition to big government, and support for low taxes.
"But how, how can you support somebody who pulled off 9/11?"
"Excuse me?" I asked.
"I believe 9/11 was an inside job."
"You mean Bush murdered 3,000 people on American soil?" I asked.
"He did it to get black people."
"Most of those killed in 9/11 were white," I said.
"They were in the way."
"Explain to me why people like Bush and Cheney run for public office in order to commit murder."
"Because that's what they do."
"For what reason? To get rich?" I asked. "They already were."
I then learned that somebody intentionally ruptured a levee in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; that Bush simply serves as a puppet for others; and that "they" wish to "destroy" the little people in the middle class.
Finally, I sighed and simply asked, "How do you function day by day?"
"What do you mean?"
"How do you get up in the morning thinking that somebody in Washington, D.C., wants to murder you?"
I started to ask him where he places Bush on that thermometer, but I think I already knew. So I switched the conversation to the NFL playoffs.
Bottom line: Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.
Larry Elder is host of the Larry Elder Show on talk radio and author of Showdown : Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America .
-
>>Bottom line: Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people. <<
And, in this case, both are correct.
-
Hiya knutty!
-
<<But the survey then asked respondents to apply the scale to specific people. How did "extreme conservatives," in 1998, rate then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore? "Extreme conservatives" gave them both an average reading of 45. Twenty-eight percent gave Clinton a 0, with 10 percent giving that score to Gore.
<<How did "extreme liberals" rate President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in 2004? That group gave Bush and Cheney an average temperature of 15 and 16, respectively. Sixty percent of these extreme liberals gave Messrs. Bush and Cheney a 0. In other words, six out of ten Americans on the far left found that no evil, heinous person in the world could be worthy of more hatred than Bush and Cheney. For a little perspective, the then-alive Saddam Hussein received an average score of 8 from all Americans.>>
All that shows to me is that liberals are so good that even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives can't say much against them. Whereas Cheney and Bush must be the scum of the fucking earth. Just what I've been saying all along. For those who ranked Bush and Cheney as worse than Saddam Hussein, they were probably thinking along purely personal lines - - that Bush and Cheney had hurt them and their families worse than anything that Saddam had ever done to them. Perhaps by sending their children to die in a useless war or leaving them saddled with crushing debt by failing to provide affordable health insurance.
-
Hiya knutty!
Good 2 c u 2 poo.
-
"open-minded liberals"? Isn't this an oxymoron? ;D
-
>>Bottom line: Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people. <<
And, in this case, both are correct.
Oh, I don't know. I do consider many liberals to be misguided, but isn't that an entire universe away from thinknig they are bad people? For liberals to think of conservatives as bad people seems a lot meaner than the other half of the sentence.
-
<<For liberals to think of conservatives as bad people seems a lot meaner than the other half of the sentence.>>
There's nothing mean about it. I think of conservatives as selfish, self-absorbed and not giving a shit about the plight of others, whether those others are blacks, homeless Americans, AIDS victims, Iraqis or prisoners in U.S. hands.
That's not mean, but it's not sugar-coated either. If the shoe fits . . .
Bottom line is, talking the talk ("compassionate conservatism") is not walking the walk.
-
I am sorry you feel that way. I will still respect your views, even though they are misguided and, more importantly, I say nothing negative about you PERSONALLY.
This is like saying to a child "Suzzie, you did a bad thing" which is much preferable than "Suzzie, you are a bad person for doing that!"
-
>>"open-minded liberals"? Isn't this an oxymoron?<<
Of course.
Todays liberals/fascists will stop at nothing to shut-up and deny your freedom of speech, religion and expression. All you have to do is look at the democrat party convention for proof. You tow the line, or you have no voice. They don't like Christians, so they are systematically removing Christianity from our culture. Liberals are the group outlawing certain thoughts and certain speech. Darwinism, you better believe or you're a Nazi. Global warming, same thing.
Liberal fascism is alive and well in this country. I've been saying it for years. Jonah Goldberg has written a book about it.
-
>>I am sorry yo feel that way. I will still respect your views, even though they are misguided and, more importantly, I say nothing negative about you PERSONALLY.<<
It's all person to liberals. It's their religion. Liberals fascists see anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy. They must be stopped, at any cost. What are these attitudes based in? I suggest your average liberal is more than an a little dumb and-or mentally unstable. They'd have to be to believe the weird things they believe and to say the twisted things they say. To say Conservatives don't care about others is to close your eyes to the mountain of evidence that proves otherwise. Conservative donate more time and money to causes than liberals. That's a fact. Religious people do more to help others that liberals. Another fact. Liberals don't want to be bothered actually doing something, so they think the government should do it in their name. Eventually they expect the government to take care of them too.
Liberal fascism, American style, is the nanny state. It's nice fascism. It's what's best for you. Who decides? Why them of course, and if you don't like it, it's of to the camp with you.
-
thiers a movie called the last supper that`s about some liberals killing conservatives
if you talk to some liberals they will say they would kill bush or reagan
but I don`t recall any conservative ever saying they would kill clinton.
my question here is would a conservative say they would?
-
"open-minded liberals"? Isn't this an oxymoron? ;D
LOL.......touche'. Oh, and great piece again by the Elder statesman. Thanks for posting it Rich
-
<<I am sorry yo feel that way. I will still respect your views, even though they are misguided and, more importantly, I say nothing negative about you PERSONALLY.>>
I have a lot of respect for you personally, Professor, and I was not commenting adversely on you at all, but commenting on conservatives in general, and the type of person that their philosophy would generally appeal to. I didn't mean that everyone who finds their arguments appealing had to be like that. I guess I should have made myself clearer and I apologize for not doing so.
It's actually a puzzlement to me when I find people who I think are decent and honourable taking up views that IMHO lead to so much unnecessary harm and suffering in the world that I can't help but ask Why? WHY? often with an unavoidable note of exasperation in my voice. But that's the nature of a debate when the issues are passionately felt. Please let me know any time you feel that I crossed a line. I appreciate it.
-
While I scratch my head in bewilderment at so many well intentioned folks on the left side of the ideological aisle, who would actively facilitate and enable so much suffering, so much poverty, so much polarization........to what end? Power? The utopian pipe dream that all suffering and evil can be eliminated by talking & "redistributing wealth", and everyone is equal to everyone else, in every way? To reinforce the sense of feeling so superior to those who simply don't realize they're in the presence of such intellectual superiority?? To what end, indeed?
-
thiers a movie called the last supper that`s about some liberals killing conservatives
if you talk to some liberals they will say they would kill bush or reagan
but I don`t recall any conservative ever saying they would kill clinton.
my question here is would a conservative say they would?
You obviously never participated in Washington Watch Room during the Bill Clinton lynching. Some RW nut threatened to kill Bill almost hourly.
-
I don`t know about that, but it`s really good for big business
ex. green
the goal of any good business is to get the customer to spend as much as possible and alittle bit more.
in all the talks about green ,not once has anybody mention the word cheaper.
and the crazy part about green is it doesn`t even have to work well
it`s all assumed to be good.
ex. corn
p.s.
about the clinton threats
wow
seriouisly all i hear are complaints,but no talk of killing
-
<<While I scratch my head in bewilderment at so many well intentioned folks on the left side of the ideological aisle, who would actively facilitate and enable so much suffering, so much poverty, so much polarization........to what end? Power? The utopian pipe dream that all suffering and evil can be eliminated by talking & "redistributing wealth", and everyone is equal to everyone else, in every way? To reinforce the sense of feeling so superior to those who simply don't realize they're in the presence of such intellectual superiority?? To what end, indeed?>>
That's a very good question, to what end? Maybe to apply a little logic and factual analysis to the problems of the day, instead of "solving" them with macho posturing, flag-waving, drum-beating and the instant demonization of anyone who dares to question the motives or the methods of Gawd and His Own Chosen Country, Amerikkka? Maybe because they feel that rushing off to war after war on phony prefabricated pretexts is not good for anybody, Amerikkka included?
-
And yet strangely, all that "logic and factual analysis" continues to perpetuate and enable even greater amounts of suffering and Government need...........<ahhhh, then comes the little lite bulb>.........in order to need Government to "come to the rescue", one needs to perpetuate the problems that allow for the call....all the while facilitating the same viscious cycle of poverty, suffering, & need, while know-it-all liberals demonstrate their obvious intellectual superiority of telling eveyone else what they need, how they're to live, what they're to buy, what they can own, and who's to blame for all their misery in life....because of course, they know better, than the rest of us.
To what end, indeed
-
>>To what end, indeed?<<
Why to put themselves in power of course. This is the kind of thing you find from every despotic regime. The communists of old had it right you see, they just didn't have the right people running it is all. Our current crop of communist/fascists believe that they'll get it right because they are smarter and have the right intentions. History of course teaches otherwise.
-
the big problem is whoever is in charge people still say it`s more of the same.
nobody is willing to admit that no one political party is the answer.
-
I'm willing to admit that the Republican Party has many more correct answers than the democrat party.
-
You're right there, Kimba. It's not the party, it's the mindset that's needed. And neither party is providing any substantive responsible mindset currently. Claims of being a Reagan Republican...In the mold or Reagan....my ass :P
-
<<And yet strangely, all that "logic and factual analysis" continues to perpetuate and enable even greater amounts of suffering and Government need..........>>
Why do you assume that logic and analysis will always come to the conclusion that more government funding is needed? Isn't that like admitting that logic and fact DO prove the need for even more government aid? Especially since what they've been forking over so far has not been enough to resolve the problem? Seems to me that government funding operates on the principle that if I ask them for ten dollars they will give me five. In other words, no government has ever adequately funded any social welfare program as originally requested. So why would it be surprising that habitually under-funded programs habitually under-perform?
<< . . . in order to need Government to "come to the rescue", one needs to perpetuate the problems that allow for the call....>>
So poverty is caused, not by sub-standard housing, poor parenting skills, lack of educational resources, lack of early childhood development resources or any of the generally accepted causes. Poverty is caused by politicians interested in preserving poverty since that creates the need which requires their intervention, which gives them more power. It's an interesting theory. I kind of wonder, though, how the politicians manage to perpetuate poverty all on their own. Do they sneak over to the schoolhouse door in the wee hours of the morning and nail it shut with a posted warning: "School Closed Due to Cholera Outbreak?" Do they create "Do Not Hire" lists of poor people and their children and distribute them to all employers within a 20-mile radius of each and every slum?
<<all the while facilitating the same viscious cycle of poverty, suffering, & need, while know-it-all liberals demonstrate their obvious intellectual superiority of telling eveyone else what they need, how they're to live, what they're to buy, what they can own, and who's to blame for all their misery in life....because of course, they know better, than the rest of us.>>
I think it's a little misleading to think of one big bad liberal doing it all. One guy - - Michael Harrington, say - - writes a book like "The Other America: Poverty in the United States." That's a pretty seminal book. It's pretty well researched, so they say. Presents a lot of facts that very few people knew. Other people read the book. Some of the readers are conservative. They don't give a shit. They can read it cover to cover, and after they absorb it all, they say something like, "Fuck it, who gives a shit?" or "Niggers. Whatcha expect anyway?" or "Tough shit, that's life" or even "So what? Isn't it their own damn fault anyway? My folks were just as poor and blah blah blah." So that's the conservative response. Then the fucking liberals get the book and it's "Holy shit, this is terrible," and "What can be done about it?" and "I'm gonna write my fucking Congressman." So pressure builds on the legislature and some "liberal" legislators draw up bills and programs and proposals and meet with community activists, etc. and sooner or later some watered-down form of the initial draft bill becomes law. Nice.
Now who are the "liberals" that sirs is so pissed off with? The academics who conduct the studies and write the books? But they're just the messengers, aren't they? What were they supposed to do, shut their eyes and just write that all's well and good in this, the greatest country on God's green earth?
Maybe sirs is pissed at the concerned citizens who read the book and start to form neighbourhood improvement associations and write their Congressmen to stop the blight? Yeah, I can see that. Why can't the little pricks just learn to say "Fuck it" and look the other way?
Or maybe he's pissed off at the "liberal" legislators who actually listen when their constituents demand action on poverty. Yeah. Why can't they just grow a pair and say no to all the poverty-stricken families, concerned citizens, academics and activist citizens? Fuck it, were they elected to scurry at the beck and call of their constituents or to lead the nation? Obviously the latter, so get out of their way, liberal advocates, we've got a fucking war on our hands, do. you. read. me?
Ahh, it's a rough world, sirs, made all the worse by liberal piss-ants. But don't worry, my friend, WE SHALL OVERCOME. And in the meantime just ignore them. Pretend that they're not here.
-
<<And yet strangely, all that "logic and factual analysis" continues to perpetuate and enable even greater amounts of suffering and Government need..........>>
Why do you assume that logic and analysis will always come to the conclusion that more government funding is needed? Isn't that like admitting that logic and fact DO prove the need for even more government aid?
No, ususally it's quite the opposite. It's simply that "the Government" has access to $$$ that individuals libs don't.....everyone else's. It's the best of all worlds for the left; they push well intetioned but fatally flawed programs, use other people's money to do so, and boast at how smart they were for coming up with the program, and the only reason they consistently fail is that not enough $$$ have been "invested" (translated, we haven't taxed "the rich" near enough yet), and of course, it's the fault of Bush and those Fascist Republicans
All the while, the viscious cycle continues of enabling the same poverty, strife, and misery that faciltates the call for "more Government". Congrats, you have it working quite well, currently.
-
So poverty is caused, not by sub-standard housing, poor parenting skills, lack of educational resources, lack of early childhood development resources or any of the generally accepted causes. Poverty is caused by politicians interested in preserving poverty since that creates the need which requires their intervention, which gives them more power. It's an interesting theory. I kind of wonder, though, how the politicians manage to perpetuate poverty all on their own. Do they sneak over to the schoolhouse door in the wee hours of the morning and nail it shut with a posted warning: "School Closed Due to Cholera Outbreak?" Do they create "Do Not Hire" lists of poor people and their children and distribute them to all employers within a 20-mile radius of each and every slum?
It isn't that complex.
Every dollar taken by he government from the public is a dollar less availible for hireing work .
Pushing for excessive taxation is directly pushing for unemployment.
Meanwhile to a modern American Liberal "excessive taxation " sounds like an oximoron.
-
<<Every dollar taken by he government from the public is a dollar less availible for hireing work.>>
Whoah, that is a big pill to swallow. First of all, every dollar taken from the public is a dollar to invest in early childhood development or better education and training or disease control, etc. Your government doesn't take the dollars and buy drugs with them until they're all pissed away.
Second, your "dollar for hiring work" paradigm just doesn't work. If a businessman sees the need for expanding his work force, he's not gonna postpone it until such time as the government sees fit to either cut taxes or rebate back, he just goes to the fucking bank with a plan showing what he can do with that extra payroll bulge in his line of credit. If the bank believes the guy can turn a healthy profit on the new help, they'll advance it to him or increase his LOC accordingly. The fact of the matter is that businessmen don't like to hire because it increases their liabilities and their bookkeeping in many different ways.
A businessman handed an unexpected windfall in tax rebates or cuts would be much more likely to try to apply it to labour-saving technology that would enable him to lay off some of the existing work-force, than to go out and hire more workers. He might decide to increase his advertising budget, but that's more or less taken care of the same way as work-force - - it's already been budgeted for the fiscal year and deployed. There isn't much room for impulse buying in business advertising. If he wanted to increase the current year's advertising budget, he would have gone to his bank with a plan outlining the projected benefits. If he was struggling under a heavy debt load, he might apply the windfall to paying some of it down (a very likely application) but - - and I think there was a survey which actually bore this out once - - he would be most likely to pocket the windfall and use it for personal self-indulgence. Which isn't all to the bad, as it puts more money into the hands of the service industry workers.
-
I'm willing to admit that the Republican Party has many more correct answers than the democrat party.
======================================
First off, it is STILL called the DEMOCRATIC Party, and second, pretty much all the so-called 'answers' that the Republicans claim they had have been demonstrably wrong. Invading Iraq was certainly a wrong idea, while immigration reform and SS reform could be the right idea, as expressed by Juniorbush they were the wrong idea because they failed to result in any action whatever. A skilled leader gets at least some legislation passed.
The manner in which the war in Iraq was fought was the wrong idea for at least four years, and the way that the war in Afghanistan was carried out was clearly wrong because in seven years and more they still have not captured Bin Ladin, and the Taliban are still in control of a vast part of the country.
The main result of the tax cuts for the super rich have been to increase the deficit, thereby necessitating borrowing more money from the Chinese.
The Republicans say they are for smaller government and a balanced budget, but Reagan, Olebush and Juniorbush have all made government bigger and have given it more control of the people's lives, and have increasded the national debt. So even if a smaller government and a balanced budget are indeed better ideas, they have simply LIED about their pursuing these objectives, since their actions have been in the opposite direction.
-
I'm willing to admit that the Republican Party has many more correct answers than the democrat party.
======================================
The main result of the tax cuts for the super rich have been to increase the deficit, thereby necessitating borrowing more money from the Chinese.
ahh, that must explain the substantial increase in Federal Revenues, continued record employment #'s, and the LOWERING of the deficit. ::) Was math, not your strong suit, Xo?
-
>>ahh, that must explain the substantial increase in Federal Revenues, continued record employment #'s, and the LOWERING of the deficit. Was math, not your strong suit, Xo?<<
It makes you wonder doesn't it?
Normally you would try to ascribe people with good intentions, but when they so blatantly lie about things that are as plain as the nose on their face, you have to wonder about their motivations. Is math a problem for them really? Or are they simplyout and out lying? Fans of communism and totalitarian regimes have never had a problem telling the Big Lie" in order to fool the little people into believing just about anything that helps them gain and maintain power.
-
What is this Republican lowering of the deficit? My understanding was that they inherited a surplus, ran up a huge deficit, which they may have finally started to make small dents in by now.
Ami seems to think that the Democrats kept two sets of books, only one of which showed a surplus (which it accomplished by excluding the long-term liabilities of social insurance) and that a proper accounting, including the SS long-term liabilities, shows a deficit already existing when the Republicans took over the Treasury.
Regardless, my current understanding, which seems confirmed by every newspaper editorial I can recall ever reading on the subject, is that Bush, through a combination of lavish tax breaks for the rich and hundreds of billions poured down the drain in Iraq, managed to run up a deficit of historic proportions that is why even the fiscal conservatives in his own party hate his fucking guts.
So what's with this alleged "LOWERING" of the deficit? Is this just more of sirs' ludicrous bullshit or is there anything to it? I was thinking this might be some kind of scam-artist BS where the guy runs up a deficit of $500 billion, then pays in $100 million and says, "Look, I just reduced the deficit by $100 million!"
-
You obviously never participated in Washington Watch Room during the Bill Clinton lynching. Some RW nut threatened to kill Bill almost hourly.
Like most of your posts, Knutty, I'm pretty sure that this is made up.
-
<<Every dollar taken by he government from the public is a dollar less availible for hireing work.>>
Whoah, that is a big pill to swallow. First of all, every dollar taken from the public is a dollar to invest in early childhood development or better education and training or disease control, etc. Your government doesn't take the dollars and buy drugs with them until they're all pissed away.
Second, your "dollar for hiring work" paradigm just doesn't work. If a businessman sees the need for expanding his work force, he's not gonna postpone it until such time as the government sees fit to either cut taxes or rebate back, he just goes to the fucking bank with a plan showing what he can do with that extra payroll bulge in his line of credit. If the bank believes the guy can turn a healthy profit on the new help, they'll advance it to him or increase his LOC accordingly. The fact of the matter is that businessmen don't like to hire because it increases their liabilities and their bookkeeping in many different ways.
A businessman handed an unexpected windfall in tax rebates or cuts would be much more likely to try to apply it to labour-saving technology that would enable him to lay off some of the existing work-force, than to go out and hire more workers. He might decide to increase his advertising budget, but that's more or less taken care of the same way as work-force - - it's already been budgeted for the fiscal year and deployed. There isn't much room for impulse buying in business advertising. If he wanted to increase the current year's advertising budget, he would have gone to his bank with a plan outlining the projected benefits. If he was struggling under a heavy debt load, he might apply the windfall to paying some of it down (a very likely application) but - - and I think there was a survey which actually bore this out once - - he would be most likely to pocket the windfall and use it for personal self-indulgence. Which isn't all to the bad, as it puts more money into the hands of the service industry workers.
A dollar in the hands of our government might perhaps be spent wisely , lots of them are not . Some percentage is spent on child development and some percent is spent on redundant research on perpetual motion or ESP.
But every dollar removed from the public is absolutely and certainly removed from the pool which most effectively gets us hired.
I am flummoxed at your assertion that spending on infrastructure improvement is waste. One of the most well run and successfull compays in the world is 3M , which improves itself constantly and is an excellent employer , its improvements and growth have generally made it a better place to work.
I can imagine a competitor to 3M trying to outcompete 3M by treating its employees as disposeable , but would this really be a stronger compeditor?
In Mexico the biggest employer is the government , if you don't count the USA as an "employer" that is. The problem with this is that the government can't have compeditors to itself , it is in effect an unchallengeable corporate monopoly.
-
I don't know jack-shit about 3M but even assuming it's as successful as you say it is and as good to its employees as you say it is, the fact is that 3M must be taking advantage of automation or it wouldn't be able to stay in business. Somewhere in 3M's world there are machines, computer programs and other instruments of automation that have probably eliminated thousands of jobs. No matter how lovey-dovey they and their remaining employees may be. Obviously no corporation can function without any employees and it makes sense to treat the ones you have remaining with respect and decency.
You are living in a dreamworld if you think that ANY employer, if faced with the decision of how to spend a windfall, would not consider both the advantages and disadvantages of further hires, further off-shore outsourcing, further automation. Since the growth in off-shore outsourcing and automation seems to be proceeding much more rapidly than the growth in employment, my bet is that it is extremely unlikely that any significant portion of any windfall, whatever the source, will be spent on new hires.
I was also somewhat bemused by the wonderfully tender and loving relationship between 3M Corp and its workers. I think you'll find, in real life, employees are a responsibility and a burden that many employers would not only like to reduce to the absolute minimum, but have already done so. Employees have their obvious good points, but they are also, realistically, a tremendous source of liability, of potential workplace safety issues, of grievances, legitimate or otherwise, of lawsuits, justified or not, for sexual harrassment wrongful dismissal, accidental injury, they take up expensive sqare feet of rental space, require sick leave, vacation benefits, health-care plans, workers compensation fund payments, education and training, customer complaints, family emergency leave, medical leave - - you name it, I've just scratched the surface. You think the first reaction of an employer who receives a windfall is "Whoooopeee! I just got a bundle, now I can go out and hire a whole buncha people?" Not in this world, plane, not on this planet.
Some other things that seem unlikely: (1) that any business that could use extra help would not already, without waiting for government windfalls of unknown amount and timing, have made the necessary arrangements, with their bank if necessary, to hire the needed help; (2) that the amount of the windfall will be large enough to cover the hiring of new help; and (3) that a substantial part of the windfall, if not all of it, would not be used to pay down over-extended credit margins.
-
You'd know 3M from their products of scotch tape and post-it notes. They are a Minnesota based company and currently run by a Brit, I think.
What amazes me...even baffles me, is this notion that private companies spend their money wisely. LOL. The stories I could tell.
-
You'd know 3M from their products of scotch tape and post-it notes. They are a Minnesota based company and currently run by a Brit, I think.
What amazes me...even baffles me, is this notion that private companies spend their money wisely. LOL. The stories I could tell.
You got THAT right, JS,large corporations are usually more inefficient than large govt. Besides that their CEO's rape the stockholders daily with their exorbitant salareis. No govt official would dare that. They just get rewarded in the after-govt life by their corporate masters.
-
I didn't mean LITERALLY that I knew absolutely nothing about 3M (Minnesota Mining & Metals IIRC) - - I knew them as manufacturers of Scotch Tape, of course. Back in the 1950s, when my dad got the first reel-to-reel tape recorder I'd ever seen (a suitcase-sized box that weighed enough to anchor a fair-sized boat) I knew them as the makerS of the brown, oxide-coated tape that it recorded on. I meant that I didn't know how it was presently doing or how it got along with its employees.
I also do not believe that all corporations act rationally. IMHO the ones that don't are outnumbered by the ones that do, and there are thousands of forms of irrational corporate action. Hiring unnecessary employees (apart from the ubiquitous "secretary who can't type" of legend and jokes) is not a form of corporate irrationality that seems particularly widespread. "Downsizing" seems more like it.
-
I didn't mean LITERALLY that I knew absolutely nothing about 3M (Minnesota Mining & Metals IIRC) - - I knew them as manufacturers of Scotch Tape, of course. Back in the 1950s, when my dad got the first reel-to-reel tape recorder I'd ever seen (a suitcase-sized box that weighed enough to anchor a fair-sized boat) I knew them as the makerS of the brown, oxide-coated tape that it recorded on.
Errr, do you have them confused with BASF?
-
you want to know about company irrationality!?!
hiring more managers instead of more production staff
and introducing work tracking systems to cut cost
translation-hire people who don`t actually make money for the company
increase workload for things not related to the job and quite possibly lower production.
what i just stated is a common occurence in companies
-
<<Errr, do you have them confused with BASF?>>
Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik? I don't think so. I remember the MMM logo on the boxes of tape very clearly.
-
<<Every dollar taken by he government from the public is a dollar less availible for hireing work.>>
Whoah, that is a big pill to swallow. First of all, every dollar taken from the public is a dollar to invest in early childhood development or better education and training or disease control, etc. Your government doesn't take the dollars and buy drugs with them until they're all pissed away.
Second, your "dollar for hiring work" paradigm just doesn't work. If a businessman sees the need for expanding his work force, he's not gonna postpone it until such time as the government sees fit to either cut taxes or rebate back, he just goes to the fucking bank with a plan showing what he can do with that extra payroll bulge in his line of credit. If the bank believes the guy can turn a healthy profit on the new help, they'll advance it to him or increase his LOC accordingly. The fact of the matter is that businessmen don't like to hire because it increases their liabilities and their bookkeeping in many different ways.
A businessman handed an unexpected windfall in tax rebates or cuts would be much more likely to try to apply it to labour-saving technology that would enable him to lay off some of the existing work-force, than to go out and hire more workers. He might decide to increase his advertising budget, but that's more or less taken care of the same way as work-force - - it's already been budgeted for the fiscal year and deployed. There isn't much room for impulse buying in business advertising. If he wanted to increase the current year's advertising budget, he would have gone to his bank with a plan outlining the projected benefits. If he was struggling under a heavy debt load, he might apply the windfall to paying some of it down (a very likely application) but - - and I think there was a survey which actually bore this out once - - he would be most likely to pocket the windfall and use it for personal self-indulgence. Which isn't all to the bad, as it puts more money into the hands of the service industry workers.
Or, he could take the money to expand and make even MORE money, thereby hiring more workers.
-
Or, he could take the money to expand and make even MORE money, thereby hiring more workers.
A concept that jealous leftists/socialists so often actively ignore
-
<<Or, he could take the money to expand and make even MORE money, thereby hiring more workers.>>
Why would he wait for the government to hand him the money before expanding? And why does expansion depend on hiring more workers rather than outsourcing or automating to increase productivity? And why wouldn't a businessman who was going to expand not just find the financing one way or another and expand instead of waiting around for a government rebate of unknown size and date of delivery? Why wouldn't he pay down an over-extended credit and then have more in his LOC to draw on if and when he decides to expand? Why would the decision to expand come just when every one of his competitors is also getting the same rebate?
The whole idea that rebates mean more jobs is more fascist wool-gathering. It's bullshit. Show me where it's ever happened.
There are so many alternatives, even for expansion-minded businesses, to just blowing a windfall on payroll and related expenses. Where does all this certainty come from that the rebate money will go to new jobs when you don't have a clue whether all or any of it will?
-
>>A concept that jealous leftists/socialists so often actively ignore.<<
I don't think they ignore it, I just don't think they understand it. It's like the pie analogy. They think the pie is finite, when those of us who understand the American economy know the pie is limitless. In this case, they think that people who own businesses found them on the side of the road, or stole them from some minority, and they money they make is stolen from ... them I guess. What do they advocate? Why national socialism. Just like Hitler and Mussolini. Mind you, it's kinder and gentler, but it's the same thing.
-
>>A concept that jealous leftists/socialists so often actively ignore.<<
I don't think they ignore it, I just don't think they understand it. It's like the pie analogy. They think the pie is finite, when those of us who understand the American economy know the pie is limitless. In this case, they think that people who own businesses found them on the side of the road, or stole them from some minority, and they money they make is stolen from ... them I guess. What do they advocate? Why national socialism. Just like Hitler and Mussolini. Mind you, it's kinder and gentler, but it's the same thing.
Ignoring the poor understanding of 1930's politics for a moment, the pie is finite.
No economist worth his or her salt would suggest otherwise. I don't know why that is such a difficult concept for y'all to grasp.
If you open a restaurant in Manhattan, you hire a head chef, sous chefs, a wait staff, and a hostess. You start collecting revenue and you do a good job and pull in a few thousand dollars net profit a week. Now, the question is - is that brand spanking new money? Has Manhattan grown wealthier? Is the pie bigger?
Think on that. I'd like to hear some answers.
-
Wealth is finite?? Frellin incredible. ::) No wonder such skewed and distorted accusations are so often aimed at "the rich"
-
>>Wealth is finite?? Frellin incredible.<<
Once again you have to question the reasoning behind such baloney. Is it ignorance or malice?
60/40 is my guess.
-
Wealth is finite?? Frellin incredible. ::) No wonder such skewed and distorted accusations are so often aimed at "the rich"
*sigh*
Listen carefully and try and follow along.
You open a restaurant in your hometown. You take in $2,000 a week in profit. Is that new money?
I haven't aimed anything at "the rich." You and rich are accepting a political one-liner, but you don't understand the economics behind it. Yes wealth is finite at any given time. Of course it is! To say otherwise would imply an absolute ridiculous assertion.
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/24/BAE4UKM70.DTL&hw=yul&sn=001&sc=1000
If anyone tries to open a restaurant in my town
2k aweek is definately not going to happen.
but this is north beach he shouldn`t of gone there
nobody goes to north beach
-
Wealth is finite?? Frellin incredible. ::) No wonder such skewed and distorted accusations are so often aimed at "the rich"
You open a restaurant in your hometown. You take in $2,000 a week in profit. Is that new money? I haven't aimed anything at "the rich." You and rich are accepting a political one-liner, but you don't understand the economics behind it. Yes wealth is finite at any given time. Of course it is! To say otherwise would imply an absolute ridiculous assertion.
Js, you appear to be arguing some analogus concept that "at any given time", there are a finite amount of oxygen molecules....which technically may be accurate at that specific time. However we don't live in a vacuum. the U.S. doesn't have x amount of dollars, and "that's it". At "any given time", you could make a claim that the total amount of money the U.S. has is x. BUT, that's not a fixed #. It's NOT a finite pie that never grows or shrinks beyond x. Since we don't live in a theoretical vacuum, devoid of time or any other contributory factors, wealth is however much you can make. Theoretically EVERYONE can get to be a member of "the rich". But to target "the rich", lay claim as to how greedy, evil, and selfish "they" are, and so often the apparent impidement to everyone else's happiness, with the goal of most folks trying to attain a level of being part of 'the rich", is the personification of class warfare, and by no means a rational justification of claiming wealth is some finite pie.
-
You open a restaurant in your hometown. You take in $2,000 a week in profit. Is that new money?
In a way it is.
You have provided your customers with X + $2,000 worth of food and services (so they haven't "lost" anything) and out of the total X + $2,000, you have paid your employees and suppliers (so they haven't "lost" anything, either) and you have $2,000 to spend that you did not have before.
Who "lost" the $2,000 if it's a zero-sum game?
-
You open a restaurant in your hometown. You take in $2,000 a week in profit. Is that new money?
In a way it is. You have provided your customers with X + $2,000 worth of food and services (so they haven't "lost" anything) and out of the total X + $2,000, you have paid your employees and suppliers (so they haven't "lost" anything, either) and you have $2,000 to spend that you did not have before.
Who "lost" the $2,000 if it's a zero-sum game?
Well summized, Ami
-
Yes wealth is finite at any given time. Of course it is! To say otherwise would imply an absolute ridiculous assertion.
I agree with what you're saying but considering how the government is now finishing up a deal to just cut checks to people all over the country with nothing to back them up, I'd have to say that we're entering a world (or have been in for a long time) where wealth can just be conjured up by the federal reserve printing it as fast as it can.
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/24/BAE4UKM70.DTL&hw=yul&sn=001&sc=1000
If anyone tries to open a restaurant in my town
2k aweek is definately not going to happen.
but this is north beach he shouldn`t of gone there
nobody goes to north beach
The issue is that the profit is made through a loss in another part of the sector. A restaurant elsewhere is going to lose business and the system as a percentage will remain relatively (though never perfectly stable). That's the point of competetion anyway. If the pie were infinite, as Sirs and Rich claim, then businesses would succeed at incredible rates and money supply would have no effect on other economic factors.
Of course that is not the case (nor can it possibly ever be the case). There can only be so many green bean farmers before some aspect of green bean production is saturated and the notion of "infinite wealth" becomes ludicrous. There can only be so many wine-makers and vineyard owners.
The market itself corrects for these issues through some simple mechanism (supply and demand) and through some very complex mechanisms (hyperinflation, stagnation).
So, for example, one could simply borrow heavily against lenders at low interest rates - but as we've seen with the subprime lenders and the housing market collapse, which involves a lot of negative equity - such things don't prove the "infinite pie" or "infinite wealth" notion any more correct.
It is a myth. One for candidates with a population that has little understanding of economics, but is easily swayed by political one-liners.
-
You open a restaurant in your hometown. You take in $2,000 a week in profit. Is that new money?
In a way it is.
You have provided your customers with X + $2,000 worth of food and services (so they haven't "lost" anything) and out of the total X + $2,000, you have paid your employees and suppliers (so they haven't "lost" anything, either) and you have $2,000 to spend that you did not have before.
Who "lost" the $2,000 if it's a zero-sum game?
When you learn to do proper cost/benefit analyses, this is not considered a net gain over a community.
The loss comes from other restaurants losing their business. Of course it is not a 100% loss. Likely you have gained some customers willing to spend extra, but most have not simply increased their home budgets to eat out simply for your establishment. They made a trade-off. Someone else lost.
-
Yes wealth is finite at any given time. Of course it is! To say otherwise would imply an absolute ridiculous assertion.
I agree with what you're saying but considering how the government is now finishing up a deal to just cut checks to people all over the country with nothing to back them up, I'd have to say that we're entering a world (or have been in for a long time) where wealth can just be conjured up by the federal reserve printing it as fast as it can.
On its face this would appear to be true, but between inflation and our public debt, economics has a way of biting us in the ass for such gimicks.
-
Of course it is not a 100% loss.
So, only part of it is "new" money? Still means it's not a zero-sum game.
-
<<Or, he could take the money to expand and make even MORE money, thereby hiring more workers.>>
Why would he wait for the government to hand him the money before expanding? And why does expansion depend on hiring more workers rather than outsourcing or automating to increase productivity? And why wouldn't a businessman who was going to expand not just find the financing one way or another and expand instead of waiting around for a government rebate of unknown size and date of delivery? Why wouldn't he pay down an over-extended credit and then have more in his LOC to draw on if and when he decides to expand? Why would the decision to expand come just when every one of his competitors is also getting the same rebate?
The whole idea that rebates mean more jobs is more fascist wool-gathering. It's bullshit. Show me where it's ever happened.
There are so many alternatives, even for expansion-minded businesses, to just blowing a windfall on payroll and related expenses. Where does all this certainty come from that the rebate money will go to new jobs when you don't have a clue whether all or any of it will?
"And why wouldn't a businessman who was going to expand not just find the financing one way or another and expand instead of waiting around for a government rebate of unknown size and date of delivery? "
Well, for the same reason I am waiting for my Government tax rebate being promised now before I go to Disney World. I have already made reservations. Can't wait. But, why use my current depleted funds when the Govvies are giving me some soon?
Businesses can and do wait upon better government environments and actions before they in turn act. To not keep track of these events is irresponsible and/or intellectually-challenged.
-
You obviously never participated in Washington Watch Room during the Bill Clinton lynching. Some RW nut threatened to kill Bill almost hourly.
Like most of your posts, Knutty, I'm pretty sure that this is made up.
All of yours are. You can check with any number of folks her . Many in here were there. You weren't , obviously.
-
The loss comes from other restaurants losing their business.
That depends much on the market. A Jamaican restaurant and a Mexican Restaurant are not really going to be much competition to one another in a large market. But even similar restaurants can succeed. Not far from where I live, a locally owned Italian restaurant and a relatively new Carrabba's both seem to be doing just fine. I think the local Greek/Italian/Mediterranean restaurant lost the business, which is a shame, because their food was really good. Still, this is the nature of competition within the market, and that isn't really a bad thing.
-
All of yours are.
Funny, then, how I can provide sources always and you rarely do.
You're a joke around here. Doesn't your boyfriend get upset?
-
<<You have provided your customers with X + $2,000 worth of food and services (so they haven't "lost" anything) and out of the total X + $2,000, you have paid your employees and suppliers (so they haven't "lost" anything, either) and you have $2,000 to spend that you did not have before.
<<Who "lost" the $2,000 if it's a zero-sum game?>>
The customer lost almost all of it. It's up to the restaurateur whether he keeps all of it or whether he too pisses it away in somebody else's restaurant or hotel.
The customer didn't get $2,000 worth of anything. If you add up the restaurant's cost of food, amortized cutlery, furniture, flatware etc. costs, pro-rated dishwashing, rent, water and electricity costs, pro-rated labour costs etc. you'll find that the customer paid $2000 for what the restaurateur paid $100 - - basically, he got $100 worth of food and services. The customer leaves the restaurant carrying with him (unless he visits the washrooms first) the end products and results of the goods and services he received - - a few ounces of digesting protein and fibre, a cupful of coffee etc., some few molecules of which, together with a pleasant memory, will stay with him for more than 24 hours, some harming his body, some nourishing it.
What does the restaurateur have from the same transaction? $2,000 minus the costs of doing business. Whatever his net profit is, that's what he got. More than the customer got, that's for God-damn sure. The restaurateur, if he can afford the extravagance, can spend his earnings the same way as his customer did, or he can invest them, in which case he could keep them, spinning off interest or dividends, all the days of his life. It should be pretty clear from this little disquisition as to who got the major benefit and who the minor from this little transaction.
-
The customer didn't get $2,000 worth of anything.
So, you're saying that when someone works for you, he is your slave and does not deserve to be paid? If you pay him for labors that he does for you, you "lose" the money?
-
How to tell when the inmates have taken over the asylum:
Rich: <<It's like the pie analogy. They think the pie is finite, when those of us who understand the American economy know the pie is limitless.>>
sirs: <<Wealth is finite?? Frellin incredible. >>
G'nite, Josephine, I'll write when I get to Elba.
-
Of course it is not a 100% loss.
So, only part of it is "new" money? Still means it's not a zero-sum game.
It depends on the level at which one is looking at it. Out of the percentage which was not lost as restaurant business from other establishments, what was lost in other trade-offs? Did a grocery store or deli lose business? Did a petrol station lose business because your restaurant is closer and more convenient?
Consumer choice is a trade-off.
-
Did a grocery store or deli lose business? Did a petrol station lose business because your restaurant is closer and more convenient?
Did a grocery store or deli GAIN business because I bought from them? Did a gas station GAIN business because I had the food delivered to my restaurant?
-
<<So, you're saying that when someone works for you, he is your slave and does not deserve to be paid? If you pay him for labors that he does for you, you "lose" the money?>>
How could that be when I included the pro-rated labour costs in calculating the value of what the guest received. The waiter probably spent all of six minutes on him, but I'd count it. Every cent of it. Not to do so would be uncivilized.
-
The loss comes from other restaurants losing their business.
That depends much on the market. A Jamaican restaurant and a Mexican Restaurant are not really going to be much competition to one another in a large market. But even similar restaurants can succeed. Not far from where I live, a locally owned Italian restaurant and a relatively new Carrabba's both seem to be doing just fine. I think the local Greek/Italian/Mediterranean restaurant lost the business, which is a shame, because their food was really good. Still, this is the nature of competition within the market, and that isn't really a bad thing.
I'm speaking in terms of classical economics. I'm not using anything that is controversial here. You're precisely right. It is competition.
The "infinite pie" is a myth because of the very things that many Americans cherish such as competition and consumer choice. The other factors that create finite wealth are inflation, saturation, trade-off, supply, demand, and other market pressures.
There is some false sense that everyone can be a billionaire, but the truth is that if everyone were a billionaire then inflation would destroy the value of the currency. Wealth is finite.
-
Did a grocery store or deli lose business? Did a petrol station lose business because your restaurant is closer and more convenient?
Did a grocery store or deli GAIN business because I bought from them? Did a gas station GAIN business because I had the food delivered to my restaurant?
LOL
Possibly. But you're missing the point. I never said that your business is a bad or evil thing. Yet, it is part of an economy that is finite. Sure, maybe a grocery store did gain business (doubtful that you purchase your food from a grocery store :P), but it is a trade-off with the business they will lose. The same with the gas station. And what of the food distributors that lsoe business because of the restaurants you've got suffering a loss of customers? What of their gas stations that won't have their trucks stopping by any longer?
We can play this game all day. It does not change the basic economic facts.
Does wealth grow? Sure. That doesn't make it "infinite." And I know that you know that, because you know what "infinite" means. The truth is that the pie is finite and though money may exchange hands many times, it does not magically grow towards infinity.
-
How could that be when I included the pro-rated labour costs in calculating the value of what the guest received. The waiter probably spent all of six minutes on him, but I'd count it. Every cent of it. Not to do so would be uncivilized.
And yet, the guy who owns the restaurant, who spent time putting together the menu, selecting recipes, buying materials, arranging deliveries, etc, should just go unpaid for his labor?
-
Does wealth grow? Sure. That doesn't make it "infinite." And I know that you know that, because you know what "infinite" means. The truth is that the pie is finite and though money may exchange hands many times, it does not magically grow towards infinity.
The pie is finite, but every minute of labor produces that much more wealth. So, while it's not infinite, it IS ever-growing.
-
Does wealth grow? Sure. That doesn't make it "infinite." And I know that you know that, because you know what "infinite" means. The truth is that the pie is finite and though money may exchange hands many times, it does not magically grow towards infinity.
The pie is finite, but every minute of labor produces that much more wealth. So, while it's not infinite, it IS ever-growing.
I mostly agree. There are times, of course, when it is not growing - or even shrinking. Germany of the 1920's is a classic example. Zimbabwe is a current one.
Also, I think that the industrial economy of old produced much more substantive wealth than the new service/financial sector economy of today. Though that is a wholly different debate for a different day.
-
The loss comes from other restaurants losing their business. >
starbucks and payless shoes does this
they open in areas at a loss to cut 10% of profit to the local business
so in a year they will shutdown
but it`s a serious gamble
it`ll takes many years to make back the loss
if ever
-
The loss comes from other restaurants losing their business. >
starbucks and payless shoes does this
they open in areas at a loss to cut 10% of profit to the local business
so in a year they will shutdown
but it`s a serious gamble
it`ll takes many years to make back the loss
if ever
I'm not familiar with the business practice of Starbucks, but a company that large and profitable can no doubt afford a short-term loss in certain small markets if it means a long-term gain.
Wal-Mart is infamous for this practice. For a while, in the 1990's they would open more than one "Superstore" in a small-sized city. By doing so they could quickly dismantle most of the local competition, especially mom & pop operations. Typically they would return to shut down one of the stores and leave one as a permanent fixture. The other area where Wal-Mart was succesful was in convincing local governments to offer long-term tax breaks, utillity rate breaks, and other incentives.
-
<<And yet, the guy who owns the restaurant, who spent time putting together the menu, selecting recipes, buying materials, arranging deliveries, etc, should just go unpaid for his labor?>>
Aww, I was just being lazy. OK, add up all his time, figure what the various activities are worth in the labour market for time spent, take his total time spent on all that activity, pro-rate it to the time spent by the customer in the restaurant enjoying the fruits of the boss's labour and add that as part of the "value" received by the customer. Won't add much value, but fair's fair.
-
Aww, I was just being lazy. OK, add up all his time, figure what the various activities are worth in the labour market for time spent, take his total time spent on all that activity, pro-rate it to the time spent by the customer in the restaurant enjoying the fruits of the boss's labour and add that as part of the "value" received by the customer. Won't add much value, but fair's fair.
So, you get to decide what someone else's labor is worth?
Still seems like you get to decide how much money someone else makes - in other words, they are slaves to you and your decisions.
-
The "infinite pie" is a myth because of the very things that many Americans cherish such as competition and consumer choice. The other factors that create finite wealth are inflation, saturation, trade-off, supply, demand, and other market pressures.
True enough. I wouldn't say "infinite pie", but it isn't a zero-sum situation either. Just because two restaurants may be in competition with one anther for customers doesn't mean necessarily that one succeeds and the other fails. In growing market, two restaurants in competition may both succeed. Yes, if we add enough restaurants, we can probably reach a saturation point. But it is still not a zero-sum situation. A market currently saturated with conventional restaurants may still have room for Starbucks or small, hole-in-the-wall joints without necessitating failure for others.
There is some false sense that everyone can be a billionaire, but the truth is that if everyone were a billionaire then inflation would destroy the value of the currency. Wealth is finite.
Wealth is finite, but not static or fixed. Which is what I think the "infinite pie" comments are meant to convey.
-
<<So, you get to decide what someone else's labor is worth?>>
No more than I'd decide what the restaurant's flour or beef is worth. There is, after all, a market. There is such a thing as fair market value.
<<you get to decide how much money someone else makes >>
The market decides that too. There are salary ranges for restaurant managers, bar managers, hotel managers. Not hard to find if you know where to look.
<<in other words, they are slaves to you and your decisions.>>
What bullshit. The market determines their payscale. The U.S. government determines Bush's salary. Is he a slave to the U.S. government?
-
The market determines their payscale.
Exactly. And when you ate at that restaurant, you are part of the market and determined that the owner's labor input to the whole transaction was worth whatever part of that $2,000 profit the owner got from you.
So, either he earned it fair and square (and you helped determine that it was worth it) or, if it's as you claimed that he essentially ripped you off for that, then you are implying that he should be a slave to your needs.
-
>>How to tell when the inmates have taken over the asylum:<<
The inmates certainly have taken over here, that's for certain.
Don't you just love getting lectured about capitalism by tinfoil hat socialists?
-
<<So, either he earned it fair and square (and you helped determine that it was worth it) or, if it's as you claimed that he essentially ripped you off for that, then you are implying that he should be a slave to your needs.>>
I guess what you're really saying is that value in intangibles that can't be re-traded (like the "satisfaction" derived from eating in a fine restaurant) is purely subjective. If the customer was willing to pay $2K for $100 worth of food and labour, then by any and every standard of measurement, the value of a meal in that restaurant to that individual, is $1,900.
Looked at that way, it IS a win-win transaction. The restaurant provided this one specific customer with $100 worth of food and labour plus $1,900 of enjoyment - - for which he paid $2,000. He got what he paid for and the owner got paid for what he provided.
Had the restaurant been owned and operated by a worker collective, it could have taken in the same $2,000.00, the workers would have all been paid their wages, the suppliers would all have been paid AND the rest of the $2K remaining (the profit margin) would have been shared by the workers who cooked the food, served it and cleaned up after. Instead of ONE GUY taking all the profits, they would have been shared by the entire staff. THAT'S the way to go.
-
>> Instead of ONE GUY taking all the profits, they would have been shared by the entire staff. THAT'S the way to go.
The ONE guy who went into debt to start the business, pays the SS taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, workman's compention, wages, and upkeep on the restaurant.
Spare me the communist propaganda.
-
<<The ONE guy who went into debt to start the business . . . >>
translation: signed a few papers for the bank
<< pays the SS taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, workman's compention, wages, and upkeep on the restaurant.>>
pays 'em out of the profits made from the long, exhausting hours of labour put in by a staff of one or two dozen working people; has the bookkeeper write a few cheques; BFD
Spare me the capitalist bullshit.
-
I guess what you're really saying is that value in intangibles that can't be re-traded (like the "satisfaction" derived from eating in a fine restaurant) is purely subjective. If the customer was willing to pay $2K for $100 worth of food and labour, then by any and every standard of measurement, the value of a meal in that restaurant to that individual, is $1,900.
No, the profit for the whole week (all of the customers together) was $2,000. In a typical restaurant, that would equate to several hundred meals - customers - through the week.
Had the restaurant been owned and operated by a worker collective, it could have taken in the same $2,000.00, the workers would have all been paid their wages, the suppliers would all have been paid AND the rest of the $2K remaining (the profit margin) would have been shared by the workers who cooked the food, served it and cleaned up after. Instead of ONE GUY taking all the profits, they would have been shared by the entire staff. THAT'S the way to go.
That $2,000 "profit" is the owner's paycheck. See, now we're back to you think the owner should be your slave and work for free.
-
I guess I was a little confused. I thought the customer blew $2,000 on some kind of celebration or party. Now it's clearer than ever. The $2,000 is pure waste, it's a profit on the labour of a dozen or two workers who put in many more hours than the owner. Had the restaurant been run by a worker collective, they could have kept the prices down and given the customers better value (same meal, cheaper price) or alternatively rewarded themselves by sharing the $2,000. The $2,000 "profit" would have gone to the workers who produced the meal in the first place or to the customers they served (who paid for the meal) in lower, fairer prices - - all by simply eliminating the parasite who stands between the producer and the consumer.
-
The $2,000 is pure waste, it's a profit on the labour of a dozen or two workers who put in many more hours than the owner.
Guess you've never worked in a restaurant - typically the owner puts in more hours than any of the employees.
all by simply eliminating the parasite who stands between the producer and the consumer.
So, you do think that the owner should work as a slave for you. Glad that's clear.
-
<<So, you do think that the owner should work as a slave for you. Glad that's clear.>>
Point is, the owner doesn't WORK. He's a fucking parasite profiting off the labour of the cooks, servers, busboys and cleaners.
<<Guess you've never worked in a restaurant - typically the owner puts in more hours than any of the employees.>>
Sure he does - - watching to see the employees don't steal any of "his" money. What that adds to the meal I'm still trying to figure out.
-
Point is, the owner doesn't WORK. He's a fucking parasite profiting off the labour of the cooks, servers, busboys and cleaners.>
uh tee
in most restaurants I know
the owner IS the cook,server,busboy and cleaner
also greeter
HR(hotel /restaurants) is one of the hardest forms of businesses to do
some ,but not many owners are not greatly involve in this businesses
the overhead is too high for the owner not to do the work
we`re talking food here.
everything has a short shelf life and limited storage .
nothing is design to sit
every tues. you have to call supplies 5am
every wed. mourning you help load the supplies into the restuarant
why do you think alot of restaurants are family businesses
it`s not tradition it`s just too costly to pay for the labor
bakery is worst
I`ve always said there is no such thing as a closed bakery
even when closed they spend the night to make the next days inventory
you can tell I personally know this.
my nephew studied to be a chef and very good portion of his course in not cooking it`s business management.
thats why franchises are popular
alot of the trail and error is already hammered out.
look at subway and the assembly line format it uses
most good restaurants use this format in making their menu.
a hof brau is not much different.
-
<in most restaurants I know
the owner IS the cook,server,busboy and cleaner
also greeter<
This is true of om& Pop family owned restaurants. I know because my parents owned one and my Dad did do al these things (Mom didnt because she was a fat , lazy pig)
Larger & chain restaurants do fit Tee's mold and he was right about the owner being there to keep the employee's from stealing. That is exactly why Dad was always there even tho most of his employees were family. ( Not me, tho, I would never work for that slave-driving lunatic.)
-
Don't point out facts to him, Kimba. It's pretty obvious that the owner always HAS to be a parasite, otherwise his world view just won't work.
-
Larger & chain restaurants do fit Tee's mold and he was right about the owner being there to keep the employee's from stealing.
ROFL
So, in a chain of 1,000 restaurants, the owner puts in an appearance every day?
-
But, wasn't it the owner who took the risk, invested the money to get started and so on?
So, MT, are you a boss in real life? How do you reconcile that role with this approach?
-
But, wasn't it the owner who took the risk, invested the money to get started and so on?
MT already said, "so what? He went to bank and signed a few papers, nothing to get paid for..."
-
Larger & chain restaurants do fit Tee's mold and he was right about the owner being there to keep the employee's from stealing.
ROFL
So, in a chain of 1,000 restaurants, the owner puts in an appearance every day?
Your retardation has struck again. There are two distinct points there but your retarded mind is only to grasp one and then you display your stupidity to the world as well.
-
I guess if you're talking one-man restaurant where the boss does it all, he's a worker. I've never eaten in any place like that in my life, so I have to wonder what planet you guys are living on. Usually a restaurant is a pretty big operation, a dozen or so employees at a bare minimum, hostess, servers, cleaners, and cooks. Bigger places, add busboys, sommeliers,and various classes of servers. But I dunno, it's planet Earth I'm talking about, you guys obviously live (or at least dine out) somewhere else.
Professor, I'm a boss but I've had it both ways. When I started out, I was working for somebody else. Bottom line is, when you live in a capitalist system, you might as well live like a capitalist cuz the system won't change to accommodate you. If I were a worker, I'd assess the situation as hopeless from a revolutionary point of view - - it was Lenin (I think) who said things have to get worse before they can become better - - in other words, the working class will put up with a lot of shit before they see the Revolution as their salvation. The Revolution comes at a terrible price, so you have to be in terrible straits to even consider it. So as long as things aren't too bad for the working class, they'll settle for second or third best (capitalism) instead of making the effort to bring about communism through revolution.
At the ballot box, fuhgeddabowdit. Money is the only determinant of success in "democratic" elections, and guys with left-of-centre views - - Kucinich, Ralph Nader - -are edged out to the fringe, barely with any media coverage; given enough air-time so that "censorship" charges are refuted and never enough to make their case. Similarly with the "experts" who appear on the MSM- - the appearance of normality is maintained by carefully selected experts appearing many times and by letting a radical onto a panel once in a blue moon, where he or she is usually outnumbered two, three or four to one, making the radical look like he's so far out of the mainstream that he must live in another universe, an impression reinforced by everything the media watcher hears 24/7 on news, panel discussions, etc.
I gotta be a realist - - I can't butt my head against the wall fighting for change because there isn't gonna be real change. That's just the way Canada and the U.S.A. are set up, Canada a little better in some ways, teh U.S.A. a little better in others. I don't own this country and the people who do have made it reasonably comfortable for me and my family, such that I can take advantage of the capitalist system to live. Even the workers have it OK. And IMHO that's due to communism also - - the ruling class decided that rather than provoke another revolution by unrestrained greed on their part, they'd better make some concessions to the working class, limit hours of work, unemployment insurance (we call it "pogey" in Canada) sick benefits, affordable insurance, "socialized" medicine. The Russian Revolution and the success of the U.S.S.R. in the 20s and 30s scared the living shit out of the ruling class and produced a much better life for the workers than they had before.
-
Or, just maybe, management does some things for their employees not because they are afraid of the employees, but because it is the right thing to do. Naive, but sometimes true.
-
Larger & chain restaurants do fit Tee's mold and he was right about the owner being there to keep the employee's from stealing.
ROFL
So, in a chain of 1,000 restaurants, the owner puts in an appearance every day?
Your retardation has struck again. There are two distinct points there but your retarded mind is only to grasp one and then you display your stupidity to the world as well.
Well, let's see who the retarded one is. You claimed that in chain restaurants, the owner was there to keep employees from stealing. So, obviously, he has to make an appearance to do that. I don't see how this is possible in a chain of 1,000 restaurants.
-
<<So, obviously, he has to make an appearance to do that. I don't see how this is possible in a chain of 1,000 restaurants.>>
Then I guess you never heard of delegation.
-
Larger & chain restaurants do fit Tee's mold and he was right about the owner being there to keep the employee's from stealing.
ROFL
So, in a chain of 1,000 restaurants, the owner puts in an appearance every day?
The larger restaurants fit Tee's mold completely. The Mom/Pops are always there to keep the employee's from stealing. Get it now dumfuck? I know your mind has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, but do try to have some discrimination of thought.
Your retardation has struck again. There are two distinct points there but your retarded mind is only to grasp one and then you display your stupidity to the world as well.
Well, let's see who the retarded one is. You claimed that in chain restaurants, the owner was there to keep employees from stealing. So, obviously, he has to make an appearance to do that. I don't see how this is possible in a chain of 1,000 restaurants.
-
<<Or, just maybe, management does some things for their employees not because they are afraid of the employees, but because it is the right thing to do. Naive, but sometimes true.>>
Professor, if you follow the history of labour in the U.S.A., you will find that most of the benefits and work-life improvements of the American working class were instituted after the Russian Revolution. The New Deal being the classic example. At a time when Communism was making inroads into the American working class and large-scale strikes (at the Ford plant and in the Appalachian coal fields) were becoming more frequent and more violent. When a lot of artists and writers were beginning to advocate a communist system as America's escape from the Great Depression. Sure seems like some huge coincidence to me that the idea of doing the right thing sprang into ruling class minds AFTER all these events and not before.
-
Then I guess you never heard of delegation.
Then I guess you didn't read Knutty's statement:
"he was right about the owner being there to keep the employee's from stealing"
How can he "be there" if he doesn't show up?
-
<<Don't point out facts to him, Kimba. It's pretty obvious that the owner always HAS to be a parasite, otherwise his world view just won't work.>>
Look who's talking. Everybody knows why the owner has to be there 24/7. Everybody but you.
-
Ami, you're talking apples and oranges. There's small restaurants and there's big chain restaurants. In the big chain restaurant, the owner ISN'T there 24/7. They use sophisticated real-time accounting software to keep an eye on things and they hire managers to keep the employees from stealing and accounting to watch the managers.
-
Ami, you're talking apples and oranges. There's small restaurants and there's big chain restaurants. In the big chain restaurant, the owner ISN'T there 24/7. They use sophisticated real-time accounting software to keep an eye on things and they hire managers to keep the employees from stealing and accounting to watch the managers.
Michael- In this exchange it has become obvious that Ami really is a simple-minded retard. I will , therefore , no longer beat up on the poor soul.
-
<<Or, just maybe, management does some things for their employees not because they are afraid of the employees, but because it is the right thing to do. Naive, but sometimes true.>>
Professor, if you follow the history of labour in the U.S.A., you will find that most of the benefits and work-life improvements of the American working class were instituted after the Russian Revolution. The New Deal being the classic example. At a time when Communism was making inroads into the American working class and large-scale strikes (at the Ford plant and in the Appalachian coal fields) were becoming more frequent and more violent. When a lot of artists and writers were beginning to advocate a communist system as America's escape from the Great Depression. Sure seems like some huge coincidence to me that the idea of doing the right thing sprang into ruling class minds AFTER all these events and not before.
I would like to think there have always been benevolent management types.
When I was a manager in the Federal Government, I was a Branch Chief. I had 60 some odd people reporting to me indirectly and eight reporting to me directly. I always, and I mean always, made sure I looked after their welfare the best I could. Not because it was required of me, but because, quite simply, it was the right thing to do. Also, I noticed, productivity was higher as well. Why? Because your wmployees will tend to work harder for you not only because of position power, but personal power was well.
-
Ami, you're talking apples and oranges. There's small restaurants and there's big chain restaurants. In the big chain restaurant, the owner ISN'T there 24/7. They use sophisticated real-time accounting software to keep an eye on things and they hire managers to keep the employees from stealing and accounting to watch the managers.
Well, the conversation started with a discussion of small restaurants.
But even in the franchise model (which most chains adhere to) the owner of a particular franchise is still local. The only time that the parent corporation opens a store under the franchise model is if they decide to move into a region and certain areas don't have local owners that want to pick up a franchise - then they'll open one using corporate resources, and sell it some time down the road. They do this to flesh out an area, so there are no gaps in a region.
It's pretty apparent that you don't understand the restaurant business. MOST restaurants are owned by a local owner, even with chains.
There is a local chain in the Charlotte area, for example - Johnny Burritos. He has two shops downtown and one up in the University area. The owner (Johnny) rotates through the two shops downtown for lunch hours, and is at the one up in the University area every night. He runs the register, buses tables, serves, whatever else needs to be done.
Bureau of Labor Statistics has the stats on it, but something like 80-90% of businesses in the US are locally owned, and this includes restaurants. The corporate masters living far away and doing nothing but raping the workers is largely a myth.
-
Even here, in the Great White North, we have franchised restaurants. Of course, they serve only whale blubber and polar bear steak, but yes, we are familiar with the franchise concept.
Your problem, Ami, is that you want to suck and blow at the same time. You talk small restaurants where the owner is also the cook and waiter when you want to promote the concept of the owner there all the time 24/7, then you switch to chains of 1,000 restaurants where the head guy CAN'T be there 24/7, then you switch back to the franchisee when you aren't getting any traction with the guy who "owns" 1,000 restaurants. But the trouble with the franchisee is you're just back to the guy who has a manager and a small army of wage slaves and we're back to the guy who, if he IS there 24/7 (a lot of them aren't) is there to stop the help from robbing him blind.
Back where ya started from. Still up to yer neck in bullshit.
Sorry I can't help ya.
-
You talk small restaurants where the owner is also the cook and waiter when you want to promote the concept of the owner there all the time 24/7, then you switch to chains of 1,000 restaurants where the head guy CAN'T be there 24/7, then you switch back to the franchisee when you aren't getting any traction with the guy who "owns" 1,000 restaurants.
I didn't switch to chains - you and Knutty did.
However, as I said, most "chain" restaurants are still locally owned.
-
It was you who raised the example of a chain restaurant as one where the "owner" of all 1,000 restaurants couldn't be there 24/7 in all 1,000 of them to stop employee stealing. At that point you weren't talking about the individual franchisee of one or two restaurants, you were talking about the head franchisor, the guy who signs the franchise on behalf of the chain with each of the individual franchise owners. Then when THAT argument was shot down in flames, you suddenly switched back to the "owner" - - this time meaning the franchisee - - who just had ONE of the restaurants in the chain. But that didn't help you either because this was exactly the guy I was talking about originally, the guy who has to be there 24/7 to stop the wage-slaves from stealing "his" money.
-
It was you who raised the example of a chain restaurant as one where the "owner" of all 1,000 restaurants couldn't be there 24/7 in all 1,000 of them to stop employee stealing.
Perhaps you should read the original post again. I was making fun of Knutty's claim.
-
<<Perhaps you should read the original post again. I was making fun of Knutty's claim.>>
What else is new?
-
They don't like Christians, so they are systematically removing Christianity from our culture.
===================================================
Can you quantify this? I ean, assuming our culture was 88.5% Christian in 1950, what percentage is it today?
If the "Liberals" are "systematically removinfg" Chrstianity, it should be easy for a genius like you to quantify it.
-
What else is new?
So, when I make fun of his post where he brings up chains with thousands of restaurants, that means I brought it into the conversation?
Now I know why your "logic" doesn't seem to work out.
-
>>I would like to think there have always been benevolent management types.<<
You're dealing with someone who supports the killing of 60 million people professor. He's not rational, he's so into classware that nothing is going to make him believe anyone who is a business owner actually cares about him employees. Nor will he ever understand what it take to get a business up and running and the risks involved. he thinks business owners steal everything they get from the proletariat. He a dinosaur. A follower of a totally discredited philosophy that does nothing but stifle creativity and kill people.
-
<<So, when I make fun of his post where he brings up chains with thousands of restaurants, that means I brought it into the conversation?>>
Usually when you make fun of Knute's posts, it's because you deliberately misinterpret the point of them, but I won't go there because Knute is obviously capable of speaking for himself. It seemed to me that you were taking advantage of a situation to (1) make fun of Knute and (2) invalidate the argument that the real reason for an owner's 24/7 presence was to stop employee theft. Whether or not your purpose was as I perceived it, I treated it as an argument and demolished it as I demolished your other arguments on the value of the owner's "work" and the justification for his profit.
-
<<You're dealing with someone who supports the killing of 60 million people professor.>>
Another fucking capitalist lie. What a bunch of bullshit. You swallowed the Nazi propaganda line, hook, line and sinker. "We gotta be ruthless because THEY are much more ruthless." What a load of crap. The demon communists.
<<"He's not rational, he's so into classware that nothing is going to make him believe anyone who is a business owner actually cares about him employees.>>
Right. That's where labour unions come from, from the love that an owner has for his workers. That's why strikes and strike breakers. That's why union busting. Take you head out of your fucking ass, man. Read. Learn. Think.
<< Nor will he ever understand what it take to get a business up and running and the risks involved. >>
NO, I come from a family of self-started manufacturers and businessmen, as did Karl Marx. Wouldn't have a clue.
<<he thinks business owners steal everything they get from the proletariat. >>
I'd say they make unjustified profits, which the bigger businessmen will kill to protect. I guess you never heard of Pinkertons.
<<He a dinosaur. A follower of a totally discredited philosophy that does nothing but stifle creativity and kill people.>>
The philosophy had its problems, as does capitalism, that's for God-damn sure. The only thing that's totally discredited is your own intellect when you make such absurd and unsupported blanket statements.
-
I would like to think there have always been benevolent management types.
When I was a manager in the Federal Government, I was a Branch Chief. I had 60 some odd people reporting to me indirectly and eight reporting to me directly. I always, and I mean always, made sure I looked after their welfare the best I could. Not because it was required of me, but because, quite simply, it was the right thing to do. Also, I noticed, productivity was higher as well. Why? Because your wmployees will tend to work harder for you not only because of position power, but personal power was well.
-
>>You swallowed the Nazi propaganda line, hook, line and sinker.<<
Mike knows his propaganda well. This is was Stalin did (when he wasn't murdering his own people by the million) to people who weren't communist butchers. He called them fascists/Nazi, but only after the deal he made with the Nazis fell through. Prior to that the Soviets loved the Nazis, just like two peas in a pod.
Unlike you, I don't support a failed ideology that is abhorred around the world for it's brutality. Communist has left more blood than the Nazis ever dreamed of. Therefore you don't mean shit. You're nothing but a useful idiot for murdering monsters.
Spare me your communist bullshit.
-
>>You swallowed the Nazi propaganda line, hook, line and sinker.<<
Mike knows his propaganda well. This is was Stalin did (when he wasn't murdering his own people by the million) to people who weren't communist butchers. He called them fascists/Nazi, but only after the deal he made with the Nazis fell through. Prior to that the Soviets loved the Nazis, just like two peas in a pod.
Unlike you, I don't support a failed ideology that is abhorred around the world for it's brutality. Communist has left more blood than the Nazis ever dreamed of. Therefore you don't mean shit. You're nothing but a useful idiot for murdering monsters.
Spare me your communist bullshit.
You may want to be somewhat careful here, Rich. I believe ,and I am not a moderator, you are beginning to skirt that edge of impropriety...Saying osmeone's positions/thoughts/views are invalid is one thing, but to invalidate THE PERSON? Hmmm.
-
>>You may want to be somewhat careful here, Rich. I believe ,and I am not a moderator, you are beginning to skirt that edge of impropriety...Saying osmeone's positions/thoughts/views are invalid is one thing, but to invalidate THE PERSON? Hmmm.<<
I've recently been called a "dumbass fuck" by Brass and this communist bastard called me a Nazi, and nobody gives a damn, so unless you have the balls to say something about that I suggest you mind your own fucking business.
-
sigh....whatever.
I am just trying to help you gain more civility. And for all you know, BT could be discussing the low civility quotient with Brass, if what you say is true.
I hope this is not what you are like in real life, e.g. confrontative.
Life is simply too short...
-
Spare me.
As for BT, you'd have to ask him.
-
<<Mike knows his propaganda well. This is was Stalin did (when he wasn't murdering his own people by the million) to people who weren't communist butchers. He called them fascists/Nazi, but only after the deal he made with the Nazis fell through. Prior to that the Soviets loved the Nazis, just like two peas in a pod.>>
Ahhh, your ignorance is showing through again, Rich. (as always, in everything you post) Since Hitler swore from the beginning of his career that Communism was a Jewish plot that had to be eradicated from the face of the earth, it strains credulity that the Communists would ever love the Nazis. Only a moron could believe that. You, it seems, are that moron. No surprises there.
The deal that Stalin made with Hitler was made out of necessity immediately upon the failure of three years of negotiations between Great Britain, France and the U.S.S.R. aimed at producing an Anglo-British-Soviet non-aggression treaty. Those negotiations failed because of Poland. Poland failed to agree to grant free passage of French and/or British troops through Poland to Russia and free passage to Russian troops through Poland to attack Germany in aid of France. Later it transpired that the British government, negotiating only because of popular pressure from the Labour Party, had given secret instructions to its negotiators NOT to conclude an agreement with the U.S.S.R. under any circumstances. Whether Britain and France deliberately refused to pressure Poland to agree to passage of Soviet troops is a moot question. The negotiations failed, after Stalin had been jerked around for three years.
Fortunately, Stalin was far from an idiot. Not fully trusting the British and French governments, he had seen the writing on the wall, when every round of Soviet concessions in the negotiations was met by a new round of fresh Anglo-French demands. Stalin had ordered his Foreign Minister, V. Molotov, to open secret negotiations with his Nazi counterpart, von Ribbentrop and within days of the failure of the tripartite talks, the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty was inked in August 1939, giving the Soviet Union almost two more years to prepare its defences against the Nazi invasion which it knew was coming. From the Nazis, whom according to Rich, the Soviets "loved like two peas in the pod."
<<Unlike you, I don't support a failed ideology that is abhorred around the world for it's brutality.>>
No, you worship an American crypto-fascist regime that is abhorred around the world for its brutality.
<<Communist has left more blood than the Nazis ever dreamed of. >>
God-damned right. The blood of Nazis, fascists and anti-Semites, counterrevolutionaries and enemies of the people.
<<Therefore you don't mean shit. You're nothing but a useful idiot for murdering monsters.>>
Unlike you, a useless idiot for murdering monsters?
<<Spare me your communist bullshit.>>
That's too easy, moron. Don't read anything from Michael Tee. Better yet, don't read anything. Just keep watching Fox "News."
Incidentally, moron, I never did call you a Nazi. That's just more of your lies, bullshit and whining.
-
So MT , you are a manager or a boss or something like that?
How did that come about?
Are you good for your employees and customers?
Have you ever had a customer stop using your service and go to a compeditor for better service /product?
Have you ever had an employee leave your business to get better job than you could give him?
I think that as a general rule restaurants sell the whole experience of eating out and not just food. The decor and lighting , music in he background and attentive staff cost more than the raw food , but where they sell raw food is called a grocery store and the competition between restaurant and grocers isn't direct even though all the customers can choose to cook for themselves.
I don't think it is illegal for people to open restaurants with co-op ownership. An employee owned restaurant might not need anyone to ensure the employees didn't thieve. What keeps this from happening commonly?
-
<<So MT , you are a manager or a boss or something like that?>>
I started out as an employee, then I became a boss.
<<How did that come about?>>
Sorry, plane, I don't want to get too personal here.
<<Are you good for your employees and customers?>>
I'm a good boss now but I made my share of mistakes in the beginning. I never took any courses in management, so I learned by trial and error. After one really disastrous error, I found my way via business magazine articles into the business sections of libraries and from there into the business sections of bookstores. I think I got from all that an analytical framework for taking stock of a situation from the beginning. I also learned some of the jargon of management, which I used to laugh at previously. I always wanted to be a good boss, but didn't realize at the beginning that it was actually an art and a science. I've got a whole personal theory of management now, but that's a book in itself, not a post.
As for my customers, I think on the whole I've been pretty good for them. I would rate myself as well above average but not the best, someone who frequently could provide the same level of service as the best in the field. The best in my business have had to make many sacrifices which I am just not prepared to make. Of course, from time to time, mistakes were made. I'm probably still making 'em, just not as many as the competition.
<<Have you ever had a customer stop using your service and go to a compeditor for better service /product?>>
Not very often, and when they did, they rarely if ever got better service/product. But it's happened.
<<Have you ever had an employee leave your business to get better job than you could give him?>>
What I do is pretty intense and demanding - - there's a burnout rate among employees of three to five years. There's a short learning curve and I'm an excellent teacher/trainer, so employees are highly replaceable. This also means there's a glass ceiling on wages. Hiring the right people is absolutely critical. That is also an art and a science in its own right and I think I've become excellent in that as well. I could probably write a book about it, but the best book on the subject has already been written. By Canadian authors, I proudly add. I don't mind at all when an employee leaves because my competitors are stupid enough to pay him or her more money, and often I've helped them exit into better-paying positions. This has actually reaped me enormous benefits, but that's a whole other story. In 40-plus years in business, only one employee ever left me on bad terms and I'm still friends with many of my former employees.
<<I think that as a general rule restaurants sell the whole experience of eating out and not just food. The decor and lighting , music in he background and attentive staff cost more than the raw food , but where they sell raw food is called a grocery store and the competition between restaurant and grocers isn't direct even though all the customers can choose to cook for themselves.>>
I wouldn't agree with that at all. You're speaking of a better class of restaurants, "fine dining" and such, but there are plenty of "greasy spoons" and diners where a businessman just wants a bacon-and-eggs breakfast or a quick lunch and doesn't give a shit what kind of atmosphere he's eating in, so long as it's quick and clean.
<<I don't think it is illegal for people to open restaurants with co-op ownership. An employee owned restaurant might not need anyone to ensure the employees didn't thieve. What keeps this from happening commonly?>>
I don't think capitalism produces the mindset or facilitates the venture. I became familiar with the concept in Cuba, where my family and I have stayed at small, worker-owned resort hotels and eaten in worker-owned restaurants. Somehow the government had empowered the workers to think of themselves as equal to anyone else and capable of organizing and running their own enterprises collectively without the need to have parasites interposing themselves between workers and customers and skimming off the profits. I think the government makes it easy for them to get up and running with some advice and low-cost loans, the same general way they encourage people to build their own homes cooperatively.
It was interesting that in the hotel we stayed at, the workers themselves had seen the need for a manager and had finally taken one on. I had an interesting discussion with him once, and he was complaining about the difficulties of managing what was effectively a mini-democracy, where all the workers had a vote and all decisions were collective. For example, he was complaining about his inability to fire anyone. The decision would have to be a collective one, and the discussions on the failings of Companero (Comrade) X would be interminable. The usual decision was to give the companero one more warning. I would guess that sooner or later, the collective would come to the point where a companero would have to be given the boot, but the manager was frustrated in not having the power to fire on the spot.
-
<<How did that come about?>>
Sorry, plane, I don't want to get too personal here.
No problem , you were generous enough with the rest of your answer
<<Are you good for your employees and customers?>>
I'm a good boss now but I made my share of mistakes in the beginning. I never took any courses in management, so I learned by trial and error. After one really disastrous error, I found my way via business magazine articles into the business sections of libraries and from there into the business sections of bookstores. I think I got from all that an analytical framework for taking stock of a situation from the beginning. I also learned some of the jargon of management, which I used to laugh at previously. I always wanted to be a good boss, but didn't realize at the beginning that it was actually an art and a science. I've got a whole personal theory of management now, but that's a book in itself, not a post.
As for my customers, I think on the whole I've been pretty good for them. I would rate myself as well above average but not the best, someone who frequently could provide the same level of service as the best in the field. The best in my business have had to make many sacrifices which I am just not prepared to make. Of course, from time to time, mistakes were made. I'm probably still making 'em, just not as many as the competition.
So in spite of your arguement , you are aware of the value of management . Since a lot of the value is intangable and magement holds the books I suppose that it does become easy for some management to charge more for their service than it really adds value to the business, but a business that is managed very well has an odvious avantage over competition tat is managed poorly and customers should flock twards the business that treats them better , so depending on the nature of the business and the competition the quality of management can be the diffrence between success and failure. So how much is that worth?
<<I think that as a general rule restaurants sell the whole experience of eating out and not just food. The decor and lighting , music in he background and attentive staff cost more than the raw food , but where they sell raw food is called a grocery store and the competition between restaurant and grocers isn't direct even though all the customers can choose to cook for themselves.>>
I wouldn't agree with that at all. You're speaking of a better class of restaurants, "fine dining" and such, but there are plenty of "greasy spoons" and diners where a businessman just wants a bacon-and-eggs breakfast or a quick lunch and doesn't give a shit what kind of atmosphere he's eating in, so long as it's quick and clean.
So you have been to Waffle House , where quick , freindly and cleanly is the selling point , even though they all buy their chops wholesale , they charge diffrently as the serve them. Generally you pay more where you get more attntion from the staff and moe expertise fom the chef but certainly you pay more when the decor is haught and the lighting is soft. Everyone knows this , but he hifalutin place doesn't close down when a McDonalds opens next door
I don't think capitalism produces the mindset or facilitates the venture. I became familiar with the concept in Cuba, where my family and I have stayed at small, worker-owned resort hotels and eaten in worker-owned restaurants.
The mindset is not the problem , and the capitol should be more availible to a large group than it is to an individual , you were told the reason that individually owned and corproate owned restraunts outcompete in an environment where neither is forbidden , the guy in Cuba that was a manager in a co-op owned hotell told you.The decision would have to be a collective one, and the discussions on the failings of Companero (Comrade) X would be interminable. The comrades place their prioritys in a natural order for people in a group , but the public would be better served by business that placed the needs of the customer very highly.
Still here are few successes of co-op ownership http://www.thefarmcommunity.com/ would you go for a stay on "The Farm" if your choice could be a stay at "Sandals " www.sandals.com ?
-
I think there's a very fundamental difference in capitalist and socialist outlooks, and I thank you for making it clear to me in your comments on the need for management and more particularly on the manager of the Cuban worker-owned resort hotel. You are focused on what the manager's services are "worth?" How much do they contribute to the success of the organization as opposed, say, to how much the sweeper contributes? In the Cuban cooperative, you would see a reverse focus - - not on the contribution but on the needs of the participants. What does Comrade X need? What does Comrade Y need? They all get basic salary from the profits of the enterprise. When the surplus has reached the point where it's no longer reserve but some of it can be distributed, they have a meeting of the collective. This comrade needs a new roof, for example. The needs of the participants are discussed and the surplus distributed accordingly. I would suppose (but my discussions with the manager did not go this far) that if no one else had as pressing a need as the new roof, the remaining surplus would then be distributed equally or pro-rated to the hours of labour contributed by the members.
Although the manager never really talked theory, I am realizing now as I write this that the theoretical underpinning of the cooperative was the classic Marxist "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
<<The comrades place their prioritys in a natural order for people in a group , but the public would be better served by business that placed the needs of the customer very highly.>>
What "public" would be "better served" by the fawning attitude of servility cultivated by the "fine dining" establishments of the capitalist world and at what cost to human dignity and the dignity of labour? Service in Cuba was generally on-time and courteous but if the bar-tender had had a rough night or the watiress had broken up with her boy-friend and was hating the world, you'd know about it. Just a little reminder that we're interacting with live human beings, not robots, and even on vacation there are other human beings you are going to have to deal with and sometimes their problems become your problems and their sorrows become your sorrows, like it or not. Sure the service is a hundred times better in New York and sometimes you can grab a few precious minutes of her working hour and learn a bit about the girl who's serving your Starbucks, but the contrast generally between the bright, chirpy 100% artificial style of New York service and the unembellished "real" service of a non-servile dignified work force in Cuba is noticeable.
-
Sorry, plane, I missed this question:
Still here are few successes of co-op ownership http://www.thefarmcommunity.com/ would you go for a stay on "The Farm" if your choice could be a stay at "Sandals " www.sandals.com ?
I've known about "The Farm" and similar projects for a long time. There are two kinds of vacation my wife and I take when not visiting the grandchildren. "Sun and Sand," where the object is to find a lazy beach with a snorkelling reef available just off-shore, with good food and a dance floor with a great live band "in-house" or no further away than the next hotel. That's not "The Farm." It might be Sandals. The other is to go to a great European city, taking a good guidebook and great walking shoes, know or learn enough of the language to go anywhere on our own, check into a cheap hotel - - really cheap, no amenities - - and then go anywhere and everywhere by public transportation or on foot or bicycle, eating wherever we find ourselves, occasionally looking up places to eat from the guidebook, the internet or word of mouth. That's not "The Farm" either, and it's sure as hell not Sandals.
-
Sorry, plane, I missed this question:
Still here are few successes of co-op ownership http://www.thefarmcommunity.com/ would you go for a stay on "The Farm" if your choice could be a stay at "Sandals " www.sandals.com ?
I've known about "The Farm" and similar projects for a long time. There are two kinds of vacation my wife and I take when not visiting the grandchildren. "Sun and Sand," where the object is to find a lazy beach with a snorkelling reef available just off-shore, with good food and a dance floor with a great live band "in-house" or no further away than the next hotel. That's not "The Farm." It might be Sandals. The other is to go to a great European city, taking a good guidebook and great walking shoes, know or learn enough of the language to go anywhere on our own, check into a cheap hotel - - really cheap, no amenities - - and then go anywhere and everywhere by public transportation or on foot or bicycle, eating wherever we find ourselves, occasionally looking up places to eat from the guidebook, the internet or word of mouth. That's not "The Farm" either, and it's sure as hell not Sandals.
Now I am wondering who buys anything from "the farm".
-
<<Now I am wondering who buys anything from "the farm".>>
My guess is (1) real activists or (2) people who don't know about the Caribbean and/or can't swim and/or don't give a shit about Europe.
And probably a ton of reporters from the "alternative" media.