The rich aren't just screwing us, now they've taken to screwing each other.

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

Just as XYZ originally made our nation richer by putting Americans to work in the first place. Had XYZ not opened its doors in the first place, all those people would still be out of work.

When was the last time that a collective in Flint or Detroit leased one of those empty factory buildings and starting producing a product and employing the unemployed. Those buildings are just sitting there, waiting for the collective to act. The UAW could go into business tomorrow and show the rest of the world how it is to be done.

Why don't they do that?

Maybe they should. Wouldn't be the first time that such a thing has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...wned_companies

And union thugs or not, it's hard to imagine that they could run the company into the ground any more effectively than the clowns that used to be running the show.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

Maybe they should. Wouldn't be the first time that such a thing has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...wned_companies

And union thugs or not, it's hard to imagine that they could run the company into the ground any more effectively than the clowns that used to be running the show.

Yeah, that list of employee-owned companies really establishes that fact.

Not wishing to go through the entire list, let's take one probably more typical example; W. L. Gore Company. Are you familiar with them? I am.

Bill Gore worked for DuPont for a number of years. DuPont developed the technology for insulating electrical wire with Teflon, but DuPont didn't see a big enough market for that technology, so they let Bill Gore "have" it.

Bill started making wire at his home and in my wife's uncle's garage. They produced some pretty good material, but on one early, big order, there were some green particulates mixed in with the insulation. Analysis showed that they were lawn clippings.

Early on, they also couldn't pay my wife's uncle his salary, so they paid him in stock instead. He became one of those employees/owners. He went to Scotland for a number of years to support their new business there, too. Over time, his Gore stock increased substantially in value and his widow is now a very comfortable woman.

So.....no "collective" there. In fact, it is the story of the classic entrepreneur, risking everything to make his company successful.

So I'm still waiting for a successful "collective" success story.

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

Yeah, that list of employee-owned companies really establishes that fact.

Not wishing to go through the entire list, let's take one probably more typical example; W. L. Gore Company. Are you familiar with them? I am.

Bill Gore worked for DuPont for a number of years. DuPont developed the technology for insulating electrical wire with Teflon, but DuPont didn't see a big enough market for that technology, so they let Bill Gore "have" it.

Bill started making wire at his home and in my wife's uncle's garage. They produced some pretty good material, but on one early, big order, there were some green particulates mixed in with the insulation. Analysis showed that they were lawn clippings.

Early on, they also couldn't pay my wife's uncle his salary, so they paid him in stock instead. He became one of those employees/owners. He went to Scotland for a number of years to support their new business there, too. Over time, his Gore stock increased substantially in value and his widow is now a very comfortable woman.

So.....no "collective" there. In fact, it is the story of the classic entrepreneur, risking everything to make his company successful.

So I'm still waiting for a successful "collective" success story.

What is this post trying to prove? That an employee owned company can be successful?

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

What is this post trying to prove? That an employee owned company can be successful?

No, it simply proves, once again, that companies are started by entrepreneurs who risk their all to create a company (not "collectives"), and those companies will tend to go where they have the greatest chance of success. Bill Gore started a company to provide a product that he thought the market needed and would provide him with a product. He became rich because of his efforts (and a lot of his fellow employees became rich, too).

He is exactly the kind of guy that higher taxes would discourage from going into business, would make it more difficult to obtain and pay back financing, and on whom you would load up more regulations to keep him from moving his company out of the country.

Gore started his company in 1958. In 1960 he moved out of his home into his first rented space. By 1970, Gore and its subsidiary companies had manufacturing plants for wire and cable in Arizona, Scotland, Germany, and Japan. Your proposals/regulations would apparently discourage him from starting plants in those foreign lands and sending jobs over there.

He represents the very kind of industrialist that you have been complaining about.

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

No, it simply proves, once again, that companies are started by entrepreneurs who risk their all to create a company (not "collectives"), and those companies will tend to go where they have the greatest chance of success. Bill Gore started a company to provide a product that he thought the market needed and would provide him with a product. He became rich because of his efforts (and a lot of his fellow employees became rich, too).

He is exactly the kind of guy that higher taxes would discourage from going into business, would make it more difficult to obtain and pay back financing, and on whom you would load up more regulations to keep him from moving his company out of the country.

Gore started his company in 1958. In 1960 he moved out of his home into his first rented space. By 1970, Gore and its subsidiary companies had manufacturing plants for wire and cable in Arizona, Scotland, Germany, and Japan. Your proposals/regulations would apparently discourage him from starting plants in those foreign lands and sending jobs over there.

He represents the very kind of industrialist that you have been complaining about.

He's not the type of industrialist I've been complaining about and you know it. The type I'm complaining about would buy out his company after it became successful and proceed to make the working conditions for the employees who contributed to that success crappy enough to drive them away.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

He's not the type of industrialist I've been complaining about and you know it. The type I'm complaining about would buy out his company after it became successful and proceed to make the working conditions for the employees who contributed to that success crappy enough to drive them away.

Right.

So tell me how you get the one and not the other? How do you legislate a thing like that?

Bill Gore made a lot of money.
Bill Gore opened factories overseas.

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. Attempts to eliminate the "bad guys" will inevitably eliminate the "good guys" too.

Put the greasy mop away. That fancy executive's home belongs to Bill Gore. I know that his house looks just like the BP execs home that lives on one side of him and the Goldman Sachs broker who lives on the other side, both of whom may, indeed, be reprehensible, but you don't want to eliminate the Bill Gores or the Jon Huntsmans just to get even with the slimeballs who live in the same neighborhood.

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

Right.

So tell me how you get the one and not the other? How do you legislate a thing like that?

Bill Gore made a lot of money.
Bill Gore opened factories overseas.

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. Attempts to eliminate the "bad guys" will inevitably eliminate the "good guys" too.

Put the greasy mop away. That fancy executive's home belongs to Bill Gore. I know that his house looks just like the BP execs home that lives on one side of him and the Goldman Sachs broker who lives on the other side, both of whom may, indeed, be reprehensible, but you don't want to eliminate the Bill Gores or the Jon Huntsmans just to get even with the slimeballs who live in the same neighborhood.

The common differentiator between the type of guy I respect and the guys who are nothing but an opportunists is their humanity. They actually care about the people who work for them. I know the guy who started the company I work for fairly well and it was the corporate influence (which was still relatively minor when he was here) that drove him away. Since then, the corporate influence has gone whole hog and the talent exodus is ramping up as we speak.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

The common differentiator between the type of guy I respect and the guys who are nothing but an opportunists is their humanity. They actually care about the people who work for them. I know the guy who started the company I work for fairly well and it was the corporate influence (which was still relatively minor when he was here) that drove him away. Since then, the corporate influence has gone whole hog and the talent exodus is ramping up as we speak.

I don't disagree with that. I was talking to a friend last night who described how a vice president in a flooring company needed to move back to Texas to be close to his ailing father. This vice president tendered his resignation because he knew he couldn't be a vice president and move to Texas. So the president of the company said, "fine, we'll make you a regional sales manager again...give me a list of which salespeople you want reporting to you." The guy put together this list and just happened to include my friend, who was working in Utah. From a geography standpoint, that list made no sense, but the change was made anyway. My friend said he frequently worked 3-4 hours longer because this guy had asked for him to be part of his region.

In this case, another American company/executive showed a lot of humanity.

So, how do you get humanity?
And how do you measure it.....you know, so you don't light up an exec's home with a lot of humanity and miss one with little/none?

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

I don't disagree with that. I was talking to a friend last night who described how a vice president in a flooring company needed to move back to Texas to be close to his ailing father. This vice president tendered his resignation because he knew he couldn't be a vice president and move to Texas. So the president of the company said, "fine, we'll make you a regional sales manager again...give me a list of which salespeople you want reporting to you." The guy put together this list and just happened to include my friend, who was working in Utah. From a geography standpoint, that list made no sense, but the change was made anyway. My friend said he frequently worked 3-4 hours longer because this guy had asked for him to be part of his region.

In this case, another American company/executive showed a lot of humanity.

So, how do you get humanity?
And how do you measure it.....you know, so you don't light up an exec's home with a lot of humanity and miss one with little/none?

Not sure there's a simple answer to that. The probablility of finding humanity in a guy who has started his own business and made it a success is way higher than it is with a corporate guy who has clawed his way up. But I've even know corporate guys who were cool (not many though).

<sarcasm> A note to would be patriots... Bombs are pretty indiscriminate - you can do better. And be sure you know the guy you're after is a real scumbag.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

Not sure there's a simple answer to that. The probablility of finding humanity in a guy who has started his own business and made it a success is way higher than it is with a corporate guy who has clawed his way up. But I've even know corporate guys who were cool (not many though).

Humanity is a moral virtue. Like all moral virtues, it can't be measured by anyone other than The Creator. There is a popular phrase "you can't legislate morality." That is undoubtedly true. You can't force a person to be "humane" to others, just as you can't force a person to respect his marital vows. We try and put some limits a person's ability to lie and cheat, but people still do that anyway.

As you and I both know, church attendance doesn't determine if someone is going to be "humane." Some peope attend church and the message goes right over their head. However, there is hope that it will sink in for some of them. It is more likely that a person attending church is going to hear a sermon about ethics and morality than a guy who sits all day in his basement playing video games.

It is true that many people who have built their company from the ground up are going to treat their employees well, but there are many exceptions to that rule, too. Compare Jon Huntsman Sr. with James Sorenson. The two couldn't be more different in how they treated their employees, yet both built their companies from the ground up and became wildly successful. In my mind, there is no doubt who I would rather work for.

<sarcasm> A note to would be patriots... Bombs are pretty indiscriminate - you can do better. And be sure you know the guy you're after is a real scumbag.

Wise advice. Since many tea party patriots are Christian, you can also encourage them with statements like "judgment is mine and I shall repay." Generally we rely upon the court system to determine scumbag quotient. Mobs aren't any more descrimiinatory than are bombs.