Still here

I figure I should post something every 3 years or so. Prolific blogging is probably not a strength of mine.

apparently....

Having been a community organizer who can speak well qualifies you to run multi-national automotive companies. Who knew????

reaction

The reaction over the last weeks to the AIG retention payments is curious to me. For several reasons.

1. Compensation for employees of AIG is necessarily based on market forces, as with any job. Supply of qualified labor, and demand for the same. Meaning if AIG had not offered compensation as they did, someone else would have. Then we'd have outrage against Company XYZ instead.

2. Goals for employees of AIG were necessarily driven by market forces. Their company exists to use money to make more money. The decisions they made and the products they sold were driven by the need to provide return on investment, for funds that were held by or at the very least affected millions of people.(a good many of whom would have been 'outraged' had their 401K's not performed) I don't remember hearing outrage when those funds were successful. Furthermore, had they not provided returns as they did, another manager or company would have.

3. Those receiving retention payments were employees. Unions propose to provide a better life for their members, better job security, and higher wages. It seems curious that they would begrudge the employees of AIG the same. Apparently if you join a Union, there will be some sort of ceiling to your earning potential, since we are so 'outraged' at the employees of AIG.

4. It is almost a certainty that every single person who is currently 'outraged', would not turn down a job offer paying the amounts received by the AIG managers. It would sound like this... "why thank you for that generous job offer, but I can't accept, because I believe I will be over-compensated". I just can't see it happening, and therefore any outrage is just jealousy.

5. If the compensation received by AIG employees is too much, how much is not too much? Who gets to decide this? Can 350 million people agree on this? Where is the line between over-compensation and fair compensation? I know I don't qualify to make this decision that will affect the freedom of others.


Do I agree that AIG did the right thing? I don't know. I wasn't there and I certainly don't believe all the one-sided information presented on radio, television and newspapers. (after all, what could be better for media companies than fueling a good 'outrage' once and a while?) Do I believe the AIG employees are evil?? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Are they more fortunate than others? Possibly. Did they work hard to get where they were? Certainly. I have never had to manage billions of dollars that affect millions of lives, but I know that should I be asked to, I'd want some serious compensation.

As for the use of taxpayer money, who's to say that had those managers not stayed on at AIG, that we'd be on the hook for much bigger losses costing much more than 165 million??

To me the current 'outrage' is simply confirmation that most people believe whatever they are told, and for the most part act like sheep.

still waiting....

Been listening left for two weeks..... still waiting for data.....

liberal month

So I am a bit biased towards conservatism. However. I thought I'd better listen to the other side for a while. For the next month my truck satellite radio will be set to America Left. In the last two days I haven't heard anyone put forth any reasonable, data-driven arguments, other than the need for better regulation and oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Today I heard lots of talk about the Employee Freedom of Choice Act, and how it MUST be passed to protect American workers. What I don't understand is what data is being used to support the fact that it WILL support American workers. I believe the opposite is true, and it will lead to fewer American jobs.

Being in management, I might be biased slightly anti-union. But there is a reason for this, and data to support this. I respect employees, and any good company does the same, union or not. Unfortunately, most of what I see out of a union is their attempts to do less work for more money, and their protection of poor performance. This is supported over and over again by the increasing inability of US and Canadian manufacturing to compete worldwide. There is a huge empty factory in the town in which I am working that stands as a monument to union achievement. (on the other side of the coin, I am sure there are non-union companies out there that do not respect their employees, and for them I have no sympathy should their workforce organize)

I do think if a union is truly interested in the success of a company, they can be a positive force, and they keep management and their own union members accountable. I have no problem with this, and in fact I welcome it. But that doesn't seem to be the norm.

I will continue to listen patiently to America Left.... maybe someone will present some data that shows more union power = more competitiveness globally, and will lead to more American jobs.

too funny

This photo isn't funny until you wonder where the guy in the 'soup kitchen' line up got the money for his cellphone. I absolutely love Rush Limbaugh's comments... and I quote... "Mrs. Obama serves at a soup kitchen, while the poor, suffering, starving masses...snap shots of her with their cellphones. Just like the Great Depression!"

Poor, suffering, and starving... probably only has a 32" TV at home, can't afford that 50" flat screen like all the other poor people have.

more bias

from the news...

"Donald Rieck, executive director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said the Obama team, which studies have shown received far more favorable press treatment during the campaign than its rivals, is apparently having trouble acclimating to a more critical press post-Inauguration Day. "

What, are they just noticing now that there was a huge media bias prior to election day??

People are like sheep.