Romney, Capitalism (healthy societies require some suffering)

[Pardalis]

At least you guys have stopped obsessing over Santorum.

 

[RandFan]

I don't have a problem with unions, but I've also seen how the teacher unions in my school district have placed the supposed needs of teachers above the needs of students. For example, the unions have made it so that teachers can only be asked to stay after school two days a week for about 30 minutes. When I was a kid, the teachers were there after school every day for at least an hour and would stay as long as you needed. Anyway, I digress. There are likely solutions to problems like these that wouldn't require dismantling unions.

I don't deny problems with unions. I grew up hating them. But it doesn't take much to realize that without unions the corporations get pretty much anything they like.

I'm definitely not a conservative, but I believe in capitalism as long as the ground rules are set in such a way that minimizes abuses of the system that give one company unfair advantage.

Agreed.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "money has a way to turn a company from long term vision to short term?"

I gave you one. Systems can only expand so fast. There is only so much efficiency to them. Our recent crisis was because, in all likelihood, the rate of return was not enough. So, instead of focusing on long term stability they traded that for short term profits.

Well, the problem with banks is that they're too big to fail.

That's but one problem.

Can you give me an example (even a theoretical one) where a company has no people to buy their product because the company was greedy?

If I said "no people" then it was an exaggeration. The current situation is a perfect example. Fewer and fewer people have discretionary funds to purchase goods and some people (myself for one) can't even pay for food or shelter for not having a job.

Well, I wouldn't say that. I think that corporations should give a damn about their employees because giving a damn makes their employees happier and more productive which in turn makes the corporation more successful. I see no reason a corporation can't do both.

I'm fine with that.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but actually American corporations aren't over regulated according to most sources I've read. Here's an example:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...cott-us-regulations-are-most-difficult-world/

Sure, in some cases there's red tape where there doesn't need to be. We should remove bad regulations or in some cases replace them with better regulations. The goal of regulations should be to protect workers, to protect consumers, and to protect corporations (i.e. provide rules of the road that don't give one corporation an unfair advantage over competitors).

I agree that we should strengthen unions, but we also need to regulate unions in some way to avoid certain conflicts of interest such as the one I mentioned above that harm our students.

Agreed. Thanks.

 

[leftysergeant]

At least you guys have stopped obsessing over Santorum.

Wrong thread. We can discuss that slimeball elsewhere.

 

[Pardalis]

Wrong thread. We can discuss that slimeball elsewhere.

They're all slimeballs according to you, aren't they?

The way you talk about them I'm not sure you consider them human.

 

[RandFan]

They're all slimeballs according to you, aren't they?

The way you talk about them I'm not sure you consider them human.

Remind you of the OWS thread?

 

[Bri]

I gave you one. Systems can only expand so fast. There is only so much efficiency to them. Our recent crisis was because, in all likelihood, the rate of return was not enough. So, instead of focusing on long term stability they traded that for short term profits.

I see what you're saying. I think maybe your observations may be limited to banks rather than corporations in general. Few companies that actually make things or provide services have a conflict between short-term and long-term goals. The current crisis was because of banks that were too big to fail that could gamble with other people's money without assuming the risk. It was also caused by conflicts of interest between the banks and the rating agencies. I think there should have been some regulations to prevent that.

If I said "no people" then it was an exaggeration. The current situation is a perfect example. Fewer and fewer people have discretionary funds to purchase goods and some people (myself for one) can't even pay for food or shelter for not having a job.

The ironic thing is that the banks that were responsible for the current situation aren't the ones that are currently hurting from lack of demand. It's the companies that actually make things (the ones that tend to hire regular people) that are hurting, and the result is high unemployment for the middle class. I don't think the greedy banks that caused the financial meltdown caused themselves any long term problems for their bad behavior.

-Bri

 

[leftysergeant]

They're all slimeballs according to you, aren't they?I am hard put to think of a republicon who has not sold his nads to Grover for campaign funding. That this is not considered a crime is a short-coming of the law. I have no reason on earth to show the least respect for any idiot who has signed Grover's anti-tax pledge. They are supposed to work for us, not for some self-important little schmedrick whom nobody elected.

The way you talk about them I'm not sure you consider them human.

Only taxanomicly, but that is enough to make it illegal to call the Orkin man on them.

So,Mittens the Vulture thinks that some suffering is acceptable to make an ecconomy grow...

Great. Give a generous heaping portion of it to the fools who got us into this depression after taking massive tax cuts under false premises. They were supposed to be creating jobs and prosperity for all of us.

Mostly they shoved it up their noses and pissed it away in the casino on Wall Street. Let them pay for the clean up.

 

[RandFan]

I see what you're saying. I think maybe your observations may be limited to banks rather than corporations in general. Few companies that actually make things or provide services have a conflict between short-term and long-term goals.

We can agree to disagree. A few points however. First, we are talking about business in general and not just corporations. One thing we need to acknowledge is that business is not monolithic. There has always been a continuum between companies with short term vision and those with long term vision. IMO: Given Wallmart and other superstores I really don't think it's a controversial statement to say that the ratio of companies with short term version to long term has shifted to the not so good as of late.

The current crisis was because of banks that were too big to fail that could gamble with other people's money without assuming the risk. It was also caused by conflicts of interest between the banks and the rating agencies. I think there should have been some regulations to prevent that.

I agree but here we are going in circles. We've gone over this already. This makes my argument IMO.

The ironic thing is that the banks that were responsible for the current situation aren't the ones that are currently hurting from lack of demand. It's the companies that actually make things (the ones that tend to hire regular people) that are hurting, and the result is high unemployment for the middle class. I don't think the greedy banks that caused the financial meltdown caused themselves any long term problems for their bad behavior.

High unemployment is IMO evidence that companies are less likely to accept Ford's proposition.

 

[WildCat]

Henry Ford reasoned that a society with poor citizens wouldn't ultimately help his bottom line. Ford grew up during a time when industrialists looked beyond next quarters bottom line. They had long term vision wishing to earn profits in the short term but investing in the overall company and industry in the long term. Not that these people were bleeding hearts. Hardly. They simply saw things long term.

I wouldn't use Henry Ford as a shining example of long-term management strategy, by the time he died Ford was a financial mess, bleeding cash, and on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

[WildCat]

In any event, the ratings are scientific based and published in a peer reviewed journal. Not that HDI is above question and criticism.

It's completely subjective. The measurements may be scientific, but deciding what is to be measured is 100% subjective.

 

[RandFan]

I wouldn't use Henry Ford as a shining example of long-term management strategy, by the time he died Ford was a financial mess, bleeding cash, and on the verge of bankruptcy.

1. Non sequitur. One can have a long term vision and fail (long term vision is no guarantee of success).
2. Ford, oddly enough, has been one of the most influential corporations in American history.

 

[RandFan]

It's completely subjective. The measurements may be scientific, but deciding what is to be measured is 100% subjective.

You don't like well being?

Look, you have a point but it's rather silly. It's hardly controversial to state that most people want increased well being and decreased suffering. If YOU think society would be better with increased suffering and decreased well being for the most people then yeah, HDI is worthless. If you think Somalia is subjectively as good as America then yeah, HDI is pointless.

 

[Brainster]

I agree.

I'm not sure of your premise. Are you saying America is inherently incapable of equality in education?

Americans are inherently incapable of equality in education. My best friend in the whole world barely got a high school diploma; he would have been hopelessly lost in college.

 

[WildCat]

1. Non sequitur. One can have a long term vision and fail (long term vision is no guarantee of success).
2. Ford, oddly enough, has been one of the most influential corporations in American history.

Ford was failing in the 1940s precisely because they didn't have a long-term vision.

Ever read The Reckoning?

 

[leftysergeant]

Americans are inherently incapable of equality in education. My best friend in the whole world barely got a high school diploma; he would have been hopelessly lost in college.

That he lacked the ability to advance is no excuse for the opportunity not to be offered.

 

[WildCat]

You don't like well being?

Look, you have a point but it's rather silly. It's hardly controversial to state that most people want increased well being and decreased suffering. If YOU think society would be better with increased suffering and decreased well being for the most people then yeah, HDI is worthless. If you think Somalia is subjectively as good as America then yeah, HDI is pointless.

None of this refutes my point. You think you can come up with a definition of "well-being" that isn't subjective?

 

[Chaos]

I see what you're saying. I think maybe your observations may be limited to banks rather than corporations in general. Few companies that actually make things or provide services have a conflict between short-term and long-term goals. The current crisis was because of banks that were too big to fail that could gamble with other people's money without assuming the risk. It was also caused by conflicts of interest between the banks and the rating agencies. I think there should have been some regulations to prevent that.

(bolding mine)

Sure they do.

If the management has contracts in which their pay is determined by current performance, they have an incentive to maximize performance during their contract, at the expense of performance after they leave. The same happens if management maximizes short-term "shareholder value" at the expense of a company´s long-term well-being.

As a rule of thumb, if management sees employees as a cost factor rather than as a vital part of the production process, if they look at an older experienced employee and see "high cost" instead of "valuable experience", there´s entirely avoidable trouble ahead for the company.

 

[Bri]

We can agree to disagree. A few points however. First, we are talking about business in general and not just corporations. One thing we need to acknowledge is that business is not monolithic. There has always been a continuum between companies with short term vision and those with long term vision. IMO: Given Wallmart and other superstores I really don't think it's a controversial statement to say that the ratio of companies with short term version to long term has shifted to the not so good as of late.

I don't personally know of any company (other than maybe banks) that purposely eschew a long-term vision for short-term gain. And it's questionable whether banks suffered long-term from their short-term gains.

I agree but here we are going in circles. We've gone over this already. This makes my argument IMO.

As I said, your point may hold some water as far as financial companies are concerned. I don't think it holds for other companies though. And I don't see many financial companies that were harmed in the long-term by their actions.

High unemployment is IMO evidence that companies are less likely to accept Ford's proposition.

Except that the unemployment isn't really the result of short-sightedness by the companies that are currently being affected by a lack of demand. It was caused by the short-sightedness of the financial sector, which isn't really suffering from its actions.

-Bri

 

[Corsair 115]

I don't have a problem with unions, but I've also seen how the teacher unions in my school district have placed the supposed needs of teachers above the needs of students.

Well, strictly speaking, the union is just doing what a union is supposed to do: protecting and advancing the interests of its members. The students are not members of the teachers' union.

For example, the unions have made it so that teachers can only be asked to stay after school two days a week for about 30 minutes. When I was a kid, the teachers were there after school every day for at least an hour and would stay as long as you needed.

Another way of interpreting it is to say that when you were a kid teachers were putting in a lot of unpaid work hours. Which perhaps is the intent of the new rules: to cut down or otherwise limit unpaid work. Of course, that raises the larger question of what exactly constitutes the work hours a teacher should be paid for, and whether they should be expected or required to provide work outside of those established paid work hours.

 

[Bri]

Well, strictly speaking, the union is just doing what a union is supposed to do: protecting and advancing the interests of its members. The students are not members of the teachers' union.

There shouldn't be a conflict between doing what's best for teachers and what's best for students. In what way does it help teachers to hinder them from doing their jobs to the best of their abilities? It would seem as though unions should be working with school districts to figure out how to enable teachers to best do their jobs and get compensated accordingly, rather than harming students.

If I recall correctly, in one school district the majority of teachers were in favor of pay in proportion to performance but unions wouldn't even allow it to come to a vote. Another school district ended up having to fire all of its teachers and start from scratch in order to get around the unions.

In our school district, we used to be on a "block" schedule, and it was very beneficial to the students. Because of a technicality in the teacher contract having to do with providing teachers a certain amount of out-of-class time each day to work on grading, the block schedule violated the teacher contract. Rather than working it out with the district, the teacher union forced the district to change to a schedule that few teachers or students wanted.

Again, unions aren't all bad, but when they prohibit teachers from doing their jobs to the best of their ability, they're not working in the best interests of the teachers they represent.

Another way of interpreting it is to say that when you were a kid teachers were putting in a lot of unpaid work hours. Which perhaps is the intent of the new rules: to cut down or otherwise limit unpaid work. Of course, that raises the larger question of what exactly constitutes the work hours a teacher should be paid for, and whether they should be expected or required to provide work outside of those established paid work hours.

Most teachers are salaried, and most salaried workers work about 8 hours a day. But most salaried workers also don't get the summers off. Anyway...I think that unions should fight for fair wages for teachers for whatever hours they work. But unions shouldn't be fighting for teachers to work fewer hours than is necessary to adequately do their jobs.

-Bri