Unions and government have sold out workers Part II

I recently have written two pieces very critical of unions. I want to delve a little into why I am so critical. I am not some raving anti-union bigot. I am simply a free market capitalist. I believe this is very important to our future. I don't believe we can ever go back to a time when the free market totally rules in America, but I believe we need to go back in that direction.

We have a situation in our country that is quickly becoming a crisis. Too many citizens do not have a hunger. I don't mean that in a food and nutrition sense, I say this in a sense of drive. A large majority of us do not have to wonder where our next meal will come from or where to rent payment will come from. We have a good life and we are satisfied. Our children have developed a sense of entitlement. I know this well because my kids seem to have this sense of entitlement.

No entities have had more to do with our sense of entitlement than the Federal government, unions and primary and secondary schools. Competing in the world seems to be a secondary concern to these entities. Unfortunately competing is the primary concern of the rest of the world. The people of India, China, Indonesia are ready and anxious to compete.

A user on Youtube.com has a video called 'Shift Happens'. This video shows a lot of information that should get every one's mind looking in the right direction. On the other hand we have politicians running for Santa Claus and making sure young people never have to compete. Just look at this story from Reuters where Hillary Claus want to give every child a $5000 bank account for college, just for being born. This is nothing short of obscene pandering!!

I am a computer developer. Every day I see so many areas that I need to learn or get better at. I work in an exciting world, but I know as much as anyone that I cannot afford to get behind. My hope is that everyone will see that world and act accordingly. As the people overseas are getting better and better, our people are getting fatter and lazier (yes I include myself in this group). Our founding fathers would be appalled if they saw the work ethic our young display. My fear is they would call for a new Constitutional Congress.

What are my recommendations? Unions and interest groups focus on groups. We must change our focus. Our individual identity is much more important than our group. Only through pursuing our individual excellence can we come back to the prominence our country deserves, and each of us can achieve. Group focus will continue to drive us behind our competition in the world.

Along with our desire to focus on groups, we seem to have a desire for guarantees. We value security rather than risk. Of course risk is scary, but must be explored. The more we demand guaranteed outcomes, the more we will continue to lose. We can only achieve true freedom, through risk. To get security we must give up elements of our freedom. We do this by ceding our economic freedom in exchange for government redistribution of resources.

The most damaging thing the desire for security does is take away our edge. There is a decreasing desire to incur risk, because we don't have to. Society is taking care of us. This takes away our very survival skills. To young people who have never had to excel to get ahead, this is cruel. It takes away the feeling of accomplishing something that is truly difficult. Don't you remember being in school, thinking you could never get a math problem? We all used to have that experience. When you finally figured it out, wow!! what a feeling!!! Don't take that away from our children. Encourage them to strive for true inginuity. Their role models should be Bill Gates, not Paris Hilton. That is my thought anyway.

Unions and government have sold out workers

I wrote recently about the GM strike. As everyone else I am glad to see the strike amicably settled. Time will tell if the plan to have the union manage the retirement programs will help return GM and ultimately the other two companies(since they will eventually have contracts based on this one) to competitiveness. This of course is the important point, but the unions like to call the agenda one of fairness.

Unions and guilds have been around for a very long time. This is part of history. The modern union came into being a grew around the time of the first Progressive, Teddy Roosevelt. Of course in those days progressive had a different meaning than today. The workers of that era had a very good claim to needing some sort of cohesive representation. They worked like slaves for very low wages and horrible working conditions. That is not arguable. They had a moral right to want change.

As I look back I don't see the need for representation, I see a lack of competition. This of course could not be solved in a short period so the modern labor union was born. Not long after that the progressives in government saw 'unfairness' in the economy as a whole. People like Franklin Roosevelt saw the suffering of ordinary citizens as something that could be fixed by government regulation. The New Deal was born. Good intentions or not the government now became an entity that could be swayed to help. Along came interest groups. So many suffering people, but still scarce resources. How to divide up the pie? In the minds of the Progressives markets could not be trusted to be fair.

Along the way unions became very powerful, based on the argument of fairness. Travel and communication improved. World competition was greatly injured in World War II. Everyone in America had good times. Union workers could now enjoy the good life. The could share in the prosperity that they saw the executives enjoying. Both management and labor saw a trend that they saw no end to.

Along came the sixties. Foreign competition started to improve and American industry started to get old. Market share started to drop. Under a market concept adjustments would have been made, to keep the industries profitable. The unionized industries could not make wage and benefit changes without going to the unions. At the same time the Federal government progressed in their drive to help struggling people. The Great Society was born. A lot of taxes were needed. These came from already struggling businesses and already struggling workers.

We know that in a competitive environment increases in prices can only be passed along to consumers so far as the competitive markets would allow. Since foreign, sometimes subsidized companies were not increasing prices, our industries could not. These businesses needed ways to stay competitive and needed to reduce prices. Businesses moved to lower cost areas in the south. As the big northern cities started to see reductions in their revenue stream, instead of doing what consumers would do, cutting back their size, they increased a phenomena called class warfare. Now the very businesses that employed their citizens were not being called greedy, evil, money grubbing. (To be sure some of these people were all of those things, for exhibiting the same behaviors that governments regularly exhibit). Remember as business's market share, rarely did salary or benefits to unions workers decline. When such a thing was proposed, we got strikes. These hurt the companies, the workers, and the consumers.

After travel and communication improved more of these plants moved offshore. More and more people are put out of work. Along the way suffering people came to believe that they had a legitimate claim to other peoples money. Federal largesse became the rule. The thought of getting additional education, or starting a business for themselves never occurred or other ways to help themselves didn't occur to a growing percentage of people. Along the same period education got worse and children don't learn about economics, and government like they should. So here we are today, with an uneducated electorate who largely have no idea how supply and demand work, have no idea what our founders believed to be important, but can tell us everything about Brad and Angelina, and Brittany.

We are reaping what we have sewed. Government and unions have not been in conspiracy together, but through similar beliefs, they have given us the same sad outcomes. This condition is reversable, but not until we start to teach people why govenment and unions are selling our their future.

Is John Edwards Running for King?

Someone tell John Edwards he is running for President and not king. He made a statement that he will tell the Congress, the Cabinet and the Vice President that if they do not enact universal health care by 2009 they will lose theirs.

Congress is the only body capable of doing that. Remember the President does not spend a single dime, and if no bill comes to his desk, he can't do a single thing. The best thing he can do is use the bully pulpit to shame the Congress into acting. Hopefully they won't have the votes.

The problem here is that John Edwards seems to see every campaign stop and every candidates forum as a closing argument, where you can say pretty much anything you want and it is free time. No need to be particularly accurate just blather.

Edwards spent six years as a Senator, so he knows how the government works. This makes it worse. He knows there are lots of people out here saying "You go John!!!'. He is preying on their emotions and using their worries about health care to be a major demagogue. This is sick!!

Hopefully he will never be elected, but continues to be the most entertaining candidate. It would be Dennis Kucinich if he weren't so darn annoying.

Why GM Must hold the Line

The United Auto Workers are on strike and seem to be dug in for the long haul. I personally believe they are hurting their own workers. The auto makers have moved many plants offshore and it is my belief a bad settlement will make them move even more. More and more auto workers will be out of work, and even more bitterness will ensue. The union wants guarentees of job security. Those of us who work in the real world know this is not possible. If my company loses customers and cannot pay me, I have no job security. This is a given in the work world. It needs to be accepted by union workers as well.

Unions in our present world exist for the purpose of forcing companies to pay above market wages and benefits at the end of a rhetorical gun. I have stated this before and believe it to be true. The argument from the union leaders is always the same, "The company has not bargained fairly". Bargaining fairly is always equivalent to giving the union everything they want. I ask a simple question, if all the workers were replaced, would qualified people be able to be hired and trained in a short time for less compensation? I believe this to be true. What that tells me is that they are paid above market wages and benefits currently, and are demanding more.

Union workers are this is all about fairness. The fact is this cannot be used as a measure because fairness is a relative term and measure. Is it fair that they make much more than other factory workers that are not in a union? I personally choose not to get into that because I for one believe it to be irrelevant. Every worker should get as much he or she can, but should be determined by the free market and not how well your negotiator can convince the other party that they will suffer.

The auto companies also have no point of sympathy with me. They have put themselves in a horrible competitive situation. They need to address this and now. The longer they put it off the more likely they will be to have horrible financial consequences. They have expensive long term commitments to present retirees. They must pay these and they must not try to avoid them. They must however make changes to future retirees. Morally they need to honor the people close to retirement. The younger workers are another matter. They must make changes and require them to contribute more to their own retirement and benefits. If that is not acceptable, they can make other employment decisions. The rest of the labor market contributes much more to their own retirement and health insurance. Auto workers should not be privileged beyond other workers. The sooner this happens the sooner we will begin to slow the loss of manufacturing jobs. (A corporate tax cut would also help, but that is a different piece).

The foreign auto companies do not face nearly the fixed expenses the American companies do. This is not just salaries, it is due to retirement, health benefits, resolution of grievances and litigation to name just a few. These costs prevent the companies from truly improving quality and making a competitive product.

The workers feel that they are singled out to give back with nothing from management. I agree with them. Unfortunately cutting executive compensation will not help significantly due to the vast size of the companies and probably hurt their ability to draw good executives. What can and should be done though, is to tie executive compensation closely to results. Companies have tried to do that in the past with some good results. The metrics have to be closely and carefully defined though. Just tying it to stock price or bottom line profit can result in short term gains that can produce long term disasters. It is a difficult thing they need to do, but essential.

This strike may be a long drawn out expensive endeavor. It may also save the American auto industry. It could also break it.

I'm still confused

I have written about the radical atheists before but I am still confused. Of course I am talking about Kathy Griffin. She calls herself a radical atheist. Of course that is her right. I still don't know why these folks are so offended that the rest of us believe in an all powerful and loving God.

It doesn't change my life one bit that she does not, other than I do worry about her soul, but again how does that affect her? Christians admit to to being imperfect and accept imperfection in others. Of course there are exceptions, there are people who profess Christianity who are just boorish. Every group has these.

As for award shows, let us think about acceptance speeches. While there are some people who thank God or Jesus. I would say the majority of these shows are more likely to make what I believe to insufferable remarks about global warming, how President Bush is stupid, how President Bush is evil or some other such remark. While I find these to be silly and offensive, my actions involve, not watching them. Maybe our atheist friends should think about that.

I want Obesity Offsets

I have written before about carbon credits (in a not so friendly manner). OK this is with tongue firmly planted in cheek that I write this. Think about other areas that purchasing offsets can help.

I have a long battle I wage on obesity and am losing. What if I pay for efforts for anti obesity PSA's, or maybe contribute to diabetes organizations. Shouldn't that offset my 'Fat Footprint'?

How about Senator Craig. Shouldn't he be able to get an 'I am stupid enough to think my bathroom exploits would remain a secret offset'? He could give money to lobby that all arrests to men who do creepy things in bathrooms a secret.

Maybe the Cleveland Browns (yes I am an embarrased fan) could get incompetant Quarterback offsets.

I could go on like this for hours, because the who concept of gazillionaire politicians and celebrities to tool around in Gulf streams and SUV's and pay for carbon offsets is galactic stupidity, but isn't it time for the rest of the world to call them on it? I really thought by now this practice would be totally embarrassing to them by now, but they still do it.

Maybe it is time for someone to nail 95 thesis to Al Gores door, with a carbon copy to John Edwards!

Will the Left continue to Repeat their Mistakes of the Past

In the communist era we had two groups had helped the communists very much. The follow travelers who were true believers sometimes in the open and sometimes not. There were also the useful idiots. These were people who were not communists but through their actions assisted the communists. We forget about these people because very few people are outright communists in the world today, save Castro and Hugo Chavez.

Today as we get another tape from Osama bin Laden we are reminded of this era. To listen to the rhetroric in many spots he sounds like someone from MoveOn.Org. While I don't believe the people from Moveon for the most part hate America and want to see us destroyed, but their rhetoric plays right into the hands of the Bin Ladens of the world who do want our civilization destroyed. I don't think there will be any fellow travelers in this battle. I can't see any life long lefties converting to Islam, (that would sure cut into their cocktail parties) but their hatred of everything that traditional America believes in plays right into their hands. As we hear more of the tape, think about where you have heard of these speeches before, the American left, both the Democratic party and the Greens and other hard left organizations. (As usual this does not imply that all Democrats or Greens want to see America destroyed. I reference the left. Many democrats are centrsts and not hard left leaning people, just like not all Republicans are conservative. It feels so tedious to always point this out but someone may read this that haven't read other things I have written and not understand what I mean by the left).

We must remember our hatred of a single or multiple pieces of public policy can not get in the way of fighting true evil. Bin Laden just like the Communists and Nazi's before them represent true evil and will use anything to accomplish their aims, and if that means utilizing the rhetoric of poltical organizations to accomplish it they will do it.

Time To Define Compassion

Dictionary.com defines compassion as:
com·pas·sion /kəmˈpæʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhm-pash-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.
a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. –verb (used with object)
2.
Archaic. to compassionate.

In out present day world we see compassion displayed in many ways. Most are very legitimate. We have people who selflessly spend many hours of their lives doing for others. We have people that give huge sums of money. Bill Gates is one of these people. Great admiration is due all of these people.

The people I want to talk about today are the ones who use compassion as an argument to further political agenda. I am not saying that these people are not sincere, on the contrary I believe the vast majority of them are. They truly believe their actions will help the people that they are lobbying for. Most often I believe their actions make themselves feel better, but it doesn't help others. I believe they are wrong. My opinions may be controversial. I do not intend them to be offensive, but no doubt some will see it that way. That is regrettable. If you read this please read it in the way it was intended, an alternative way of thinking intended to help.

There are so many examples I want to take just a couple. Inner city poor people are victims of this syndrome. Many of these people, but certainly not all are in their predicament because of bad personal choices. One of the most destructive choices we see is young women who have children in high school or shortly afterward. It is considered compassionate to sign the young woman up for many government programs and she and her future child become a virtual ward of the state. The intention of this of course is so she can use the help to assist her in getting her education, and try to get a leg up on beginning her life on her own. Personally I don't see how this can be compassionate. This young woman of course can have the baby killed in the first three months as it is her right to do by a thing called Roe vs. Wade, also not compassionate.

The alternative that far too few women choose is adoption. I see this as one of the most compassionate things she can do for her unborn child. The child can be given a family that most likely will have a mother and father who are prepared and capable of giving the baby a home. What the young woman has to look forward to is long hours trying to make a living, maybe going to school and in the spare time trying to find some time to love her baby. This time often gets left out. I believe each of these women try their level best to be a great mother. It is just too big of a job for one person. This is seen as compassion. If the multitude of government programs did not exist, many more of these young women would make the choice that benefits their unborn child, adoption. That would be compassion. The baby gets a home and the woman gets the chance to pursue her life and dreams.

One more area I want to talk about for this piece. Government support. Political people on the left and right have very different ideas about what is compassionate for the poor. People on the left believe that government programs are compassionate. People on the right tend to believe that charity programs, often faith based charities are compassionate. My view of course is that government programs are cruel. People who may be down on their luck, or habitual get a one size fits all program that gives them subsistence, not a living. Again, some people use this as a chance to get their lives back on track. Far too many get trapped into a life of subsistence. This inevitably leads to bitterness and despair. It is a bureaucracy, not help. Faith based charities offer people a new outlook. They offer a meal, comfort and often real life help. I believe this is compassion. People who live on government support know they won't get rich, their lives won't get very much better. In time this leads again to despair. People who are helped by charities may or may not get a better life, but they are told they can make a better life by people who genuinely care. The people in the government side also care, but are overloaded, and limited by what they can give. This is not compassion. The despair I spoke of before inevitably takes away survival skills. This is cruel in my way of thinking.

Even if everyone saw my way of thinking tonight, pulling the rug out from under people could not and should not happen. Too many of these people have no idea how to support themselves. Additionally not all government programs should be taken away. People who are not physically able to work need to be helped. Other such circumstances as well. Gradually taking away the duplicated programs until the able bodied start to be able to take care of themselves. I see this as compassionate. I don't believe it is easy, but I do believe it is necessary. As a society we need to looks at what works, not what feels good.