current conspiracy theories

[jm951]

Well, according to some memos that recently surfaced, Rather avoided serving community service time for jaywalking and parking in a handicapped space in 1949. The memos look authentic and seemed to have been typed on a Linotronics typesetter, a machine in common use by meter maids in the late 1940s, as verified by a local expert, Samuel Adams, noted comic book collector. Should Kerry not be elected and Rather marry Theresa, he would be poised to purchase the object of his ridicule, CNN. It is also rumored that as part of that deal, he would take Ted Turner's yacht over and enter the America's Cup and toss the race to a North Vietnamese entry from the Mekong Yacht Club, enabling him to further extend his personal news empire into the fertile regions of the Mekong Delta. A little known fact is the soil of the area is very conducive to tomato growth. That factor coupled with low wages for workers in the tomato fields means that Rather and Heinz would be able to corner the world markets on both ketchup and interanational yacht racing, while maintaining plausible deniability.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by slakjaw
I actually used to like you

For the record, I'm straight-hands off.

[Superman]

Kach, I think it's me that Westy and Slacker deny liking. Guys, tell me the truth. I can take it. It's the bags under my eyes, isn't it?

Lendaddy I loathe you and others of your ilk, but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that you're a standup guy. Misguided, misinformed, but tenacious and consistent and respectful. I'd love to buy you a beer, but we should talk about cars, probably. I'm not going to make the sweeping generalizations about private sector efficiency versus gubmint efficiency that you seem to make, or between union and non-union. ("All generalizations are false" is one of my favorite impossible assertions) And we'll just go forward in disagreement about whether there are motivators other than fear and money. You think Machiavelli was right. I and all of psychology, and all management texts, disagree with you. Indeed, money actually stops being a powerful motivator once pay reaches the subsistence level, and that's a thoroughly verified and accepted principle in compensation analysis and occupations concerned with making companies competitive in the jobs/skills market. I can report at least one intimately understood data point. When I moved from the private sector into the public sector, I thought I had died and gone to Heaven. Previously, I was doing no more than making money for myself, and a business owner. In the public sector, I was helping working men and women, and their families. It's a powerful jones, and one I am now suspecting I may never shake.

And as for union v. non-union, you'd probably be wise to look at the productivity statistics before you draw inferences. In many cases, union labor kids asses and takes names. Whether you think they're moving frantically enough or not. But I do understand your assertions and I'm sure cases can be found to support your existing beliefs. And the logic of your presentation plays real well to the masses, as long as their personal knowledge is thin, and their inclination for blaming is high. But then when you have succeeded in getting folks' fists shaking in the air, what have you done to further peace and unity among Americans? Perhaps you and Rush are democrats? On this forum I hear that the ones trying to divide our people are called "democrats." If so, I see a number of those angry democrats here. I'll leave their names out of this post because Island tells me they're ready to lynch me already.

[Westy]

I have a rope

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by Superman
In many cases, union labor kids asses and takes names.

I'll offer a counter-example. Toyota US mfg: non-union. Honda US mfg: union.

Who's more profitable?

[lendaddy]

Beer sounds good, I'll be at my watering hole soon

As far as your productivity reports, bring em on. I' will guarantee that they base their numbers on what the companies "accomplish" per employee. This is a bogus number as any company that can afford a union can also afford the latest and greatest equipment. Really it's not that complicated. Try to finish these two sentences and you'll see my point.

I (union employee) Bob go into work everyday and do my very best because........................

or I (non union employee) Bob go into work everyday and do my very best because........................

Now which one was easier to complete? Why? MOTIVATION! You could say union Bob works hard out of pride or something, but you'de be reaching. Non union Bob has a multitude of reasons to perform (some posative and some negative) as well as every sentimental reason you could possibly attribute to union Bob.

Like I said, a government employee is Union Bob with a broken arm. There are exceptions of course but we are dealing in average here. Accept it before it destoys you

[Superman]

'course, H and T are pursuing different business strategies, but I'll bite. Who's more profitable?

As I've said, I deal with construction contractors on big projects. There is a local non-union company with a very good reputation, and candidly, I love the idea of a large company with a good reputation whose workers deny a need for union representation. Being a "people" guy (In spite of Lendaddy's denial), I smile inside at the notion of a company that takes care of its people well enough that it stops being "us versus them" and instead becomes an efficient "us." But having said that, we have non-union companies coming to our projects all the time, with predictable results. We know before they start that they're going to need all the help they can get. By contrast, union companies are pretty fast and good, some being fast as lighning and good as gold. So, if someone wants to try and prove Lendaddy's point, bring your non-union competitor here and we'll compare.

But anyway, the topic of this thread is conspiracy, and Island brought gubmint-bashing into it, predictably. Predictably, I defended public servants. Not because they are all perfect, but because it continues to be my strong opinion, developed with firsthand experience, that the administrative arm of government is hardly the problem. But I'll quickly admit that the high-paid guys, the political appointees and the elected officials, are just as subject to greed and temptation and unscrupulous behavior as their private-sector business counterparts. And again I will repeat that if anyone thinks men get together and decide the fate of billions of dollars with fairness and generosity and honesty and good stewardship foremost on their agenda, well then I've got a great deal on some Florida property to discuss with them.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Superman
money actually stops being a powerful motivator once pay reaches the subsistence level

Only to the completely unmotivated. Everyone else wants more money so they can buy Porsches. Seriously, you can't compare Maslow's five basic needs to the drive to buy a Porsche. It just doesn't compute.

The people who stop striving for more money are not idealistic do-gooders. They're lazy.

[Westy]

I still have the rope.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

[Superman]

No, I haven't. But I have seen The Magic Christian. I'd argue that they both illustrate the lengths to which people will go for substantial amounts of cash.

I also find that there is a great variety amoung people in terms of what motivates them. With some people, working conditions, supervisor integrity, office view, all these things are complete non-issues. For them the three main motivators are (in order of importance) money, money and money. But overall, what compensation analysts and other similar professionals know is that money is the #1 motivator when pay level is below subsistence. Waitresses will eat **** for tips at times, as we've all witnessed. But above subsistence-level pay, money usually ranks about third. I found the best of both worlds. As a public servant, I was bored with the job (12 years) and wanted some kind of change but still wanted to help working people. I'm privately employed now, albeit still in the public works construction contracting industry. I make more money now, and get WAY more respect from Joe Public who listens to conservative talk show radio. Job security is not there, but I'm much happier and more secure. Go figure. You have to really want to make sacrifices in order to be a public servant, particularly long term. They are paid substantially less than their private-sector counterparts, and then there is the reputation and respect problem that results from people going around making negative remarks about them that they heard from each other and from others who subscribe to a particular political persuasion.

See? It's the same old Superman, but kinder and gentler. For now.

[island911]

SeeBS & Dan Ra^ther distracts the nation with rambles of GW missed some service days for a gig . .. that someone got him.

Meanwhile, they prevent Kerry from receiving a Fourth Purple Heart, by stopping, and hidding, Kerrys hemorrhaging campaign.

[tabs]

Do I have to listen to this... Geezus I liked it better when I was in a stupor....

[Superman]

Colin, you're free to disagree with the body of wisdom accumulated by the professionals who deal in the area of workplace motivation. Or maybe you're not disagreeing. Maybe you're accepting the conclusion that, above the subsistence level, money takes a back seat to other considerations, like having a sense of accomplishment, being appreciated by supervisors, degree of respect for management, etc. But perhaps you're suggesting that people who place these values above money are twisted in the head. People should place money before self-esteem?

Or maybe we're just grasping at straws in our efforts to place blame and criticize other groups of people. You must be a democrat to be this pessimistic.

[djmcmath]

I love the economics discussion, and while I won't weigh in with the data from my Navy experience, I whole-heartedly agree with Supe on this one (Mark this date, folks!).

But far more importantly, and on topic -- Dick Cheney insists on link between Al Qaeda and Kevin Bacon. Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA which was created by Harry Truman who dropped the bomb which was conceived by the Manhattan Project which was a movie starring John Lithgow who was in Footloose with Kevin Bacon.

Um ... and Slim Fast Veterans For Truth attack Whoopi Goldberg's dietary record. "She never really drank any of that stuff," says the group's spokesperson. "She is unfit to lead fat people."

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Superman
Colin, you're free to disagree with the body of wisdom accumulated by the professionals who deal in the area of workplace motivation. Or maybe you're not disagreeing. Maybe you're accepting the conclusion that, above the subsistence level, money takes a back seat to other considerations, like having a sense of accomplishment, being appreciated by supervisors, degree of respect for management, etc. But perhaps you're suggesting that people who place these values above money are twisted in the head. People should place money before self-esteem?

Or maybe we're just grasping at straws in our efforts to place blame and criticize other groups of people. You must be a democrat to be this pessimistic.

I never said that other considerations can't/shouldn't come before money, and no one would be considered twisted for putting them first as a personal choice. That's not the issue you raised.

You made a macroeconomic pronouncement: that once past subsistence level, "money takes a back seat to other considerations." And you're wrong to take that generality and paint it over everyone.

Let me ask you this - you are a big union supporter, even though you appear to be highly educated and must know full well that unions create vast market distortions, promoting deadweight loss and decreasing productivity. There can be no disagreement with these economic facts. If you do disagree with this, break out the old Econ 101 book.

So why, if all people want is "subsistence level wages" before they run off into the daisy fields and happily frolic in the sunshine, do you defend the fact that unions' basic purpose is to pay laborers more than they would be worth if they had to compete based on their skills?

This union pay is over and above subsistence level, yet you seem to have huge respect and support for union and their efforts to make otherwise subsistence-level workers rich, and damn the consequences. Why? You say they don't want or need this extra money. Please explain - and use economics, not pro-labor union rhetoric.

[turbo6bar]

I think what supe is getting at is everyone should get the same pay. That pay is just enough to make a living (ya know, 3 bedroom/2 bath with 2 kids, ford taurus and toyota sienna minivan). This would remove any incentive to work hard (work is four letter word), union dues would be sent directly to the government, and you could concentrate on being a good citizen, paying taxes, and all, ya know... :P

[Burnin' oil]

I agree with Supe. Once I reach subsistence level, other motivators come into play. However, my "subsistence level" is quite high . . .

[rcecale]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
I think what supe is getting at is everyone should get the same pay. That pay is just enough to make a living (ya know, 3 bedroom/2 bath with 2 kids, ford taurus and toyota sienna minivan). This would remove any incentive to work hard (work is four letter word), union dues would be sent directly to the government, and you could concentrate on being a good citizen, paying taxes, and all, ya know... :P

Wasn't that experiment tried already? Who was it that ended up tearing down all those walls and *****? Been so long, I almost forgot!

Randy

[Superman]

Either we're having a productive discussion where the parties have still not fully grasped the others' positions, or we're making distorted characterizations of others' positions to avoid one. Let me try mightily to be brief (not usually my forte'):

No, I do not believe everyone should get the same pay. Unfortunately, pay-for-performance systems are difficult to administer in a way that works for workers, and FAR more difficult to administer in a way that works for the company.

Colin, I agree that priorities are different for each person. There are people, even people who post here, that cannot imagine a consideration other than money. Period. What I am saying is that's the exception, not the rule.

I've checked my macroeconomics texts, and I make the observation that the only way workers can bargain on an equal footing with the employer is when they bargain collectively. Individually they do not have the clout. Business prefers it that way. Workers prefer to bargain on an equal footing.

I did not say workers do not want or need more money. Nor do I support paying workers more than they are worth.

Let me ask you this. When profits are up and the stock market is going berzerk, how would you argue that workers wages in the aggregate (macroeconomics again) are inflated. Workers are doing the work, but not sharing in the spoils. Please, in your explanation, tell us outright whether you assume that workers are inputs (means, tools) only and only owners are entitled to share in those spoils, or whether, alternatively, you believe workers are ends and not just means. As a side not, but related, I was very favorably impressed by the writings of Immanuel Kant, and 18th century German philosopher in the area of Ethics. His rule was more simple than most. Treating persons as means only is bad. Ethical behavior requires that persons be treated as ends in themselves.

So, you can save yourself some typing if you believe workers should shut up and do what they're told, and that their only relevant value is not as a person, but as a labor input for management to use in making profits. That would conclude our discussion. But if you agree that workers' personal interests are relevant, then we're back.