Hi. My name is... Robert Smith

Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 8 months ago to The Gulch: Introductions
585 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I'm very happy to have landed in the Gulch... I hope to get some insights for when I watch and discuss the movie.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 18.
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Happens to me all the time...
    Sometimes when I am in a hurry and flustered I feel I am likely to get my own name wrong. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sometimes I mix things up when I'm running multiple conversations. Jonestown = Jim Jones, messiah complex, mass murder. Quite right, thanks for the clarification.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 8 months ago
    Conclusion part 2:

    Some questions:
    What equality of bargaining do you gain when negotiating with a sole proprietor over a representative of a corporation? What power does a corporation, which is nothing more than a group of people have over the market wages that a sole proprietor does not have? Don’t corporations compete against one another, just as sole proprietors do?

    How is acting as a union, mob or collective gain equality at the bargaining table? Doesn’t it gain more than equality since it gains the power of intimidation/force? Can’t the unions’ shutdown the business possibly bankrupting it while the corporations are tied up negotiating and can’t use force to employ anyone?

    What power does a corporation, unless protected by government cronies, have to nullify competition?

    Why is a collective of workers granted the use of intimidation, force/ strikes the power to destroy a business? Why is a poor person willing to take a job at a lesser remuneration intimidated at the picket line and called a scab? Is the union worker simply by belonging to a union the best candidate for the job and doesn’t the employer have the right to hire whoever they wish? Don’t many unions protect the slackers and thus burden the company with competitive disadvantage?


    Why should anyone consider entry level jobs paying what the market offers as anything more than a rung on the ladder? Why is flipping burgers a career? Why should we consider flipping burgers or any low skilled job to be a career rather than an opportunity to build work experience and learn something that leads to a career?

    Why should we believe that every low skilled job should provide a living wage? What jobs if any are in your estimation undeserving? What about the kid who needs a part time job after school, shovels sidewalks or mows a few lawns? Where does it end? What about the kid with the lemonade stand?

    In my estimation the problem is not that some businesses pay too little. It is that so many good paying jobs have been destroyed or moved offshore by non market forces, that people now look at every entry level job as if it is all they can find or aspire to. That is the individuals’ mistake. This is the land of opportunity. This is of course exacerbated by the government policies, union policies and the misdirection from same.

    So far I have never seen anyone forced to accept a job at McDonalds, yet they continue to find willing workers. You may say, “that is all the workers can find.” To which I say “nonsense.” One of my most successful friends ( a guy who is dyslexic and barely passed high school) started mowing lawns with a push mower and built a successful landscaping business over time without a bit of capital or having to borrow a dime. I have run a successful high tech machine shop for longer and he will retire first. His overhead was low and his risk was also.

    If people are stuck in dead end jobs, it is because they aren’t taking advantage of all the opportunities available, (albeit those opportunities are not what they once were due to poor governance) or they are not capable of improving their skills. Isn’t it better to have some jobs for those who need only a starting point for work experience, something to put on their resume, and what about opportunities for the mentally challenged? If I can pay someone who is mentally handicapped $10 per hour because that is his production level or $20 per hour to someone who is capable of double the production shouldn’t there be room for both?

    Now this is all straight from my experience, memory and understanding of business and economics. I have not simply repeated other’s talking points and I could quote many great economists, but I think I would be remiss if I didn’t point to a certain school of economics, namely Austrian Economics which over time has demonstrated and predicted quite accurately the conditions we continue to experience. Unfortunately the Keynesians have been too influential… People are all too happy to blame other’s for their circumstances and believe it is the “man” who is holding them back; that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor; that all workers are offering fair exchange while corporations are all prospering at the workers expense, and that make work and simply printing money is sustainable.

    The only entities that universally prosper (and do not offer fair exchange) at the expense of the workers are the government and the unions.

    I do not wish to argue with you. You seem quite immovable in your union support despite the contrary facts and perspectives offered to you. I will be happy to provide book titles and authors who can elaborate and make the case better than I, if you so desire.

    Thanks for shaking things up. :)

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you, Rozar. I intend to get involved in other threads. I've already found out who degenerates into name calling and dittohead type cracks. Thus it will be easier for me to deal with them later on when I move out of here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello khalling,
    Hey, I heard that!
    I can get away with it because I address him as Mr. Desapio. :)
    Regards,
    O.A. Just in case you didn't know... :)

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the playing field is not equal if govt intervention favors one group. The govt has done this many times. Recently, the govt tried to intervene again with a bill regarding card check. There is a long violent history of union intimidation, violence and crime.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rob, I’m not signing up for Obama Care this fall. You can go live the life of Julia if you want. I want to see what I can accomplish on my own. It is my life after all. I like the feel of my own bootstraps. Nobody, including you, is going to change the way I live my life. I get my happiness from being self-reliant and facing challenges. Living in your world wouldn’t be worth living. Sorry about your sad bus ride. .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sdesapio 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah. So what you're essentially saying is that... you haven't actually read the book yet. Right? Don't fret it. It's not a big deal Rob. This clearly explains why so many were taken aback by some of your assertions and responses on this post.

    When you responded to RockyMountainPirate's question of "Have you read the book?" with "Yes, several times." we thought you meant you actually read it from cover to cover - not that you read ABOUT it.

    You should give the book a shot. Nothing speaks for the book better than the book. You may be surprised to learn that it's not what you think.

    In the meantime, welcome to the Gulch. We're glad to have you and look forward to watching you evolve.

    P.S. You don't have to end each of your posts with "Rob." We know it's you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Can we compromise on the fact that unions are at least allowable as long as there is no government intervention in the negotiations? If a business doesn't want to partner with a union it shouldn't have to, can we agree to that?
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Boborobdos replied 11 years, 8 months ago
    • Boborobdos replied 11 years, 8 months ago
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I hope the website doesn't discourage you, I've noticed a lot of your posts were down voted. It's happened to me before. Either way you should stick around even if no one agrees with you, I'm more interested in dissenting opinions rather than reinforcement of what I already think. I'm looking forward to finding your viewpoint on a number of issues but I'll wait till they surface, i think you have introduced yourself enough so far lol.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do think that business's that want to succeed will attempt to make their products compatible with others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not a contradiction, you can support the freedoms of people to do as they please and still disagree with them or even disagree that it just isn't right for you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was quoting you almost verbatim.

    You are a walking, talking, contradiction: on one hand you promote unions, and then you denounce them.

    You claim that they are the last hope for the workers, and then tell us that you joined one in protest, and "never needed or wanted a union to bargain for me".

    Talk to the hand. I have better things to do with my bandwidth....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As individuals they don't count to a corporation. The corporation will continue to unfairly take advantage of those individuals until they can decide to negotiate from some basis of strength, much as those who form a corporation of many to raise the money for a corporation do.

    Why do you object to management grouping their huge resources and object to individuals gaining strength from each other? Seems like a double standard to me.

    Rob
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo