Ironically, I will be studying Latin beginning Aug 26. I am 51 years old and have decided to go back to college, and Karma willing, become a doctor. My choice for one of my two required Humanities classes is Latin. The other is Anthropology.

Greetings TWOBerry,
His original arguments are spread out over this thread. This thread is Boborobdos' introduction thread. He covered a lot of territory before he was encouraged to expand beyond with a new thread.
Happy hunting,
O.A.

Hello Rob,
As long as the courts can award damages and the science, facts, and law are on the side of the plaintiff, there is recourse. I cannot dispute that once there was certain need for unions. There was a time when people were knowingly asked to work in conditions detrimental to their health, without proper safety measures. However, in our litigious society today things have swung the opposite direction just as often and employers are paying just to make lawsuits go away or workman's comp claims that are fraudulent.
It is not in the self interest of any employer to bear the cost of injured workers.
O.A.

Not to mention that you are forfeiting your right to monetarily back the politics of your choice, with your dues.

Unions, and the Democrat Party, are one and the same...so Rozar's hopes that "government isn't backing the unions" have been dashed decades ago.

Greetings epc,
Thank you for the kind words.
Mostly I just goof off around here with the wonderful regulars. Sometimes I am inspired and must compose something.
If I brought you a cheerful thought, the pleasure is mutual.
Carpe diem,
O.A.

You get a point for reminding me just where I last heard the "nobody does it alone" mantra!

It took Obama 2 weeks to leave that bumper sticker quote behind him...PLEASE don't tell me that we are looking forward to another 1 1/2 weeks of shaking this replay off.... ;-)

no, that is union think. I like it you are paying attention to points....
you have to sign up for the Newsletter. you can do it right here.
here's a snippet:
"Hot in Galt's Gulch Online
Apparently, Ayn Rand was wrong... about EVERYTHING
Gulch members had some fun recently when new Gulch member "Boborobdos" introduced himself to the community as an admirer of the book... then proceeded to explain why Ayn Rand had it all wrong.
Suffice it to say, things got a little hot. Read more..."

Really?

OSHA made them put in seat belts...so they wouldn't fall out of their chairs as they slept.

Next will be inflatable bags, since Pelosi hit her head on the desk.

You were joking? Right???

The problem is that in order to form a union, you are essentially agreeing to pay someone else to negotiate your own values. You are quite literally selling yourself into slavery to that other individuals values and belief system because they will negotiate based on their OWN perception of value - which may not match yours.

PLEASE don't confuse Rob...anymore than he already is! ;-)

"Nobody does it alone anymore. Society makes it possible."

You are parroting Obama way too much and buying into the same nonsense. Those roads were built by a company employed by society's agent - the government. The company made a profit (value to them) and society got the roads to use to facilitate travel and trade (value to them). Both profit - literally. A standard market transaction which liberal know-nothings try to pervert to justify more government spending.

This is the fundamental flaw in these liberal claims - that somehow roads, bridges, and other public works were created by charity. They weren't. Churches and museums are built by charity. At some point everything else comes down to profit. All you have to do is look for it. And these public works in no way take away from the efforts of those who use them! That is the second half of this pernicious liberal lie - that somehow a business' success is dependent on these things provided by "government". That is a wholly offensive statement to any entrepreneur as it undermines all the blood, sweat, and tears they invested to make their business. Businesses succeed DESPITE the government - not because of it!

Rob, this is AGAIN a classic reason why the market works! It is just that in this case, the market players are corporations and governments. Corporations are seeking their best interest - keeping their revenues - and government is seeking theirs - taxes. In a free market, corporations are going to base themselves in low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland for their own value. The government is then forced to compete for that tax revenue with other governments. You apparently missed the latest report that showed that the United States has the highest corporate taxes in the world. If we really wanted to encourage business, we would LOWER our tax rates - not raise them - to compete for more business!

One more point is that many have the mindset that for some reason we _owe_ the government and that paying taxes is an expression of gratitude or civic duty - as if that money was the government's in the first place! This is wholly false. The government didn't earn that money. It demands it as a cost of society, but not because it is providing value commensurate with its cost. There is no better example of this than our massive $16 Trillion debt.

You should get a 'kick' out of this article:
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/SB-S...

That's exactly where we have gone wrong. We don't have pure capitalism anymore, we have crony capitalism. Government intervention in the form of contacts, tax breaks and regulations have created a system where the government picks the winners and losers, and the winners are usually the ones with the "relationships" to Washington.

Well said.

"Seems to me that you are saying corporations are entitled to maximize profits, but workers have to go along with what the employer wants"


Yes and yes.

Without union thugs and government coercion the people would go to the highest bidder and the abusive corporation would shut down. and the corporations would have no choice but to meet the demands of the workers.

As it is now , the companies are forced to accept unskilled workers and pay heavily for laziness. Everyone loses.

Without coercion from the government. Everyone wins.

The employee-employer relationship is symbiotic. They both need each other. If a person can't stand up on their own two feet and personally discuss issues they have with their employer, wage, conditions, etc., then what's the point? Joining a union now a days limits your possibilities infinitely. Instead of being able to individually express your displeasure about said wage, conditions, etc., you will rely on a third party that you are essentially paying to represent you. And on the inverse, if you want to excel in your career but are unionized then you are instantly limited because everything is done through a community union contract negotiation. You could be the smartest cookie out there and it won't matter because you are bound by the union. Unionization has essentially become a new career and a boon for the union boss' while it essentially wraps chains around the union members.

No one is restricting anything from an employee standpoint. If an employee wants to discuss something with their employer they can try. If they do not get satisfactory results, well then they always have the option of leaving.

However, in some union situations a contract is required, and bullying tactics such as open vote and auto union joining are only enslaving another generation of union workers.

On the contrary, in a free market parties only do business where both benefit from the transaction. Corruption happens when one party benefits at the expense of another and usually is the result of government interference - not the market or its players. In a pure market, neither the buyer nor the seller can take advantage of the other because either can do business with a competitor who is willing to offer a better value proposition. Greed gets eliminated pretty quickly when your demand for higher prices = fewer sales ;)

One also has to take into account customer loyalty. Every marketing textbook will tell you it is 10x more costly to get a new customer than to retain an existing one, meaning that repeat business is more profitable business. Ripping off your customers is really bad for repeat business and more expensive in the long run. A pure market actually encourages honesty and good business because of the freedom of choice of all participants. It is when you seek to limit this freedom via unions or government that corruption creeps in. That is not to say that all businessmen are honorable, only that in a free market, dishonorable businessmen don't last long.

WELCOME blarman

I TOLD him to take it to individual posts! ah, the joys of Newsletter day.

many of those doctors maintain a private practice so they can spend time at those endeavors. Our business has a client who worked for doctors without Borders for years. He also developed a ground breaking technology revolutionizing heart procedures. Alas, saves billions of dollars in heart surgeries, perhaps will save millions of lives A YEAR. sigh. languishing in FDA. Languished at the USPTO. ugh. We wrote a novel that includes thistechnology. It's coming out 1st of the month. I hope you check it out!

What is stopping anyone? I don't see any real barriers to getting higher education or formal training if one has the attitude. There are a plethora of scholarships and grants for all ages and backgrounds.

No, the real barrier is the low-skill worker thinking the value of their labor is higher than it actually is and being upset with this reality. So instead of getting better skills, they complain to elected representatives who try to boost the minimum wage, which only ends up putting these very same low-skill workers out of a job in the first place!

Want to have the power to negotiate your own salary? All that is required is self-discipline and hard work.

You seem to place an awful lot of emphasis on compromise. Do you not realize that compromise is the enemy of principles? If I tell you that 2+2=4 but you insist that 2+2=6, why should I compromise with you and agree that 2+2=5? Then we are BOTH wrong.

Do you really believe that taxpayers are adequately represented at the bargaining table in negotiations with public unions? Let's try an experiment: next time you want to buy a car, send someone on your behalf to do your negotiating and see if you walk away feeling like you got the best deal possible. When negotiating with someone else's money and there is no financial harm for doing a bad job, there is quite literally zero incentive to pursue the best deal. The point has been thoroughly demonstrated - public sector unions negotiating against politicians over taxpayer money serves to benefit everyone BUT the taxpayer.

No. I was referencing the everyday doctor and the average person who visits their doctor. My own doctor for example isn't even a full MD, but I am satisfied because from my experience he is always working to stay up to date with medicine and he does a very good job. If he didn't I would "shop" around. Inside or outside of an insurance network is a choice I am free to make.

When I was in the military I met all kinds. Some were taking the military approach to become doctors with the intention of getting out and practicing medicine privately. Some stayed in and enjoyed the benefits that the military provided them. However in the military you have, to a certain extent, given up your choice in cases of doctors. I couldn't pick who to see or the methods being used.

I have no experience with other organizations so I will not speak to them.

He can't see the forest for the trees. You should save your brain cells.

I see that this topic thread made the Atlas Shrugged Movie announcements emails.