Re: Shops in Crisis? The Tech Shortage
Razor Face
"The purpose of capitalism is to create wealth, not jobs!!!"
The purpose of a democracy is to serve the people, not capitalists!!!
Robert Kolker
> "The purpose of capitalism is to create wealth, not jobs!!!"
>
> The purpose of a democracy is to serve the people, not capitalists!!!
Capitalists are people too. And they make the prosperity of everyone
else possible. A society based on the Proles is doomed to squalor. Think
of -1984- by Orwell.
Who is more likely to provide you with an opportunity of gainful
employment? A prole or a capitalist. The rich do more for the society
person for person than the Proles.
Bob Kolker
Tambi Dude
> "The purpose of capitalism is to create wealth, not jobs!!!"
>
> The purpose of a democracy is to serve the people, not capitalists!!!
idiot. the same capitalists are the ones to give you your job, even if
it is 45K job.
what a moron you are. No wonder you are so bitter.
Nospam
> idiot. the same capitalists are the ones to give you your job, even if
> it is 45K job.
Tambi Dude show his real face. He is not necessarily an Indian but a payed
corporate propaganda agent.
As I explained into a parallel thread, a successfull businessman do not
necessarily do anything usefull but he accumulate wealth by preventing
others to do it.
But some people have an hard head, so hard indeed that the information
do not penetrate thru :-)
A businessman open a business by employing a skilled worker and he come
forward with the capital. The final product require BOTH the capital and
the skilled work. Take away any of them and you don't have the product.
Now let assume that the businessman pay the worker a big wage. Then the
worker will accumulate enough wealth to start his own business since now he
have the capital and he have the skills. The owner however will be left
without the skilled labor and his business have to close.
To prevent this, the owner will always pay workers a ridiculously low wage
to prevent them to accumulate enough capital to start their own business.
By doing so, he score 2 points:
- his workforce won't go away to their own businesses
- he accumulate enough capital to keep the workforce or even expand
If you look at the globalization you see that as mater of fact the core
engine that fuel the globalization is nothing else but this rush toward
lowering wages into western world.
Companies that 7 years ago were successfull now complain that they are
required to offshore to stay competitive. They claim that despite the fact
that in latest 7 years:
- they destroyed or by mergers eliminated their competition
- their proffits skyrocketed
- the productivity grew a lot
- the wages stagnated or were even reduced by layoffs and new cheaper
employments
Neverless they lie with impunity that they need to offshore in order stay
afloat. Why do they do that ?
Well, I beleve the answer is that there is a strong neoconservative agenda
among businesspeople to lower the wages down in western world to prevent
the opportunity that people will start opening their own businesses and the
capital market gets democratized.
They fight for their privileges of keeping and increasing their wealth
despite their nonvalue and being mediocre entities.
So, all the crap like:
> idiot. the same capitalists are the ones to give you your job, even if
> it is 45K job.
It is just corporate propaganda.
A successfull capitalist is the unskilled individual that loot 1 million in
wealth you created by your own work and give you an 45k salary Tambi.
If you are stupid you are happy with that. If you are smarter then you look
for ways to make them at least provide you with a decent life.
forbi...@msn.com
Robert Kolker wrote:
> Razor Face wrote:
> > "The purpose of capitalism is to create wealth, not jobs!!!"
> >
> > The purpose of a democracy is to serve the people, not capitalists!!!
>
> Capitalists are people too.
Yes they are.
> And they make the prosperity of everyone else possible.
I'm not sure. That certainly isn't the reality. Insteady they
ensure that there will be competition for labor so as to maximize
their profit. Some must not prosper so that there will be a
ready supply of labor.
> A society based on the Proles is doomed to squalor.
I see.
> Think of -1984- by Orwell.
I think you have the wrong book. Think of the Time Machine
by H. G. Wells where, if I'm not mistaken, "Proles" are actually
mentioned.
> Who is more likely to provide you with an opportunity of gainful
> employment? A prole or a capitalist. The rich do more for the society
> person for person than the Proles.
The invisible hand of the marketplace removes the prejudices of
the leaders of a command economy. Certainly this is true for
the appropriate direction of production. The notion of capitalism
is that those who can best direct produciton will be able to siphon
off the most for their own purposes and this is a good thing since
past performance is a good predictor of future performance. I even
agree with the position pending improved technology.
I don't think there should be any inheritance. Each generation should
perform on its own. Per individual gifting should be limited.
If we are to have capitalists then let's have good capitalists. If
capitalists
want to do right by their children then they should teach them how to
be good capitalists rather than rig the system so future good
capitalists
have to work for the children of prior capitalists. When faced with
one's
mortality good capitalists would then need to decide how they want the
fruits of other's labor they have been able to siphon to be distributed
within
the per head limits. If they do not decide then the default position
would
be distribution to a common trust whose only propose is to make the
distribution for those who do not, again the same per head limits would
apply to the trust.
For capitalism to work there needs to be competition between
capitalists
and in incentive to take risks with one's capital. The measure of
success
of the system is an amalgam of the impacts on those in the middle and
at the bottom.
Robert Kolker
>
> I don't think there should be any inheritance. Each generation should
> perform on its own. Per individual gifting should be limited.
Andrew Carnegie, THE Capitalist of his times was in perfect agreement
with that. His heirs got very little of his money. Most of it went into
foundations that provided a public benefit.
I think the owner/earner of the money should have the main say in where
it goes after his demise, but puting the money to work to produce public
benefits is probably the best use for the money.
Bill Gates, supernerd is doing similar things with his money. I doubt
whether very much will go to his siblings, cousins or children. Letting
the kids squander the money is not the best way to move or shake the world.
Bob Kolker
Nospam
> Andrew Carnegie, THE Capitalist of his times was in perfect agreement
> with that. His heirs got very little of his money. Most of it went into
> foundations that provided a public benefit.
But rather than remain in history as a foundation maker he is always
remember as the scum on Earth that opened fire on his workers to keep
them at lower wages.
The late efforts to clean his name didn't done to much.
There are limits about what level of pathological greed can be tolerated and
what no. Carnegie overpassed them miles away.
There is nothing good to remember about such an individual.
> I think the owner/earner of the money should have the main say in where
> it goes after his demise, but puting the money to work to produce public
> benefits is probably the best use for the money.
Q. Why capitalist money are needed to produce ?
A. Because workers need to get payed until the business makes proffit.
Q. Why they need to be payed ?
A. Because they need to survive since they don't have enough money in
savings.
Q. Why they don't have enough money in savings ?
A. Because the capitalist they worked for never payed them a fair share
of what they produced
Summary:
The capitalist investments are needed because he never pays
workers decently enough for them to have their own capital.
Instead the capitalist pickpocket most the revenue making himself
required again and again.
Robert Kolker
>
> How do we rebuild the profession of the auto tech in a world of
> seemingly instant gratification, little deliberation, less attention
> and no patience?
How about making cars that do not need so many repairs. Or modular cars
so units can be removed quickly and replaced with new or factory rebuilt
module. They we wont need so many skillful techs.
>
If things get that bad in the U.S. then the Japs will make a car that
does not need repairs. Problem solved.
Bob Kolker
zzbunker
The purpose of capitalism is to create wealth, not jobs!!! wrote:
>
> You've heard about it. You've read about it. Perhaps you've experienced it. It's 'The Tech Shortage,' the most critical personnel issue facing businesses involved in automotive repair, including tire dealers. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Or is it?
> Facts are facts. Perception is quite another thing. In this two-part series, we will define the "problem" as industry experts see it, elaborate on some of the efforts being taken to alleviate the problem and then propose a few potential remedies.
No, it's a beneifit rather than disaster. Since it's a situation
that forces
idiots like economists and buisness managers to come to grips with
reality, rather than the idiot sales gimmicks perceptrons of the GM,
not automotive, industry.
In that automobiles are just one example of a much more general
social phenomenon called engine technology.
And it engines, not techs, that move manufacturing plants
from one location on the planet to another.
> For this article - Part I - we've analyzed the issue from various perspectives to get at the heart of the matter, which, as you'll soon see, is much more complex than it first appears.
>
> The 'Problem'
>
> Once upon a day, a major automaker and the federal government belched out a proclamation that the auto industry would be short 60,000 auto tech jobs. Said the mighty parties: "We need 60,000 auto techs right now."
>
> But when that number was challenged, 60,000 suddenly became 30,000. Almost overnight, the proclaimed shortage was cut in half.
>
> Other groups have suggested that, by 2012, we'll be down some 45,000 service techs.
>
> Within the tire industry, dealers constantly complain of high employee turnover, particularly among tire and service techs. According to Tire Review's 2005 Dealer Profile Study, fully 65% of tire dealers say that finding good employees is a major concern, and 43% say it takes four or more weeks to fill a service tech opening on their staffs.
>
> According to additional data, we are training about 35,000 auto techs a year, and the industry, according to some, will need 35,000 new auto techs each year through 2010. In that scenario, we seem to be keeping our noses above water for the moment.
>
> Yet Automotive Retailing Today, a coalition of automakers and retailers, reports there are 37,000 vacant auto tech positions right now.
>
> On the flip side, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) studies suggest that, while supply and demand for automotive techs have both risen, supply is far outstripping demand.
>
> In fact, Rich White, senior vice president of marketing and member relations at AAIA, is puzzled by the whole shortage thing.
>
> "Our studies show that, since 1980, both the supply and demand for automotive techs have increased significantly. But while demand has grown an average of 0.8% yearly, the supply of technicians has climbed an average of 2.3% per year. We see the supply of auto techs outstripping demand."
>
> Nowhere in AAIA's study is the claim of a massive tech shortage validated. That is partly because the association's statistics show the supply of techs exceeding demand and partly because there are a variety of methods used to analyze a labor shortage, all of which could arrive at a different outcome.
>
> In White's view, though, the obvious signs of a shortfall just aren't there. "Typically, a shortage of automotive techs would have specific symptoms apparent to all of us," he says. "We would immediately notice that repairs are taking longer, we would see cars lined up around the corner waiting to be serviced and we would see an increase in the labor cost of repairs. None of those things is happening.
>
> "If there are symptoms of an auto tech shortage floating around, the symptoms aren't evident," he says. "There are no indicators that justify calling this an auto tech shortage, and we use the Bureau of Labor Statistics to support our findings.
>
> "The bottom-line question remains: If we are training 30,000 automotive techs every year and there is a 30,000 shortfall of automotive techs per year, what are we failing to understand? Are we talking about a shortage rumor, or we talking about a shortage reality?"
>
> As the late Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil used to put it: "All politics are local." Perhaps it is the same way with the so-called automotive tech shortage. Maybe it is being felt to a large degree in some sections of the country and is barely noticeable in others. Either way, the tech shortage issue won't go away, whether real or imagined.
>
> Here's the quick-and-dirty story: Deep research finds no reliable number, no consensus of opinion regarding any current auto tech shortage. However, most insiders feel that a tech shortage is surely on the way.
>
> So, what do we, as an industry, take away from this? Is there a problem today? Or, are we staring at a future shortfall of qualified auto service techs? And, just when is this future going to hit?
>
> Confusing, isn't it? The question of who is right and who is wrong is up for grabs. At least one thing is eminently clear: While there is no consensus on the existence of a shortfall today, situations exist that point directly toward problems tomorrow.
>
> Mass Exodus
>
> Most conversations about the Tech Shortage - real or perceived - appear wrapped around one simple, and frighteningly true, premise: The Baby Boomer generation is fast reaching retirement age. Our nation's single largest population group will be hitting the magic number 65 over the next decade, creating a potential void of talent in a wide range of professions.
>
> Some 26.8% of the nation's population is made up of Boomers, and 32 million boomers are 50 or older.
>
> In simple terms, nearly 27% of every vocation will see a sudden shortfall in experienced talent when those gold watches are handed out.
>
> But the real problem - at the heart of the matter - isn't quantity. It's quality.
>
> There's no debate that the market for highly qualified auto techs is strong. Even the AAIA, which does not conclude that a massive tech shortage exists, offers this concession: "If there is any shortage, all of it is extremely local, it is at the high-end of the A-Tech spectrum and it is spotty," says White.
>
> And, according to Tire Review's 2005 Dealer Profile Study, only 39% of dealers say that three-quarters of their staffs have at least five years of active experience. Translation: Two-thirds of dealers - averaging seven full-time employees each - have largely inexperienced staffs.
>
> Over the next seven to 10 years, the industry expects that half of all the top techs working today will retire. These are highly qualified, Baby Boomer-generation techs who have seen it all and know how to fix it, including recalibrating the complicated diagnostic tools we use today.
>
> But, take a closer look. Notice the words, "highly qualified." Even though "qualified" is a subjective word, it is important to the tech shortage argument.
>
> We call them 'master techs' or 'A-Techs.' These are the masters of the trade who have been around for a while. Many have a two-year auto tech degree and have been active in technical update programs. They came up in the day when high schools all had "auto shop" classes, and they turned their love of cars into lifetime careers.
>
> When they retire, this group of top techs will leave behind a void the likes of which we have not seen since the first "grease monkey" turned the first wrench.
>
> Depending on who is doing the talking, the shortage could amount to a shortfall of 45,000, to 60,000 to 100,000 techs.
>
> Who takes their place in the chain of command when they retire? That's the question, and Tony Molla, vice president of communications for the National Institute for Automotive Excellence (ASE), sees a coming shortage among high-end diagnostic A-Techs. The C-Techs, born and bred on vehicle maintenance, will probably never be in short supply, he feels.
>
> "The jobs are out there for them, but we don't know yet what the exodus of retiring A-Techs will mean to the automotive aftermarket," Molla says. "Soon, we will not have enough auto techs to replace the Baby Boomers, who are retiring. The one thing we know for sure is that there are lots of forces at work in this marketplace.
>
> "There isn't a week that I don't receive at least two phone calls from a tire dealer looking for a high-quality auto tech, and I know I'm not the only one receiving these phone calls," Molla adds. "There is a demand for the certified auto tech right now, and that number will grow."
>
> Roy Littlefield, executive vice president of the Tire Industry Association, doesn't see an end to the tech shortage problem. "Like the shortage of teachers and nurses, it never seems as if we have enough well trained auto techs," he says.
>
> A Certain Quality
>
> And, "well trained" is key. When you look at the numbers, it's easy to see that there does indeed appear to be a shortage of experienced, top-notch, qualified technicians right now. But let's dig a bit deeper. What is causing this shortage? And, why is the situation so dire?
>
> That's right. We said "dire." Consider these facts:
>
> · Light vehicle registrations continue to rise, especially those more than five years old.
>
> · Despite current gas price issues, more miles are being driven, per vehicle and in total, than ever before.
>
> · The average age of vehicles is rising (9.1 years).
>
> · Higher-tech vehicles and vehicle systems mean that higher technical skills are required.
>
> · In 2004, there were just under 225 million passenger vehicles registered in the U.S. The best evidence suggests there are 876,000 active service techs working today. That means there are at least 257 cars and trucks on the road for each available tech.
>
> All these facts lead to a frightening conclusion: Automotive technology is advancing at an almost dangerous pace, while automotive experts are slowly disappearing.
>
> And, the car makers know it. Take, for example, AYES, the Automotive Youth Education System. This OEM organization has embedded itself in the shortage scenario by partnering with 427 tech schools nationwide. Surprisingly, the usually secretive vehicle makers make their training programs available to these schools. Read between the lines here, and this much-talked-about shortage may be for real.
>
> Detroit, Stuttgart, Tokyo and other car-making capitals already know that auto tech programs are vital to their futures. The more technology they pour into their vehicles, they understand, the better service techs have to be to keep them running right.
>
> As you think about future vehicle technologies and these students, consider a few other aspects. For example, more and more passenger vehicles are coming in from offshore. South Korea has joined Japan as a major importer. And, soon, China and India will be producing vehicles that will be sold here.
>
> How do we train a tech to repair so many advanced vehicles from so many cultures and so many countries?
>
> The vehicles themselves will also change dramatically as we work toward alternative fuels and propulsion systems. If you want to get the shock of your life, try working on a hybrid vehicle without any training. The voltage in some of these vehicles is strong enough to kill, making extensive training mandatory.
>
> In the past five years, the sales of hybrid vehicle sales in the U.S. have grown from 9,500 in 2000, to more than 200,000 in 2005. With gas prices hitting - and sticking - at the $3 per gallon level, those sales will certainly continue to increase.
>
> And, what types of fuel are we talking about? Your new techs may need to be familiar with corn-fed cars - fueled by E85 ethanol (a mix of 85% grain alcohol and 15% gasoline). Your future tech may need to be an expert on repairing vehicles powered by other alternatives like natural gas, propane, hydrogen, biodiesel, electricity, methanol and p-series fuels. They are already in use worldwide, after all.
>
> Perception is Everything
>
> But quickly advancing vehicle technologies are only partly to blame for the top-notch technician shortage. Deeply embedded societal perceptions and generational differences are other ingredients.
>
> First, here's reality: Auto tech positions come with an established support system and a high level of job placements. Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio, places 100% of its auto tech graduates before they leave the front door. It's the same story at Stark Tech State College in Canton, Ohio, where 95% of all graduates have a job waiting for them.
>
> Randall Bennett, department head of automotive technology of Stark Tech, says the college's auto service grads not only get hired right out of the classroom, "our kids leave as workers. They know they will work hard, dirty jobs at first. But, most will move into managerial positions, auto tech positions or master tech positions."
>
> Bennett is upfront with the students, and lays out what their financial future can hold. "A Stark Tech two-year associate degree holder in our automotive tech curriculum will be making $30,000-plus in three to five years," he says. "In five to 10 years, he or she can expect to be in the $40,000 to $60,000 salary range, and at the very top of our graduating techs, just 10 to 15 years out, $60,000 and up is the norm, with some moving well past $100,000."
>
> It is obvious that once a student is enrolled, the tech schools and community colleges will do a great job teaching and encouraging. And, those students have a bright future ahead of them. Getting them there in the first place is the real battle.
>
> That brings us to another perception: Secondary to the pending impact of mass retirement is how younger generations view automotive service as a career option. Far more high schoolers look forward to high-tech careers and owning great automobiles than there are young people interested in keeping those autos on the road. And, while most technical schools - either at the high school or post-high school level - claim nearly 100% placement of automotive service training students, such schools often struggle to attract students.
>
> Most high schools, in fact, have done away with "shop classes," which used to serve as a springboard to service careers. Instead, schools - if they are at all interested or able - hook up with a nearby technical school, which offers an array of highly attractive IT, graphic design, engineering and fashion-design options, in addition to auto tech training.
>
> "We see high schools closing out vocational education programs and replacing them with computer-science programs," says Molla. "It's cheaper to go this route, but is it wiser?"
>
> As a career choice, being a service tech may not appear as attractive, and while most tech schools offer tech-training curriculums, pamphlets and brochures, they tend to shy away from pushing them.
>
> The Roots of Perception
>
> So, why the lack of interest? Generational differences - which ultimately impact far-reaching societal perceptions - certainly play a part.
>
> For as long as anyone can remember, the Baby Boomer generation, now 76 million strong, has pretty much called the shots. Marketers love them, educators love them, bankers love them, and so do the credit card companies.
>
> Dad graduated from a "sweatshirt college," where cheering on the school's football team was second only to quaffing a beer or two at the frat house. Mom was in a sorority and graduated with honors. Their offspring - son or daughter - will have better, they said. Parents always want better for their kids, and 'better' usually means less sweat and less dirt and more respect.
>
> Nobody pictured their children being a 'mechanic,' as we used to call them. Moms and dads said then, and continue to say today: "No son or daughter of mine is going to work a blue-collar job. My kid is going to wear a white collar, live in an air-conditioned world and make it big time."
>
> This remains the premise for all conversations having to do with advanced education. And, unfortunately it's what high-school guidance counselors reinforce with parents and students.
>
> How many high-school guidance counselors today are going to recommend that Junior or Missy pursue a two-year auto tech associate degree at a community college? None. Why? Because that's not what parents want to hear. Because of their perceptions, most parents equate an auto tech career as failure - on their part!
>
> One nationally known, independent college counselor says that not once in his 39-year career has any student or parent asked him about a career as an auto tech.
>
> Move Over, Boomers
>
> Today, another group is calling the shots. They are the Echo Boomers. Generation Y. Gen Yers. Whatever you want to call them, they are part of a group of more than 70 million Americans born from 1977 to 2002. Gen Yers, generally, are the 32 million people who are ages 16 to 27, born between 1978 and 1989.
>
> Understand their motivations, and you can see how to reach them. Money is important to this group, but not more than the recognition they want from employers. Failure to recognize the humanity of an employee - the need to be treated with respect - means as much or more than the money you pay them.
>
> Underscoring how this generation thinks is the fact that they are the most protected generation in history. Everyone is above average in this generation, every kid is recognized, everyone is rewarded just for participating - and they all have the ribbons and trophies to prove it.
>
> Any cultural accoutrement that doesn't produce instant satisfaction is boring. Echos are a reflection of the changes in American life over the past 20 years. This is the first group to grow up with computers at home, in a 500-channel, always-on universe. They are multi-taskers, with cell phones, music downloads and instant messaging. They are plugged-in citizens of a worldwide community.
>
> These kids have seen mom and dad cry after being 'downsized' from their white-collar, degreed jobs. Twenty years with a company and nothing to show for it, no pension and maybe a small 401K. They don't want any part of that world. They want control over their fate.
>
> The auto techs you hire in the future won't be motivated by the same things as their moms and dads and grandparents. They are not as concerned about long-term employment as their parents were; they are more nomadic. Changing jobs on their terms is 'control.' If so moved, they will simply find another job down the street, and there will be many jobs waiting for these just-trained students and practitioners of automotive technology.
>
> Sound unnerving? It is for Baby Boomers, who sweated and swore and busted knuckles to get ahead. But, while they can be defined as "high maintenance," Gen Yers are also high achievers. They have high expectations for themselves, and aim to work faster and better than others. They have equally high expectations of employers; they want fair and direct managers who are highly engaged in their professional development. They seek out creative challenges and view colleagues as vast resources for knowledge. And, while they want to make an important impact on Day One, they desire small goals with tight deadlines so they can build up ownership of tasks.
>
> The new reality for them is $50,000 a year 10 years out of tech school and a lot more in 15 years. If you can't pay them that kind of money, they'll find it working for a municipal government, state-level garage, large buying group, new-car dealership or large chain. You'll all be in the same boat; the highest bidder gets the tech.
>
> Looking Ahead
>
> At its heart, the Tech Shortage is a complicated situation that is unlikely to change anytime soon. One thing is obvious: Looking at this question uncovers complex societal issues and serious shortfalls within 'the system' that certainly contribute to any real or perceived shortage of qualified auto technicians.
>
> Perhaps the existence of a shortage is not the biggest concern this industry faces. The more important issue appears to be one of quality and not quantity: How do we, as an industry, improve our ability to attract, educate and retain top-level talent?
>
> We know the industry will lose its most senior experts over the next decade. But, what can or will the industry do to attract the next generation? And, we're not talking about just bodies but top-notch students.
>
> The technical schools and community colleges offer tremendous training opportunities for young people, but they are fighting an uphill battle against more glamorous, less arduous careers - the ones that get all the positive press when the media looks at the 'hot jobs.' What can they do to help alleviate the potential problem?
>
> The test-results-oriented educational system may not be leaving many children behind, but is it unfairly discrediting an automotive service career because is too blue collar and not what parents want to hear? Are guidance counselors steering kids away to avoid angering parents or because they don't understand?
>
> And, how do you re-educate parents that "automotive service technician" means the titleholder has a strong educational background with advanced, high-tech training - and an outstanding career path ahead?
>
> Vehicle technology changes clearly will define the service techs of the future. Surely, it will be less about greasy fingernails and more about mouse clicks and problem solving and communications and troubleshooting. Techs in the future may well have to be as good as - or better - than the engineers who designed the vehicle systems they have to fix. Are we as an industry prepared to meet that challenge?
>
> The question of a tech shortage cannot easily be answered. Perhaps today it is indeed regional. Tomorrow, indicators strongly suggest, things will get worse.
>
> How do we rebuild the profession of the auto tech in a world of seemingly instant gratification, little deliberation, less attention and no patience?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
> is unverified.
Simple Simon
.
>
> I don't think there should be any inheritance. Each generation should
> perform on its own. Per individual gifting should be limited.
>
> If we are to have capitalists then let's have good capitalists. If
> capitalists want to do right by their children then they should teach
> them how to be good capitalists rather than rig the system so future
> good capitalists have to work for the children of prior capitalists.
> When faced with one's mortality good capitalists would then need to
> decide how they want the fruits of other's labor they have been able
> to siphon to be distributed within the per head limits. If they do
> not decide then the default position would be distribution to a common
> trust whose only propose is to make the distribution for those who
> do not, again the same per head limits would apply to the trust.
Brilliantly put!
--
One nation, under surveillance.
Robert Kolker
Common Trust? Who shall guard the guardians. Shall the foxes watch over
the henhouse. The only reliable trust of wealth is to put it in the
hands of its owners. You don't want the Proles or their political hack
surrogates running things. You want engineers and and entreprenuers at
the top.
Bob Kolker
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> I don't think there should be any inheritance. Each generation should
> perform on its own. Per individual gifting should be limited.
Welcome to the 100% death tax.
> If we are to have capitalists then let's have good capitalists.
Who decides what a "good capitalist" is?
--
regards , Peter B. P. - liberterran.org, markedspartiet.dk, macplanet.dk
"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They
want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless."
- James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
forbi...@msn.com
Robert Kolker wrote:
> Common Trust? Who shall guard the guardians. Shall the foxes watch over
> the henhouse. The only reliable trust of wealth is to put it in the
> hands of its owners.
As I suggested, that would be the ideal. Certainly, it is presumed
that
those who build wealth are most qualified to identify those who would
use it the wisest. The maximum per head distribution is only there to
help those who would put family above community to readjust their
sights.
> You don't want the Proles or their political hack
> surrogates running things. You want engineers and and entreprenuers at
> the top.
That's sorta right. I don't look down my nose at those who aren't as
well
off but in general it is best to allow those who know how to handle
money
handle it within the guidelines of aiding community rather than
personal
gain.
forbi...@msn.com
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
> <forbi...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think there should be any inheritance. Each generation should
> > perform on its own. Per individual gifting should be limited.
>
> Welcome to the 100% death tax.
>
> > If we are to have capitalists then let's have good capitalists.
>
> Who decides what a "good capitalist" is?
A good capitalist is one that can make good enough decisions to
make honest high returns on investment. A good capitalist doesn't
need 100 legs up on the competition to be competitive.
Robert Kolker
>
> That's sorta right. I don't look down my nose at those who aren't as
> well
> off but in general it is best to allow those who know how to handle
> money
> handle it within the guidelines of aiding community rather than
> personal
> gain.
Without personal gain we should all be eating grass. The farmer who
grows more food than he eats is doing it for personal gain.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert Kolker
>
>
> A good capitalist is one that can make good enough decisions to
> make honest high returns on investment. A good capitalist doesn't
> need 100 legs up on the competition to be competitive.
That is why the government should get out of the business of giving some
businesses the advantage over other businesses. The only mechanism
necessary to guide capitalism is the market place. We don't need no
steeenking government other than to guarantee just weights and measures.
Bob Kolker
>
forbi...@msn.com
Our constitution has this preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I will set aside how well it is meeting these goals but instead
focus on the place of government in the market place in meeting
these goals. That is, I will examming your assertion that "The only
mechanism necessary to guide capitalism is the market place."
To me it is a bit like saying consumers and producers have no
place in the market place.
Actually I think I'm done except for this question:
How do you propose governments achieve their goals
except by regulation (that is afterall what to govern means)
and provisioning (which necessarily involves participation
in the market place)?
Robert Kolker
>
> I will set aside how well it is meeting these goals but instead
> focus on the place of government in the market place in meeting
> these goals. That is, I will examming your assertion that "The only
> mechanism necessary to guide capitalism is the market place."
> To me it is a bit like saying consumers and producers have no
> place in the market place.
Producers and consumers include owners of factories, managers of
factories (business buy and use stuff). That also includes end users.
People who sell their labor at market prices are just as much part of
the capitalist system as those who buy labor at market prices. We are
all capitalists as long as we want to transact business voluntarily.
>
> Actually I think I'm done except for this question:
> How do you propose governments achieve their goals
> except by regulation (that is afterall what to govern means)
> and provisioning (which necessarily involves participation
> in the market place)?
Did I not mention enforcing just weights and measures? That is
regulation. Also making sure contracts are honored and fraud is either
prevented or punished.
Bob Kolker
>
forbi...@msn.com
Don't go changing context like that. It's ill becoming.
The context of my comment was in relationship to a trust
whose purpose was to distribute the wealth of the dead,
that is the generational transfer of wealth for the purpose of
community gain rather than personal gain. Do you not understand
fiduciary responsibility? I don't mean any personal gain one
gets that is of a non-economic nature from doing a good job
or of an economic nature that is a side-effect of doing a good
job but rather of a direct economic nature where one maximizes
one's own gain by the way one distributes trust funds (or not.)
Are you so selfish that you cannot see the possibility of altruism?
Robert Kolker
>
> Are you so selfish that you cannot see the possibility of altruism?
I am so selfish as to despise altruism. It exists in great abundance to
our great misfortune. I prefer enlightened self interest.
Hillel said it best:
If I am not for myself, who then is for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, then when?
When asked by a gentile stranger to sum up the Torah in a sentence,
Hillel answered: What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.
Bob Kolker
forbi...@msn.com
Robert Kolker wrote:
> forbi...@msn.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I will set aside how well it is meeting these goals but instead
> > focus on the place of government in the market place in meeting
> > these goals. That is, I will examming your assertion that "The only
> > mechanism necessary to guide capitalism is the market place."
> > To me it is a bit like saying consumers and producers have no
> > place in the market place.
>
> Producers and consumers include owners of factories, managers of
> factories (business buy and use stuff). That also includes end users.
How should government provision without involvement in the market
place?
Do you suppose the goods and services government needs to do its job
does not involve the market place? I'm looking at your assertion that
"The only mechanism necessary to guide capitalism is the market place."
> People who sell their labor at market prices are just as much part of
> the capitalist system as those who buy labor at market prices. We are
> all capitalists as long as we want to transact business voluntarily.
No, capitalism involves the market place but is a specific philosophy
concerning the acrual of benefit to the owners of capital in the form
of
the means of production, for instance the owner of the hammer rather
than the user of the hammer. There can still be a market for pies even
when the oven is communal.
> > Actually I think I'm done except for this question:
> > How do you propose governments achieve their goals
> > except by regulation (that is afterall what to govern means)
> > and provisioning (which necessarily involves participation
> > in the market place)?
>
> Did I not mention enforcing just weights and measures? That is
> regulation. Also making sure contracts are honored and fraud is either
> prevented or punished.
Are you going to add anything else? What about providing for the
common defense? How about establishing Justice? How about
ensuring Tranquility? etc.
forbi...@msn.com
> forbi...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > Are you so selfish that you cannot see the possibility of altruism?
>
> I am so selfish as to despise altruism. It exists in great abundance to
> our great misfortune. I prefer enlightened self interest.
Do you think patriotism is for saps? (I think patriotism is too
limiting
but that's another matter.)
Do you think charities are for saps?
What morals do you have?
What makes "self interest" "enlightened"?
Nospam
> Without personal gain we should all be eating grass. The farmer who
> grows more food than he eats is doing it for personal gain.
Correct.
Also if all the wealth is looted by landlord and the landworker is left
without any personal gain, do you think he is going to get motivated to
produce harder ?
Nospam
> That is why the government should get out of the business of giving some
> businesses the advantage over other businesses. The only mechanism
> necessary to guide capitalism is the market place. We don't need no
> steeenking government other than to guarantee just weights and measures.
Bob went back to his original job to cite propaganda verses :-)
The truth is however otherwise. The libertarian "free market" theory it is
just a big lie. "Free market" does not exist into anything than a very
small scale. If a real market is let loose it will end up by self
destruction, it will eliminate it own freedom.
Some uncompetitive advantages, the most important being the size advantage
act as a positive reaction loop into the system. From the control theory
however we know that usually a positive reaction make the system unstable
in many cases so unstable that the system end up destroying itself.
You become bigger, you have more savings into the production process.
You get more customers from your competition, your competition shrinks
therefore having higher costs.
You become bigger, sell cheaper, draw more customers. Competition goes out
of business.
There is no more competition left on the market. There is no free market
anymore.
The only way to keep a "free market" functional is to regulate with a strong
external negative reaction loop. But this in not (at least from
libertarians point of view) a free market anymore.
Any attempt to claim that a libertarian style "free market" can actually
exist it is either a lie either a display of total ignorance of the
mechanisms at work.
Assume you drive a car and you are on a colision path with a wall:
- negative reaction (keynesianism). Slowly break and turn the wheel into the
opposite direction.
- positive reaction (free market libertarianism ). Stay on course and push
gas.
Robert Kolker
>
> Are you going to add anything else? What about providing for the
> common defense? How about establishing Justice? How about
> ensuring Tranquility? etc.
The Preamble to the Constitution is a motherhood statement, not law. Law
begins with Article I. Maintaining an army and a navy is not an economic
matter. All states have maintained armed forces since ever there were
states and this is independent of what kind of economy exists in the
society. As for establishing justsice, I presume you mean courts of law.
Since Justice must be Just it cannot be bought and sold so it is not a
market commodity. Every state that ever existed has had some kind of law
and enforcement, be it just or not.
I was specifically referring to the system of producing goods and
services privately. Government regulation need only be minimal. We don't
need no steeenking welfare state or fascist corporate state.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert Kolker
> Robert Kolker wrote:
>
>>forbi...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you so selfish that you cannot see the possibility of altruism?
>>
>>I am so selfish as to despise altruism. It exists in great abundance to
>>our great misfortune. I prefer enlightened self interest.
>
>
> Do you think patriotism is for saps? (I think patriotism is too
> limiting
> but that's another matter.)
Patriotism is just self interests written in capital letters. Since my
country is my house it pays for me to protect my house. If it happens to
be your house to, so be it.
>
> Do you think charities are for saps?
No. It is a small price to pay to help the impecunious from doing
dreadful things. I will happily pay ten cents on the dollar to help me
keep the other ninety cents.
>
> What morals do you have?
>
> What makes "self interest" "enlightened"?
Very simple. What is hateful to one's self don't do to other people. And
avoid counterproductive behaviour. That is all the morality I need.
Hillel said it better than I can.
Bob Kolker
Nospam
> The Preamble to the Constitution is a motherhood statement, not law.
AKA Libertarian interpretation of Constitution:
Whatever allow rich to screw the hardworking is a law.
Whatever allow a decent live from the income earned by hardwork it is an
insignificant statement.
Day Brown
call a 'dependency' syndrome. Rather manage your resources, so that when
the day comes that you meet another sentient being, you have enough to
help educate him and create another *independent* being.
Who will then propagate his genes in the pool rather than social parasites.
forbi...@msn.com
I think I can work from your position.
Did you read Day Brown's reply to this article?
Sometimes my words are not exact. I think if they could
some long dead people would say the same about their words.
There's an interesting article about Hillel at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder
Early on it gives this aditional famous saying:
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And when I am only for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?
I think you should think about that second question.
-----
There's just so much to cover and to keep somewhat relavant
to the three groups in which this line is posted.
I think avoiding contraproductive behavior is a good
guiding principle but it may be hard to determine.
Sometimes one has to move out of a local maximum
to find a better one but the heuristic may not always
work--I cannot tell if there is water over the next hill
until I make the journey.
Markets are almost always a good approach to cutting
through the noise. Consider your statements about
charity:
It is a small price to pay to help the impecunious
from doing dreadful things. I will happily pay ten cents
on the dollar to help me keep the other ninety cents.
Rather than worrying about what you will happily pay you
could consider the market place. It will set the going rate.
To rail against the rate but take no action to move the
setting price isn't productive. Unless that is your goal
it is contraproductive.
-----
This article already has randomness in it. I'll stop now
so as to avoid helter-skelter but there is much more to
discuss. I think I can even bring this back to the subject
line but not quickly.
Robert Kolker
>
> Early on it gives this aditional famous saying:
>
> If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
> And when I am only for myself, what am I?
> And if not now, when?
>
> I think you should think about that second question.
I do. That is where rational self interest comes in.
Bob Kolker
No Justice
"Robert Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3dOdnRi0_9c6E2zZ...@comcast.com...
>
> Who is more likely to provide you with an opportunity of gainful
> employment? A prole or a capitalist. The rich do more for the society
> person for person than the Proles.
>
Marx once claimed that the goal of capitalism was to separate a worker from
the fruits of his labor. Without labor, one cannot build capital. In
essence, capital is not money-it is the accumulation of labor!
The problem with modern American capitalism is that the capitalists are
using the organs of government to manipulate the laws of supply and demand
in their favor. When a company is legally able to import "bound" labor to
reduce its costs, it is in effect receiving a subsidy from the government,
which is a form of socialism. IMHO, any company that cannot turn a profit
without the use of bound labor has a non-viable business model.
Robert Kolker
>
>
> Marx once claimed that the goal of capitalism was to separate a worker from
> the fruits of his labor. Without labor, one cannot build capital. In
> essence, capital is not money-it is the accumulation of labor!
It is also machinery, technique, technology. Ultimately all capital is
grounded in human intelligence. Money is just a convention for
exchanging valuables. However money lent or invested transforms into
opportunity to create and produce.
The accumulation of brute repetative labor is of very little value.
Repetative labor occurs when a human functions like a machine or a
robot. This is behaviour typical of the Proles who are largely brutish.
In H.G.Welles -The Time Machine- the Proles became the Morlocks who
gorged on the flesh of their betters.
Your typical Prole is nasty and brutish.
Bob Kolker
No Justice
>
> It is also machinery,
Machinery is the product of the accumulation of labor!
> technique
Technique is also the result of the accumulation of labor!
> technology.
Yet another instance of the accumulation of labor!
> Money is just a convention for
> exchanging valuables. However money lent or invested transforms into
> opportunity to create and produce.
>
However, an investment cannot grow with labor. Once again, capital is the
accumulation of labor.
> The accumulation of brute repetative labor is of very little value.
> Repetative labor occurs when a human functions like a machine or a
> robot.
However, in the absence of a machine capable of doing the work, this kind of
labor is still transformed into capital. Without the ability to separate
those who toil from the fruits of their labor, capitalism fails. Checkmate!
Deodiaus
to "economic incentatives to businesses." The other day, I interviewed
at a hi-tech company which proudly proclaimed that they receive
$15K/employee in gov't incentatives. Sort of reminds me of NY in 2002
with Guilani's NYC redevelopment program, which gave out money
($10K/employee-yr) to keep business in NYC. At the same time, they
were trying to pass a commute tax at a tune of $10K/yr. The NY Stock
Exchange got a 99 year lease without paying taxes to NYC. If NYC is
not viable as a business, the its time to let economic forces reshape
it. Fundamentally, NYC & Silicon Valley are too overpriced, yet when
it comes time to pay the piper, the taxpayer is stuck with the bill.
Isn't that the advice the US gave to Eastern Europe. Seems like we
want state-sponcered capitalism. But why should I pay? No one is
bailing me out if my software company goes belly up. That's because I
don't have cronies in office who will award me $50M for projects like
the Total Information Network.
Similarly, I hear about the census bureau "sharing information" about
people with marketing companies. Great, all we need is some grunt
working the phonebooths in India knows more about my house and
financial status then my neighboor.
No Justice
"However, an investment cannot grow without labor."
Robert Kolker
> The sentence "However, an investment cannot grow with labor." should read
> "However, an investment cannot grow without labor."
What kind of labor. The repetitive no-brain labor of the brutish Prole.
Or the intelligent labor of the inventor or engineer.
Manny Feld
Nospam
> What kind of labor. The repetitive no-brain labor of the brutish Prole.
> Or the intelligent labor of the inventor or engineer.
Bob, Bob ...
1. Without the Prole, the engineer would not have food to eat to design the
thingy and no raw materials to build the thingy from.
Well, the fact that the thingy once build will replace the Prole ....well
that is unavoidable and it is called progress. And that is the reason we
need the ability to provide to Prole education he will not be able to
afford.
2. If you look at business environment in last 5 years the corporations
attack is rather concentrated against the position of intelligent labor.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/05/_the_opportunit.html
And as in a recent post I showed (about DuPont pensions), this attacks seems
rather motivated by pure malice. Benefits and jobs are cut not because the
companies can not afford them, as mater of fact they have record profits.
But just because "this is the trend on the market" as DuPont said recently.
It is a very well orchestrated trend to do harm to employees in purpose just
because you can do so, and this include both intelligent workers and
Proles.
There is a word of wisdom that say: Never assume Evil if the stupidity can
be the answer. But the last trend in the corporate world can not be
explained neither by stupidity neither by common greed.
It is a pathological greed among businessmans pushed way over any limit
of decency, common sense, and even business sense. It is pure EVIL !!!
Day Brown
was egalitarian; almost 100% middle class.
When a poor girl showed up, she was examined. The stupid bitches were
not bred, but drafted into the brothels. This got the support of stupid
men. Nobody had any problems with a 'welfare' class.
No Justice
>
> What kind of labor. The repetitive no-brain labor of the brutish Prole.
> Or the intelligent labor of the inventor or engineer.
>
Millions of businesses throughout the world build capital with quote-unquote
no-brain labor. For example, most of the positions in the landscaping and
construction industries require little in the way of skills; however, both
industries are very profitable.
As I stated earlier, capital is nothing more than the accumulation of labor.
QED!