Oregon Trail Teacher strike
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
(yes, I'm one of those teachers on strike, those who know me may or
may not have seen me on TV as I try to avoid the camera but since my
buddies tend to be outspoken and we tend to hang out longer because we
drive the farthest, so we end up on the tube....).
It's been a profoundly frustrating experience, especially since many
of us (including the administration) seem to have gone into it
thinking that it would last, at most, a day, if it happened at all.
We're now on Day 13. This shouldn't have happened this way.
My number one frustration is the leisurely negotiation schedule. From
what I've been told, our teacher folks have been willing to meet at
any time for as long as necessary. SO WHY AREN'T MEETINGS HAPPENING
ON A DAILY BASIS AND RUNNING UNTIL PEOPLE GET EXHAUSTED!!!!!!
I mean--this is Negotiation Lite. No one seems to start before noon,
the district or mediators call it off early in the day, or so it
seems--sheesh! I thought there was a sense of urgency about this
whole thing, but meeting to negotiate two or three days a week for
limited hours during a strike is absolutely, positively ridiculous.
It gives credence to the rumors that the Board has chosen to starve us
out, or that they were holding out until our strike was declared
illegal--which it wasn't. But if it doesn't settle today--then that
puts paid to the notion that they were hoping to force us back, and
confirms that it's become nothing more than a personality conflict or,
worst case scenario, a money generator for the lawyers. Who benefits
the most from dragging this out?
When we had a chance to talk to our chief teacher negotiator, we also
brought up another frustration--why not negotiate face to face? For
those of you who don't know, the district team is located in one place
and the teacher team is located elsewhere. Apparently our team has
offered to meet face to face in any combination of players (with the
mediator present) and the district has declined. Period.
All of this seems to violate the chief rules of negotiations as I've
heard of it being done in business.
While I was on the picket line one day, I had a rather informative
chat with a retired teacher from another district (now I wish I'd
gotten the data as to when and where). She said that all labor
contract negotiations were held in a public forum. The only ones
allowed to speak were the negotiating teams, but as many people from
the public--parents, teachers, taxpayers as could fit into the room
were there to observe the proceedings.
I'm all for it. Transparency in government proceedings rules. As an
employee AND as a taxpayer in the Oregon Trail School District, I'm
ticked off majorly at the waste of money this process has been. I
want to see for myself who's wasting our time with a failure to
communicate. I want to see who's been stalling while we've been out
in the rain and cold.
BTW, for those of you wondering about the evaluation issues--the issue
is not teacher input into evaluation, it's the process. If the
evaluation process language is removed from the contract, there is NO
written procedure set up for evaluation. It would be as if the HR
department in a large corporation simply eliminated that part of the
employee handbook and proceeded on criteria known only to the person
doing the evaluation. Having spent a good deal of my working life in
corporations with employee handbooks, I'm not a fan of trusting those
above me without written criteria and written procedural methods.
I went into this strike reluctantly. I did not think it would be the
easy piece of cake many thought it would be. However, the longer I've
been on the picket line, and the more times I've huddled over propane
heaters outside of the district office hoping for a settlement so I
could go back to work, only to hear that the Board refused to consider
anything other than its own proposal, with one or two words deleted,
and that the contract I was hired under isn't good enough, the more
supportive I've become of the strike.
Striking ain't easy. It's more exhausting than teaching, especially
in blustery weather even with ski clothes. It's hard on parents,
students, teachers and those whose income derives from school being in
session. The only ones who don't seem to have suffered any from this
process have been the Board and the Superintendent, who are meeting in
the comfort of their own offices, going about their daily duties on
their usual schedule, and once in a while fitting in a negotiation
with those pesky teachers.
On the other hand, it's been one hell of a good team building process
for us pesky teachers. I've gotten to know more teachers around the
district and been able to network with other specialists and talk shop
(yes, we *are* doing lesson plans on the picket line, whaddya expect,
we're teachers, we bring our work home and put in extra hours ALL the
time! Work to the rule? Yeah....riiiiight. I don't know anyone who
did that.). One positive suggestion I've heard has been to cancel all
inservice days for the rest of the school year. Be still my beating
heart....I'd grab that one in a moment. Most inservices are--well,
I'd much rather select my own training in consultation with colleagues
and supervisors on an individual basis rather than the bland
cram-in-an-entire-college-term-into-a-six-hour-training the inservices
tend to be.
Anyway, while I'd like to see a settlement today, I've been on that
roller coaster ride one time too many (hoping that this negotiation
day would be the end of it and I could GO BACK TO WORK, DAMNIT!).
I want to see more outside involvement from the Department of
Education and the Gov's office, and neighboring jurisdictions should
be hollering as well.
Anyone who wants to get snitty and tell me to cross the picket line is
gonna get what I give to anyone who flips me off on the picket line or
who yells at me to go back to work, BTW---a great big juicy kissoff,
blown multiple times. So far, the folks who have done that have been
prize specimens like the woman who screamed obscenities at us with her
kids in the back seat also screaming obscenities at us (and led to a
big consultation as to "who IS that person and does anyone recognize
those kids?" No one could recognize parent or kids, which makes us
think they're either out of district or home schoolers--funny, ain't
it?).
As it is, I for one owe many big "thank yous" to the parents and
community members who have brought us contributions of food and hot
drinks on the picket lines. Community support (despite media reports)
has been quite strong on an individual basis. Interestingly, some of
the families of the most vocal teacher opponents have come by those of
us on the line and apologized profusely.
Anyone who comments must keep in mind that I probably won't see your
comments until tomorrow, when hopefully this whole damn mess will be
over with. I may check in before I do my latest vigil on this
leisurely negotiation schedule. Sheesh!
jrw
gatt
"Joyce Reynolds-Ward" <j...@aracnet.com> wrote in message \
>It would be as if the HR department in a large corporation simply
>eliminated that part of the
> employee handbook and proceeded on criteria known only to the person
> doing the evaluation.
Evaluation? If it's worth anything, my boss works for a different company
in New York. I've seen him once, which was during the interview, and he
literally communicates to me through IRC if he wants to talk to me.
One time, my performance review task was to write my performance review and,
having completed that, the manager had me write a series of snippets such as
"is very punctual", "makes a great effort to learn new material", "is a
diligent worker who", so he could quickly assemble review documentation.
Been following the issue, though. I think the public's patience will run out
for the administration before it does for the teachers. Good move pointing
out that the board and superintendant are still going to work and making
money every morning while the issue lingers and negotiations don't happen.
Good luck, Joyce!
-c
lein
So who in the negotiations is representing the students? I think there
are better ways than screwing over seniors by lengthing their school
year. Certainly there's got to be a better approach than a mid-year
strike.
Gene
<LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
>Been following the issue, though. I think the public's patience will run out
>for the administration before it does for the teachers. Good move pointing
>out that the board and superintendant are still going to work and making
>money every morning while the issue lingers and negotiations don't happen.
Well Gatt, of course they're making money. THEY'RE not on strike!
I view this not as anything important, as I don't pay taxes in
Oregon, nor worry about either what the teachers, admin and students
want. It's just like any other business which is unionized...Sooner or
later, one side will give in and take what they can get.
gatt
"Gene" <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote in message Good move pointing
>>out that the board and superintendant are still going to work and making
>>money every morning while the issue lingers and negotiations don't happen.
>
>
> Well Gatt, of course they're making money. THEY'RE not on strike!
What Joyce is saying is, they're not in any particular hurry to resolve the
strike, either. Education is an excellent political hostage.
Made national news today.
-c
Lobby Dosser
> It's been a profoundly frustrating experience, especially since many
> of us (including the administration) seem to have gone into it
> thinking that it would last, at most, a day, if it happened at all.
> We're now on Day 13. This shouldn't have happened this way.
>
Curious coincidence that the strike has been going on for the same number
of days as the riots in France. :o)
Gene
Maybe they know that there's no need as they cannot give what the
teachers want and so, playing the waiting game is advisable.
cor
act in an unpredictable fashion.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
Oh, they *can.*
Our district's financial reserve is something in the area of 4 million
dollars. They can't pay salaries, get us decent textbooks, or the
like--but boy, they sure can pay administrators.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>So who in the negotiations is representing the students? I think there
>are better ways than screwing over seniors by lengthing their school
>year. Certainly there's got to be a better approach than a mid-year
>strike.
Excellent point. The Board has made it clear they're more interested
in breaking the union than educating students. The Oregon Trail
school board, unlike Portland, does not have a student seat.
Maybe it should.
That said, many students are on the picket line, and a popular sign
among them is "I am NOT a Pawn." Students have been active and
visible early on in the process.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
As it should.
I pay property taxes in both Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. As an
Oregon Trail taxpayer as well as an employee, I'm ticked.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
snip
>
>Been following the issue, though. I think the public's patience will run out
>for the administration before it does for the teachers. Good move pointing
>out that the board and superintendant are still going to work and making
>money every morning while the issue lingers and negotiations don't happen.
>
>Good luck, Joyce!
Thanks, Chris.
After the Board rejected the Governor's proposal last night--which
took its pound of flesh from both groups--I'm hoping the community
sees them for what they really are.
When the Board rejected the proposal and counterproposed--one of their
biggest sticking points, apparently, is that they don't want to make
up days missed by adding days to the calendar because that would "end
up paying teachers for days on strike"--I think they made their
priorities clear.
They don't care about educating kids. They care about winning.
They wouldn't even talk to angry parents who went down to talk to them
after they announced their rejection of the Governor's proposal.
Our principals were out there apologizing to us.
Last night I saw teachers who entered this strike reluctantly, who had
to be drug to union meetings to be briefed about what was going on,
who didn't want to go on strike turn into union radicals.
I don't think Clementina Salinas, Wayne Kuchler, Jim Duff and Russ
Hasagawa have even the faintest clue about what they're creating out
there on the picket line. The principals know. Most of them are
doing their best to keep up positive relationships with us. However,
we're now wondering if, after this strike is settled, we're gonna have
to go to bat to protect our excellent principals in this district.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
My cynical joke is that the Superintendent and Assistant
Superintendent keep watching CNN and making the mistake that what they
see there is what is happening outside.
jrw
lein
Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2005 11:22:39 -0800, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >So who in the negotiations is representing the students? I think there
> >are better ways than screwing over seniors by lengthing their school
> >year. Certainly there's got to be a better approach than a mid-year
> >strike.
>
>
> Excellent point. The Board has made it clear they're more interested
> in breaking the union than educating students. The Oregon Trail
> school board, unlike Portland, does not have a student seat.
If the union position is untenable, then it should be broken.
>
> Maybe it should.
As long as the have the ability to sue both the school district and
union for damages.
>
> That said, many students are on the picket line, and a popular sign
> among them is "I am NOT a Pawn." Students have been active and
> visible early on in the process.
I understand your position for this but it goes both ways, both sides
are guilty of screwing the kids. Going on strike in the middle of the
school year is just as egregious. Both sides are using the students as
pawns.
Too bad people don't have school choice. If the school adminstration
and staff can't work together, then maybe the parents should be able to
opt their kids to another school. Perhaps one where third party wedges
who profit on promoting conflict (i.e. labor unions) are not needed.
lein
Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:39:52 GMT, "gatt"
> <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >
> >Been following the issue, though. I think the public's patience will run out
> >for the administration before it does for the teachers. Good move pointing
> >out that the board and superintendant are still going to work and making
> >money every morning while the issue lingers and negotiations don't happen.
> >
> >Good luck, Joyce!
>
> Thanks, Chris.
>
> After the Board rejected the Governor's proposal last night--which
> took its pound of flesh from both groups--I'm hoping the community
> sees them for what they really are.
How so? it sounded like it didn't take anything from the union? It
just gave them less.
As I said elsewhere, let the parents sent their kids to other schools
at Oregon Trails SD's expense.
Gene
4 million? That might take care of the textbooks, maybe some
equipment..but salary? Not likely.
I always felt the "Admin" was over paid, but how to get rid of the
top heavy group? Shouldn't that now become a priority?
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
>
>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:39:52 GMT, "gatt"
>> <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >
>> >Been following the issue, though. I think the public's patience will run out
>> >for the administration before it does for the teachers. Good move pointing
>> >out that the board and superintendant are still going to work and making
>> >money every morning while the issue lingers and negotiations don't happen.
>> >
>> >Good luck, Joyce!
>>
>> Thanks, Chris.
>>
>> After the Board rejected the Governor's proposal last night--which
>> took its pound of flesh from both groups--I'm hoping the community
>> sees them for what they really are.
>
>
>How so? it sounded like it didn't take anything from the union? It
>just gave them less.
Well, in my book that takes something from us. We had to make some
concessions in specific areas.
>As I said elsewhere, let the parents sent their kids to other schools
>at Oregon Trails SD's expense.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:26:44 -0800, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
><j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:44:53 -0800, Gene <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe they know that there's no need as they cannot give what the
>>>teachers want and so, playing the waiting game is advisable.
>>
>>
>>Oh, they *can.*
>>
>>Our district's financial reserve is something in the area of 4 million
>>dollars. They can't pay salaries, get us decent textbooks, or the
>>like--but boy, they sure can pay administrators.
>>
>>jrw
>
>
> 4 million? That might take care of the textbooks, maybe some
>equipment..but salary? Not likely.
4 mil could easily take care of 2-3% raises for 216 teachers.
Remember, this is the reserve account, not the general account which
is already budgeted.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
>
>Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2005 11:22:39 -0800, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >So who in the negotiations is representing the students? I think there
>> >are better ways than screwing over seniors by lengthing their school
>> >year. Certainly there's got to be a better approach than a mid-year
>> >strike.
>>
>>
>> Excellent point. The Board has made it clear they're more interested
>> in breaking the union than educating students. The Oregon Trail
>> school board, unlike Portland, does not have a student seat.
>
>If the union position is untenable, then it should be broken.
At the cost of educating students?
Nothing is happening here that hasn't been accepted by other boards.
The language we are fighting for is language which has existed in our
contracts for over 20 years.
The problem is a superintendent who's been nailed on ignoring contract
provisions in the past who now wants to run it at whim.
jrw
Bob Tiernan
> That said, many students are on the picket line,
> and a popular sign among them is "I am NOT a Pawn."
Student: "I am not a pawn".
Nixon: "I am not a crook".
Bob T
Lobby Dosser
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:00:47 -0800, Gene <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:26:44 -0800, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>><j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:44:53 -0800, Gene <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe they know that there's no need as they cannot give what the
>>>>teachers want and so, playing the waiting game is advisable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, they *can.*
>>>
>>>Our district's financial reserve is something in the area of 4
>>>million dollars. They can't pay salaries, get us decent textbooks,
>>>or the like--but boy, they sure can pay administrators.
>>>
>>>jrw
>>
>>
>> 4 million? That might take care of the textbooks, maybe some
>>equipment..but salary? Not likely.
>
> 4 mil could easily take care of 2-3% raises for 216 teachers.
For how long?
> Remember, this is the reserve account, not the general account which
> is already budgeted.
Then the budget would increase for next year.
Lobby Dosser
Bob, as non-sequiturs go this has to rank right up there with the best of
them.
Lobby Dosser
As long as they don't break out the tear gas or water canons ...
>
> jrw
>
Curt
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1131730726....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Too bad people don't have school choice. If the school adminstration
> and staff can't work together, then maybe the parents should be able to
> opt their kids to another school. Perhaps one where third party wedges
> who profit on promoting conflict (i.e. labor unions) are not needed.
>
"Third party wedges"?
They're the teachers. They're not a third party.
Curt
Gene
<j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:00:47 -0800, Gene <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:26:44 -0800, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>><j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:44:53 -0800, Gene <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe they know that there's no need as they cannot give what the
>>>>teachers want and so, playing the waiting game is advisable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, they *can.*
>>>
>>>Our district's financial reserve is something in the area of 4 million
>>>dollars. They can't pay salaries, get us decent textbooks, or the
>>>like--but boy, they sure can pay administrators.
>>>
>>>jrw
>>
>>
>> 4 million? That might take care of the textbooks, maybe some
>>equipment..but salary? Not likely.
>
>4 mil could easily take care of 2-3% raises for 216 teachers.
>Remember, this is the reserve account, not the general account which
>is already budgeted.
>
If it's in reserve, then may I ask what it's for? If you know that
is.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
At this time there's no particular purpose. There's been some
noodling around about the need to build another high school, but they
sold off the land they owned for that purpose.
Good management of school districts, or so I've been told, requires a
reserve--but usually a smaller one.
jrw
Gene
<j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
Well, that wouldn't build a decent one anyway. But very possibly, they
could use it for equipment and or textbooks...
Joe Cipale
But bob is ingornat as all get out... still.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
snip
>Well, that wouldn't build a decent one anyway. But very possibly, they
>could use it for equipment and or textbooks...
Rumor at least has it that the chief bean counter for the schools
pinches pennies until you can't recognize them....and it is a source
of frustration for various program administrators who are seeking
funding.
jrw
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
>> Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
>>> That said, many students are on the picket line,
>>> and a popular sign among them is "I am NOT a Pawn."
>> Student: "I am not a pawn".
>>
>> Nixon: "I am not a crook".
> But bob is ingornat as all get out... still.
Let's see, they're not in class (not possible right now),
but they're benefitting right now? Oh sure.
This is what happens when government essentially
takes over education and makes it extremely
difficult for most people to go around that
system, and impossible for many others to likewise
go around that system. The government and the
so-called education special interests have
indoctrinated many generations of Americans
with the idea that education can only be
associated with government-made buildings
and the State's hand perpetually in your pocket.
Bob T
Joe Cipale
And yet, booby.. you have not gained one iota from ANY education!
School Boards have been failing not only students but teachers for years.
But you and your myopic lot continue to wage battle agains those who
educate you and tour children. Or, should I say ATTEMPTED to educate
you.
Your ignorance is beyonf belief.. beyond perplexing. You would have
been one hell of a scab, booby!
lein
Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:00:47 -0800, Gene <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:26:44 -0800, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
> ><j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:44:53 -0800, Gene <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe they know that there's no need as they cannot give what the
> >>>teachers want and so, playing the waiting game is advisable.
> >>
> >>
> >>Oh, they *can.*
> >>
> >>Our district's financial reserve is something in the area of 4 million
> >>dollars. They can't pay salaries, get us decent textbooks, or the
> >>like--but boy, they sure can pay administrators.
> >>
> >>jrw
> >
> >
> > 4 million? That might take care of the textbooks, maybe some
> >equipment..but salary? Not likely.
>
> 4 mil could easily take care of 2-3% raises for 216 teachers.
> Remember, this is the reserve account, not the general account which
> is already budgeted.
Even better, give it back to the taxpayers.
Bob Tiernan
> School Boards have been failing not only students
> but teachers for years.
And on and on it goes.
> You would have been one hell of a scab, booby!
I seem to recall that the left opposes labeling
people as a way of dehumanizing them. Yet that
term "scab" is a favorite of theirs. "People
are not knee-capped -- scabs are."
Bob T
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1131933897....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Who would then have to spend twice that much for half the education.
lein
Right now they are spending 100% for zero education.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1131989881.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Baxter wrote:
> > >
> > Who would then have to spend twice that much for half the education.
>
>
> Right now they are spending 100% for zero education.
>
"Spending"? That's a bit of a misnomer - none of that money is going into
the teacher's pockets. Do consider that your bible says that 'the workman
is worthy of his hire'. Do you have the slightest idea of what that means,
and how it applies in this case?
lein
Stop thumping your bible, it's irrelavent.
The taxpayers are paying for a service that they are not receiving. I
Bill Shatzer
"lein" (boomer_...@my-deja.com) writes:
> Baxter wrote:
-snip-
>> > Right now they are spending 100% for zero education.
>> "Spending"? That's a bit of a misnomer - none of that money is going into
>> the teacher's pockets. Do consider that your bible says that 'the workman
>> is worthy of his hire'. Do you have the slightest idea of what that means,
>> and how it applies in this case?
> Stop thumping your bible, it's irrelavent.
> The taxpayers are paying for a service that they are not receiving.
And the teachers are not being paid - so they are costing the taxpayers
nothing.
The superintendent and the administration, OTOH, are continuing to
draw their salaries.
If the taxpayers have a bitch about paying for a service they're not
receiving, their bitch is with is with the administration and not the
teachers.
Peace and justice,
--
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
lein
At issue is the $4,000,000 surplus. Someone stated it could go to
raises, but since it's an overpayment, it should go back to the
taxpayers.
Have any problems with people who overpay receiving their money back?
When you go to a store and hand the clerk a $20 for a $15 dollar
product, should the store put the leftover $5 in their bank account in
stead of giving it back to you?
Gene
wrote:
No, not the same analogy. Store prices are calulated with profit in
mind. Thus that $15 purchase puts about $0.79 cents in the bank
account for later day rains.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1132038523.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> At issue is the $4,000,000 surplus. Someone stated it could go to
> raises, but since it's an overpayment, it should go back to the
> taxpayers.
>
> Have any problems with people who overpay receiving their money back?
Apparently you have problems paying people what they're worth.
lein
I'm worth $1,000,000 a year. Start paying me.
gatt
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> Apparently you have problems paying people what they're worth.
>
> I'm worth $1,000,000 a year. Start paying me.
For what?
-c
lein
What I'm worth. If you don't, I'm gonna start posting 24x7 until you
pay.
gatt
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> > I'm worth $1,000,000 a year. Start paying me.
>>
>> For what?
>
> What I'm worth. If you don't, I'm gonna start posting 24x7 until you
> pay.
Perhaps, but to follow this through we'd have to acknowledge that a teacher
has explicitly stated his or her skills. What are yours?
-c
lein
My skills are superior because I said so and I'll go on strike if you
implement any process to evaluate my skills.
Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1132102756....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jim McLaughlin
And you can' post t me, nor hreaten me with 24/7 postings.
<PLONK>
--
Jim McLaughlin
Reply address is deliberately munged.
If you really need to reply directly, try:
jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom
And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom
address.
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1132100113.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tim Roberts
>
>Baxter wrote:
>>
>> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > At issue is the $4,000,000 surplus. Someone stated it could go to
>> > raises, but since it's an overpayment, it should go back to the
>> > taxpayers.
>> >
>> > Have any problems with people who overpay receiving their money back?
>>
>> Apparently you have problems paying people what they're worth.
>
>I'm worth $1,000,000 a year. Start paying me.
No one is worth $1,000,000 a year. No one. Not a Congressman, not a
corporate CEO, not the President of the United States, and certainly not
the spoiled brats who toss little round balls to each other for half the
year and bitch about society's unreasonable expectations for them for the
rest of the year.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti...@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Gene
>"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > At issue is the $4,000,000 surplus. Someone stated it could go to
>>> > raises, but since it's an overpayment, it should go back to the
>>> > taxpayers.
>>> >
>>> > Have any problems with people who overpay receiving their money back?
>>>
>>> Apparently you have problems paying people what they're worth.
>>
>>I'm worth $1,000,000 a year. Start paying me.
>
>No one is worth $1,000,000 a year. No one. Not a Congressman, not a
>corporate CEO, not the President of the United States,
He gets about $250,000
Bob Tiernan
> No one is worth $1,000,000 a year. No one. Not a Congressman, not a
> corporate CEO, not the President of the United States, and certainly not
> the spoiled brats who toss little round balls to each other for half the
> year and bitch about society's unreasonable expectations for them for
> the rest of the year.
Interesting that such critics forget all about celebrities,
many of whom are worth hundreds of millions and who make
many millions each year. Instead, the owner of a chain of
restaurants with an annual salary of only six million is
singled out as a big bad rich so-and-so.
Bob T
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.05...@shell1.pacifier.net...
He didn't forget them, Bob T - your reading skills are impaired.
Don Homuth
>No one is worth $1,000,000 a year. No one....
If that's the going market rate, sure they are.
Baxter
demand.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kr0nn15etaraiibjv...@4ax.com...
--
"Gene" <Ge...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:m93mn1hq7s1a79h3u...@4ax.com...
Bush's pay as President is $400K - note that President Clinton received only
half that. Does anyone seriously contend that Bush is worth even 1 penny as
President much less 2x what President Clinton received?
Curt
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.05...@shell1.pacifier.net...
I'm not sure. I think the Walmart folks are "big bad so-and-sos". They
actively work to lower wages- even wages paid by other employers. They have
what, a quarter of the money in the country (yeah, Bob, that's an
exaggeration) and they still want to screw things up for working people. The
less working people make, the more Walmart makes. That's just corrosive.
Does your six million dollar restaurant owner try to get health benefits for
his (her?) employees?
On the other hand, who cares if Barry Bonds or Alice Cooper or the Spice
Girls make billions? They're just entertainers. Their income isn't increased
or decreased depending on how much their fans make (in fact, fans that make
more money can buy more tickets or records or whatever).
So, I'm not sure it's fair to compare obscenely wealthy business types with
obscenely wealthy entertainers.
Curt
lein
You can't, obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs and
opportunies to people, obscenely wealthy entertainers don't.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs and
>opportunies to people,
Depends on what they do with the money, and precisely which people get
the jobs and opportunities.
>... obscenely wealthy entertainers don't.
If they spend the money anywhere nearby -- which is generally the case
-- they do indeed do Precisely that.
lein
Don Homuth wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2005 16:16:45 -0800, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs and
> >opportunies to people,
>
> Depends on what they do with the money, and precisely which people get
> the jobs and opportunities.
How about the people qualified to do the job and willingly accept the
terms and conditions of employment?
>
> >... obscenely wealthy entertainers don't.
>
> If they spend the money anywhere nearby -- which is generally the case
> -- they do indeed do Precisely that.
They spend their money buying goods/services from businesses, many of
which are run by wealthy business types.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On 16 Nov 2005 16:16:45 -0800, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs and
>> >opportunies to people,
>>
>> Depends on what they do with the money, and precisely which people get
>> the jobs and opportunities.
>
>How about the people qualified to do the job and willingly accept the
>terms and conditions of employment?
* What jobs?
* Where?
>> >... obscenely wealthy entertainers don't.
>>
>> If they spend the money anywhere nearby -- which is generally the case
>> -- they do indeed do Precisely that.
>
>They spend their money buying goods/services from businesses, many of
>which are run by wealthy business types.
If you've ever been enrolled in any sort of BusAd program, you'll note
that without Customers, the appropriate term for such businesses is
Hobby.
Joe Cipale
> Joe Cipale wrote:
>
>> School Boards have been failing not only students
>> but teachers for years.
>
>
>
> And on and on it goes.
>
>
>> You would have been one hell of a scab, booby!
>
>
>
> I seem to recall that the left opposes labeling
> people as a way of dehumanizing them. Yet that
> term "scab" is a favorite of theirs. "People
> are not knee-capped -- scabs are."
>
> Bob T
>
And if YOU were to cross a picekt line I were manning, I wouldnt
hesitate, scabby booby.
Joe Cipale
And that surprises you?
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1132186605.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> You can't, obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs and
> opportunies to people,
Actually they don't. After the obscene Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,
re-investment went down to its lowest level in decades. When congress
passed tax cuts for offshore money on the theory it would be invested in
jobs and infrastructure, it was instead spend on bonuses and perks.
Bob Tiernan
> "Gene" wrote:
>> He gets about $250,000
> Bush's pay as President is $400K - note that President Clinton
> received only half that.
$250 K was the annual salary for the Prez for many, many
years. Clinton signed the bill that authorized the
increase to $400 K, to start with his successor.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
> "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
>> Tim Roberts wrote:
>>> No one is worth $1,000,000 a year. No one. Not a
>>> Congressman, not a corporate CEO, not the President
>>> of the United States, and certainly not the spoiled
>>> [athletes]
>> Interesting that such critics forget all about celebrities,
>> many of whom are worth hundreds of millions and who make
>> many millions each year. Instead, the owner of a chain of
>> restaurants with an annual salary of only six million is
>> singled out as a big bad rich so-and-so.
> I'm not sure. I think the Walmart folks are "big bad
> so-and-sos". They actively work to lower wages- even
> wages paid by other employers. They have what, a quarter
> of the money in the country (yeah, Bob, that's an
> exaggeration) and they still want to screw things up for
> working people. The less working people make, the more
> Walmart makes. That's just corrosive.
We're talking about amounts being singled out, even if the
person is, indeed, a so-and-so.
> Does your six million dollar restaurant owner try to get
> health benefits for his (her?) employees?
In my world, he's no more obligated to provide this
than he is to provide auto insurance to his workers.
In the meantime, that six million dollar man is
hardly racking up money like the celebs are. And he's
taking more risks.
> On the other hand, who cares if Barry Bonds or Alice Cooper
> or the Spice Girls make billions? They're just entertainers.
I also don't care what they make, 'cept to note that
the so-called haters of mega salaries ignore these
perhaps because most of the celebs share most of the
same political views.
> Their income isn't increased or decreased depending on
> how much their fans make (in fact, fans that make
> more money can buy more tickets or records or whatever).
What's the salaries of people in DVD, CD, tape and
record factories? Of people working in the transport
of these items? Of those working in concert
set-ups? Event security? Box offices? Publishers
of Michael Moore's books? Warehouse workers moving
this stuff around? And so on.
> So, I'm not sure it's fair to compare obscenely wealthy
> business types with obscenely wealthy entertainers.
It *is* fair. But the left prefers to use a business
owner with a $5 million salary as a whipping boy
instead of a favorite lefty entertainer who makes
$5 million every two weeks to ass to his or her
half billion dollar fortune.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
> You can't, obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs and
> opportunies to people, obscenely wealthy entertainers don't.
What's interesting is that the latter are premier
capitalists. Few of them defended that system
while most sounded collectivist agendas so that
they would be called "caring" people. Frank
Zappa's autobiography includes a good chapter
on the entertainer as capitalist producer. His
lefty admirers should read it.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
> lein wrote:
>> obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs
>> and opportunies to people, obscenely wealthy
>> entertainers don't.
> If they spend the money anywhere nearby -- which is
> generally the case -- they do indeed do Precisely that.
Yeah -- waiters and waitresses; bellhops; taxi
drivers; porters; etc. This is also what we
see when the New Urbanists get their bigger
and better convention centers.
Bob T
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
>> Joe Cipale wrote:
>>> You would have been one hell of a scab, booby!
>> I seem to recall that the left opposes labeling
>> people as a way of dehumanizing them. Yet that
>> term "scab" is a favorite of theirs. "People
>> are not knee-capped -- scabs are."
> And if YOU were to cross a picekt line I were manning, I
> wouldnt hesitate, scabby booby.
There ya go. "Look, here comes someone to teach
the kids -- knee-cap him!"
Bob T
Don Homuth
<zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> lein wrote:
>
>>> obscenely wealthy business types provide jobs
>>> and opportunies to people, obscenely wealthy
>>> entertainers don't.
>
>> If they spend the money anywhere nearby -- which is
>> generally the case -- they do indeed do Precisely that.
>
>Yeah -- waiters and waitresses; bellhops; taxi
>drivers; porters; etc.
Home builders, decorators, landscape firms, automobile manufacturers
and dealers, jewelry purveyors, yacht builders, clothing manufacturers
and designers, bankers, security firms.....
Need more?
Are any of those jobs somehow worse than the ones you outlined?
> This is also what we
>see when the New Urbanists get their bigger
>and better convention centers.
A leap of imagination leading to a sequitor so non that it boggles
even the most hypothetical of delusional thinking.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pac...@shell1.pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.05...@shell1.pacifier.net...
>
> It *is* fair. But the left prefers to use a business
> owner with a $5 million salary as a whipping boy
> instead of a favorite lefty entertainer who makes
> $5 million every two weeks to ass to his or her
> half billion dollar fortune.
>
Actually, entertainers have substantial staffs they have to pay. You, like
a lot of others, think Celebrity is free. It's not, it's just a much a
business as manufacturing cars.
Bill Shatzer
> $250 K was the annual salary for the Prez for many, many
> years. Clinton signed the bill that authorized the
> increase to $400 K, to start with his successor.
$200,000 from 1969-2000 actually. But, who's counting?
Peace and justice,
Tim Roberts
No. There's no doubt that some folks are GETTING that price, but no one is
worth that.
Don Homuth
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:35:46 GMT, Tim Roberts <ti...@probo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No one is worth $1,000,000 a year. No one....
>>
>>If that's the going market rate, sure they are.
>
>No. There's no doubt that some folks are GETTING that price, but no one is
>worth that.
Worth is determined by The Market.
greg byshenk
Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:14:38 GMT, Tim Roberts <ti...@probo.com> wrote:
> >Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:35:46 GMT, Tim Roberts <ti...@probo.com> wrote:
> >>>No one is worth $1,000,000 a year. No one....
> >>If that's the going market rate, sure they are.
> >No. There's no doubt that some folks are GETTING that price, but no one is
> >worth that.
> Worth is determined by The Market.
Not exactly. _Price_ is determined by the market. The claim that "Worth
is determined by The Market" holds only under the additional assumption
that 'worth' is equivalent to 'price', an assumption that is far from
self-evident, and indeed much contested.
--
greg byshenk - gbys...@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
Don Homuth
Not that much.
If the purpose of athletes is to sell tickets, and they do, then
that's their Worth.
They don't have to perform, score points, win games or whatever.
Appearance Fees also work that way -- if the entertainment worth of an
appearance can be dollarized, then that's the worth and the price.
Price gets ahead of Worth only temporarily, at which point the market
readjusts price back to worth.
The Market doesn't work instantaneously.
joh...@gmail.com
John
Joe Cipale
The good thing is, scabby, NO ONE would let you ANYWHER NEAR thier kids.
Regarldess of whehter you were certified or a scab!
The beauty of word of mouth about a whackjob such as yourself.
greg byshenk
> >> Worth is determined by The Market.
> >Not exactly. _Price_ is determined by the market. The claim that "Worth
> >is determined by The Market" holds only under the additional assumption
> >that 'worth' is equivalent to 'price', an assumption that is far from
> >self-evident, and indeed much contested.
> Not that much.
> If the purpose of athletes is to sell tickets, and they do, then
> that's their Worth.
> They don't have to perform, score points, win games or whatever.
> Appearance Fees also work that way -- if the entertainment worth of an
> appearance can be dollarized, then that's the worth and the price.
No, that is the 'market value', or 'worth' based on the market, which is
equivalent to the 'price'. 'Value' and 'worth' are not exhausted by
'market value' and 'market worth' (if they were, then the use of 'market'
would be redundant).
> Price gets ahead of Worth only temporarily, at which point the market
> readjusts price back to worth.
> The Market doesn't work instantaneously.
And the market is not the sole measure of value.
When someone says "no one is worth $X", they do not (normally, at least)
make the plainly false claim that the market does not compensate anyone
to that degree. Rather, they make the claim that no one deserves to make
$X, which is a claim about things other than 'market value'.
Don Homuth
<gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> If the purpose of athletes is to sell tickets, and they do, then
>> that's their Worth.
>
>> They don't have to perform, score points, win games or whatever.
>
>> Appearance Fees also work that way -- if the entertainment worth of an
>> appearance can be dollarized, then that's the worth and the price.
>
>No, that is the 'market value', or 'worth' based on the market, which is
>equivalent to the 'price'. 'Value' and 'worth' are not exhausted by
>'market value' and 'market worth' (if they were, then the use of 'market'
>would be redundant).
An utterly meaningless discussion, taking things precisely nowhere.
>> Price gets ahead of Worth only temporarily, at which point the market
>> readjusts price back to worth.
>
>> The Market doesn't work instantaneously.
>
>And the market is not the sole measure of value.
When it comes to dollarizing Worth, it surely is. An athlete is
"worth" $5 million to one team and $6 million to another. The "worth"
of that athlete is reset to $6 million. No question about it.
>When someone says "no one is worth $X", they do not (normally, at least)
>make the plainly false claim that the market does not compensate anyone
>to that degree. Rather, they make the claim that no one deserves to make
>$X, which is a claim about things other than 'market value'.
Which is utter Nonsense on its face. Clearly someone Does deserve to
make that much, else the market wouldn't pay it.
This discussion is aside from some sort of would-be comparative
Morality, which suggests a means of setting Worth based on some
exogenous evaluation.
What's a Star Basketball player "worth" to me? Nothing. I don't
watch basketball, don't follow it, would Never pay the price of
admission to any game, even with tickets right behind the bench and an
offer of lunch with the coach and the starting lineup. I Just Simply
Am Indifferent. That is not a discussion of Worth -- it's a
discussion of my personal take on the relevance of basketball to my
own life.
I feel the same way about Ferraris too -- and I'm a reasonably
enthusiastic motorhead. I'd rather have a Corvette.
But I am Fully aware that the Worth of a Ferrari is greater than that
of a Corvette -- because the Market makes it clear what that Worth is
out there. Were I to come into possession of such a vehicle, I'd sell
it For What It Is Worth -- not to me, but to The Ferrari Market.
Is *any* car worth a million dollars? Apparently a 1964 Ferrari GTO
is, along with some others. Is it worth that to me? Not as much as
the cash would be -- which is why I wouldn't own it long.
The Market is not a single thing. It's the net of millions of single
things. But Worth is what The Market is willing to pay. The best way
of finding what something is Worth is to put it up for an open
auction. Not the only way, but a good one.
Worth is what the highest bidder will willingly pay at such an
auction. Other bidders might find the thing worth somewhat less, and
be unwilling to pay it. That doesn't matter -- they are not speaking
for The Market.
greg byshenk
> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Appearance Fees also work that way -- if the entertainment worth of an
> >> appearance can be dollarized, then that's the worth and the price.
> >No, that is the 'market value', or 'worth' based on the market, which is
> >equivalent to the 'price'. 'Value' and 'worth' are not exhausted by
> >'market value' and 'market worth' (if they were, then the use of 'market'
> >would be redundant).
> An utterly meaningless discussion, taking things precisely nowhere.
[...]
> >When someone says "no one is worth $X", they do not (normally, at least)
> >make the plainly false claim that the market does not compensate anyone
> >to that degree. Rather, they make the claim that no one deserves to make
> >$X, which is a claim about things other than 'market value'.
> Which is utter Nonsense on its face. Clearly someone Does deserve to
> make that much, else the market wouldn't pay it.
No. Clearly someone does in fact make that much; whether they deserve to
make it is an entirely different question.
> This discussion is aside from some sort of would-be comparative
> Morality, which suggests a means of setting Worth based on some
> exogenous evaluation.
I'm trying to figure out your point, here. I already noted that the
issue is _not_ whether someone in fact makes X, and that the issue
is not 'market value'. In the above, you seem to gesture towards a
recognition of that point, only to go wandering back toward 'market
value'.
If you wish to insist that the mere fact that someone recieves X is
sufficient to show that they _deserve_ X, then there really isn't
much to talk about.
[Long ramble about market value deleted.]
Don Homuth
<gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>> >When someone says "no one is worth $X", they do not (normally, at least)
>> >make the plainly false claim that the market does not compensate anyone
>> >to that degree. Rather, they make the claim that no one deserves to make
>> >$X, which is a claim about things other than 'market value'.
>
>> Which is utter Nonsense on its face. Clearly someone Does deserve to
>> make that much, else the market wouldn't pay it.
>
>No. Clearly someone does in fact make that much; whether they deserve to
>make it is an entirely different question.
Not really. You confuse Utility with Worth -- and the two are not the
same thing at all.
But further, you attempt to place some sort of Moral component -- i.e.
that one person may Deserve to earn something while another who may be
doing precisely the same thing does not. Which is nonsense. The
Market doesn't care about such nonessential matters. It only
discusses what it will pay.
>> This discussion is aside from some sort of would-be comparative
>> Morality, which suggests a means of setting Worth based on some
>> exogenous evaluation.
>
>I'm trying to figure out your point, here. I already noted that the
>issue is _not_ whether someone in fact makes X, and that the issue
>is not 'market value'. In the above, you seem to gesture towards a
>recognition of that point, only to go wandering back toward 'market
>value'.
Because Market Value is the only thing that's germane when discussing
compensation. We have, for example, examples of CEOs who have taken
their companies resolutely backwards. Do they Deserve to be paid high
sums for doing so? Apparently they do, else the shareholders/boards
wouldn't pay them at all.
Is it a good investment? Apparently not, but the market doesn't care
about that much.
>If you wish to insist that the mere fact that someone recieves X is
>sufficient to show that they _deserve_ X, then there really isn't
>much to talk about.
There never was much to talk about in the first place. The discussion
of whether or not someone Deserves a specific compensation is
exogenous to the discussion altogether. Consider some of the primas
donnas playing basketball. Do they Deserve their salaries?
Apparently they do. They may not score a lot of points, but if they
sell a lot of tickets/t-shirts/sneakers/aftershave or whatever, The
Market discusses their Worth on that basis -- not on the sorts of
people they are.
Sell a bunch of tickets and No One will care whether or not you are
deserving of your portion of the proceeds. They'll just count the
money. Stop selling a bunch of tickets, and The Market will readjust
your compensation on That basis alone -- and not on your PSAs for the
local United Way.
greg byshenk
Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >> >When someone says "no one is worth $X", they do not (normally, at least)
> >> >make the plainly false claim that the market does not compensate anyone
> >> >to that degree. Rather, they make the claim that no one deserves to make
> >> >$X, which is a claim about things other than 'market value'.
> >> Which is utter Nonsense on its face. Clearly someone Does deserve to
> >> make that much, else the market wouldn't pay it.
> >No. Clearly someone does in fact make that much; whether they deserve to
> >make it is an entirely different question.
> Not really. You confuse Utility with Worth -- and the two are not the
> same thing at all.
I am not discussing "utility" at all. Rather, I am pointing out that
the mere fact that someone receives X (even if it is plainly true that
such occurs) does not in and of itself establish tha they deserve X.
I am also pointing out that 'market value' and 'market worth' do not
fully encompass 'value' and 'worth'.
You know this. There is every indication that you consider your
holiday gatherings [see recent posts] to be of 'value' or 'worth', but I
submit that even to attempt to place a 'market value' or 'market worth'
on such things is patently absurd.
> But further, you attempt to place some sort of Moral component -- i.e.
> that one person may Deserve to earn something while another who may be
> doing precisely the same thing does not. Which is nonsense. The
> Market doesn't care about such nonessential matters. It only
> discusses what it will pay.
I've never claimed (or even suggested, I think) that the market cares
about such things.
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
On the one hand, you say that the mere fact that someone is paid X
estabilishes that they deserve to recieve X -- but on the other hand,
you say that the market doesn't care whether they deserve to recieve
X. These two positions are not at all the same, and indeed contradict
each other: if the market is unconcerned with desert, then the mere
fact that the market provides something _cannot_ establish desert.
Don Homuth
<gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>[I was out of town for a bit; only now just catching up...]
>
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>> >Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >When someone says "no one is worth $X", they do not (normally, at least)
>> >> >make the plainly false claim that the market does not compensate anyone
>> >> >to that degree. Rather, they make the claim that no one deserves to make
>> >> >$X, which is a claim about things other than 'market value'.
>
>> >> Which is utter Nonsense on its face. Clearly someone Does deserve to
>> >> make that much, else the market wouldn't pay it.
>
>> >No. Clearly someone does in fact make that much; whether they deserve to
>> >make it is an entirely different question.
>
>> Not really. You confuse Utility with Worth -- and the two are not the
>> same thing at all.
>
>I am not discussing "utility" at all. Rather, I am pointing out that
>the mere fact that someone receives X (even if it is plainly true that
>such occurs) does not in and of itself establish tha they deserve X.
I can't come up with a Better Way of doing it, and neither can you.
>I am also pointing out that 'market value' and 'market worth' do not
>fully encompass 'value' and 'worth'.
It does sufficiently that whatever's left is a mere quibble.
>You know this. There is every indication that you consider your
>holiday gatherings [see recent posts] to be of 'value' or 'worth',
And to that end, I have a budget I spend on them, which is computed
down to the nearest twenty bucks.
>... but I
>submit that even to attempt to place a 'market value' or 'market worth'
>on such things is patently absurd.
Since they are occasions not subject to a Market, save for my own
budget there's no market question to discuss.
But I can tell you that the opportunity to celebrate the Holiday
Season with friends is Worth quite a bit to me, else I wouldn't pay
it.
>>The discussion
>> of whether or not someone Deserves a specific compensation is
>> exogenous to the discussion altogether. Consider some of the primas
>> donnas playing basketball. Do they Deserve their salaries?
>> Apparently they do. They may not score a lot of points, but if they
>> sell a lot of tickets/t-shirts/sneakers/aftershave or whatever, The
>> Market discusses their Worth on that basis -- not on the sorts of
>> people they are.
>
>> Sell a bunch of tickets and No One will care whether or not you are
>> deserving of your portion of the proceeds. They'll just count the
>> money. Stop selling a bunch of tickets, and The Market will readjust
>> your compensation on That basis alone -- and not on your PSAs for the
>> local United Way.
>
>You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
>
>On the one hand, you say that the mere fact that someone is paid X
>estabilishes that they deserve to recieve X --
That is their Market Value, which correspondes to their Real Value.
Now in Market terms, value is a dollarized component. We are not
talking some ephemeral Social Good here -- we are talking about
compensation, which is always in terms of Money. Nothing else.
>... but on the other hand, you say that the market doesn't care whether they deserve to recieve
>X. These two positions are not at all the same, and indeed contradict
>each other:
Can't see how. We are discussing compensation directly, not some
Soulful imputed Value. It's about Dollars.
An individual is Worth what the market pays.
> if the market is unconcerned with desert, then the mere
>fact that the market provides something _cannot_ establish desert.
As non a sequitur as I've heard in a Very long time, even from
undergraduates.
Revisit, revise and try that one one again.
greg byshenk
> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >> >Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >When someone says "no one is worth $X", they do not (normally, at least)
> >> >> >make the plainly false claim that the market does not compensate anyone
> >> >> >to that degree. Rather, they make the claim that no one deserves to make
> >> >> >$X, which is a claim about things other than 'market value'.
> >> >> Which is utter Nonsense on its face. Clearly someone Does deserve to
> >> >> make that much, else the market wouldn't pay it.
> >> >No. Clearly someone does in fact make that much; whether they deserve to
> >> >make it is an entirely different question.
> >> Not really. You confuse Utility with Worth -- and the two are not the
> >> same thing at all.
> >I am not discussing "utility" at all. Rather, I am pointing out that
> >the mere fact that someone receives X (even if it is plainly true that
> >such occurs) does not in and of itself establish tha they deserve X.
> I can't come up with a Better Way of doing it, and neither can you.
Which is a yet again a different issue, even assuming that it is true.
> >I am also pointing out that 'market value' and 'market worth' do not
> >fully encompass 'value' and 'worth'.
> It does sufficiently that whatever's left is a mere quibble.
As I said previously, if you really believe this, then there really is
very little to discuss.
And I have no way of knowing. Perhaps you really do tot up the market
value of your friendships in order to determine what to spend on your
holiday parties, evaluate the market value of your family members when
buying gifts, etc. (I very much doubt that such is the case, but...)
> >You know this. There is every indication that you consider your
> >holiday gatherings [see recent posts] to be of 'value' or 'worth',
> And to that end, I have a budget I spend on them, which is computed
> down to the nearest twenty bucks.
Which is just fine, but again, rather beside the point.
> >... but I
> >submit that even to attempt to place a 'market value' or 'market worth'
> >on such things is patently absurd.
> Since they are occasions not subject to a Market, save for my own
> budget there's no market question to discuss.
> But I can tell you that the opportunity to celebrate the Holiday
> Season with friends is Worth quite a bit to me, else I wouldn't pay
> it.
But, as you assert above, "there's no market question to discuss" and
thus (seemingly) something is at issue other than 'market value'.
Again, you can't seem to decide what you want to argue, here. Either
a) the question is purely one of 'market value' and "whatever's left is
a mere quibble", or b) there is indeed 'value' that is not encompassed
by 'market value' and that is more than "a mere quibble". That is, if
the only 'value' is 'market value', then there can be no other 'value'
to your holiday parties, friendships, etc., other than market value.
On the other hand, if there you are not merely totting up the 'market
value' of your friendships in order to determine how much to spend on
your holiday parties, and you consider friendship to have 'value' in
and of itself, apart from any 'market value', then that would seem to
indicate rather decisively that there is indeed significant 'value'
(more than "a mere quibble") that is _not_ encompassed by 'market value'.
> >> The discussion
> >> of whether or not someone Deserves a specific compensation is
> >> exogenous to the discussion altogether. Consider some of the primas
> >> donnas playing basketball. Do they Deserve their salaries?
> >> Apparently they do. They may not score a lot of points, but if they
> >> sell a lot of tickets/t-shirts/sneakers/aftershave or whatever, The
> >> Market discusses their Worth on that basis -- not on the sorts of
> >> people they are.
> >> Sell a bunch of tickets and No One will care whether or not you are
> >> deserving of your portion of the proceeds. They'll just count the
> >> money. Stop selling a bunch of tickets, and The Market will readjust
> >> your compensation on That basis alone -- and not on your PSAs for the
> >> local United Way.
> >You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
> >On the one hand, you say that the mere fact that someone is paid X
> >estabilishes that they deserve to recieve X --
> That is their Market Value, which correspondes to their Real Value.
Your capitalization doesn't help; it only confuses things. I don't
know if you are trying to use 'Real Value' as a term of art, or if you
are suggesting that only 'market value' is 'real'. If the former, then
the statement is irrelevant; if the latter, then -- as I pointed out
previously -- there really isn't much to say. If you consider the
'value' of friendship, knowledge, etc. to be imaginary, then it is most
unlikely that anything that I or anyone else could say here would show
you otherwise.
> Now in Market terms, value is a dollarized component. We are not
> talking some ephemeral Social Good here -- we are talking about
> compensation, which is always in terms of Money. Nothing else.
Well, no. It is _not_ "always in terms of money" -- unless you choose
to _define_ 'compensation' as 'monetary compensation', which only begs
the question.
> >... but on the other hand, you say that the market doesn't care whether
> >they deserve to recieve X. These two positions are not at all the
> >same, and indeed contradict each other:
> Can't see how. We are discussing compensation directly, not some
> Soulful imputed Value. It's about Dollars.
> An individual is Worth what the market pays.
An individual's '_market worth_' is what the market pays -- by
definition, really.
> > if the market is unconcerned with desert, then the mere
> >fact that the market provides something _cannot_ establish desert.
> As non a sequitur as I've heard in a Very long time, even from
> undergraduates.
> Revisit, revise and try that one one again.
I don't know how to state it more clearly. If the 'market value' of
X has nothing to do with whether X is deserved, then the 'market value'
of X cannot possibly establish whether X is deserved.
To elaborate: it is a not-wholly-unreasonable position to take that
the only 'value' is 'market value', and that the only question about
whether someone deserves X is answered by whether or not the market
provides them with X. I happen to think that this position is wrong,
but it is at least coherent. It is also reasonable to say that the
market doesn't care about desert, and that the market provides what the
market provides, wholly without regard to whether or not it deserved.
But it is utterly incoherent to argue both that the market doesn't care
about whether anything is deserved, _and_ that the mere fact that the
market provides X is sufficient to establish that X is deserved. This
is like arguing that the 'market value' of a Rothko has nothing to do
with its quality, and _also_ that the high 'market value' demonstrates
its quality. One can argue either one position or the other, but not
both (at least not coherently).
Don Homuth
<gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
>> >I am not discussing "utility" at all. Rather, I am pointing out that
>> >the mere fact that someone receives X (even if it is plainly true that
>> >such occurs) does not in and of itself establish tha they deserve X.
>
>> I can't come up with a Better Way of doing it, and neither can you.
>
>Which is a yet again a different issue, even assuming that it is true.
No, and It Is.
>> >I am also pointing out that 'market value' and 'market worth' do not
>> >fully encompass 'value' and 'worth'.
>
>> It does sufficiently that whatever's left is a mere quibble.
>
>As I said previously, if you really believe this, then there really is
>very little to discuss....
Fair enough.
greg byshenk
> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> greg byshenk <gbys...@byshenk.net> wrote:
> >> >I am not discussing "utility" at all. Rather, I am pointing out that
> >> >the mere fact that someone receives X (even if it is plainly true that
> >> >such occurs) does not in and of itself establish tha they deserve X.
> >> I can't come up with a Better Way of doing it, and neither can you.
> >Which is a yet again a different issue, even assuming that it is true.
> No, and It Is.
No. Even if it is true, that is a different issue. One could easily
recognize the problem that people receive what they do not deserve,
while also recognizing that there isn't any known "Better way of doing
it."
Whether there _is_ "a Better way of doing it" depends on how one
measures "Better". I won't even attempt to discuss this issue further,
as, for someone who holds that there is no 'value' other than 'market
value', there can be nothing Better. If "the market" is the perfect
measure by definition, then there can be no better (by definition).
> >> >I am also pointing out that 'market value' and 'market worth' do not
> >> >fully encompass 'value' and 'worth'.
> >> It does sufficiently that whatever's left is a mere quibble.
> >As I said previously, if you really believe this, then there really is
> >very little to discuss....
> Fair enough.
"[I]f you really believe this", which I very much doubt. But if you
wish to insist that you believe your family, friends, and neighbors
(along with all other things) have no value apart from their 'market
value', there is no way to disprove your claim here.