American Greatness?

  The role of government should be limited always. There are times when government can advise that its citizens act a certain way or take certain precautions, but it should never mandate that citizens follow the dictates of what it deems best. Such mandates are usually laws that at least have been debated, and have been voted on. Though as we have seen in this recent pandemic all common sense has given way to panic and fear. Now all government edicts it seems are neither debated or voted on, but rather imposed upon the people without debate or the consent of the people. Such edicts usually carry a sense of emergency action is needed and that government norms need to be dispensed with, because of the supposed public crisis. Have we become sheep that will simply follow the tyranny of government? There are those of us who refuse to give into such tyrannical and illegal mandates willingly.

    I walked into a public park the other day without wearing a face covering, and there were still those who despite the state mandate being lifted were still wearing masks. I refuse to give into fear while in public. I might have to wear a mask while at work since that is the policy of my employer. But I refuse to wear one outside in a public space.

    One other thing that has become clear during this pandemic to some is that America needs a rebirth. A rebirth to what? Some would say to the greatness that use to define America. But what defined America during the age of greatness was freedom, independence and self sufficiency. So any rebirth of America must be based on the common acceptance that American citizens should be independent, self-sufficient, and in doing so not require or request government aid, lastly a greater respect for liberty/freedom.

Another trait that made America great was the countries’ willingness to accept immigrants from other nations. The idea of immigrant quotas and legal immigration vs. illegal immigration are new ideas that occurred in the last fifty years of the last century. Why? Out of fear many Americans felt that a lot of immigrants would take jobs away from those citizens already here. In the 1800’s and in the early part of the 1900’S America had open immigration. No borders. If you wanted the rights of citizenship you applied then granted all rights and privileges of being a American citizen. There is longer that strong sense of courage and need for immigrants in our communities. But the truth of the matter is that America is dependent on immigration to renew a citizenry that stagnates and where birth rates decline.

One step in the return to open borders is to do away with granting “illegal” immigrants access to welfare. Immigrants should come here knowing that they will get little help in resettling. Let that be the work of charities not government.

There are many freedoms that we assume that we have an unfettered right to, but government may beg to differ. Since when does a free people bend to the whims of government? When fear overrides common sense, and the people give into the unlawful mandates of both local and federal governments. In other words there are those of today's recent generation who would trade their freedom for a false sense of security. So do we not need a fearless people who seek to be free from any false sense of security that the government may pretend to offer? Thus we as a people have lost the virtue of bravery. To boldly go where others refuse to go out of fear. Or to bravely give refuge to those who would have none despite circumstance. And it is that trait of fearlessness that we need to instill in future generations, so that they don’t make the same mistake that current generations have made.

American greatness? That is a title that can only be given to America through the lens of looking back through history. For it is the job of the current generations of America to work up to the founding ideals of this country securing freedom for all citizens and those immigrants who wish to join in the plenty that liberty has to offer.

The Lost Virtues of life.

            With all the tech advances in society in the last hundred years something has been lost. That something are virtues that people use to take pride in exhibiting. Though a few virtues like being able to work hard, and being organized never go out of fashion. But one virtue in this age of seemingly endless plenty is the notion of being frugal. If you are frugal in this day and age chances are you are part of a very small minority. We seem to live in an age of excess driven by the endless promotions of corporations. Corporations are not going to tell us to be frugal, no they want us to spend our hard earned money on their products. Granted this is all part of living in a capitalist world. But a world in which we are free to choose which products to buy. Or rather whether or not how frugal we wish to be. Frugal doesn’t mean we don’t like to spend money. Rather to be frugal can also mean a person prefers to save and invest their money to build it up for a later time.

    Another virtue that would have been taken for granted in another time period would be to be independent. People rely so much on government for some kind of assistance or protection from hateful speech rather than to think for themselves as to how to get by in this world. Then you have younger generations who rely on their parents for support far longer than used to be the norm. Young people seem set the all or nothing attitude. They want a job in a certain field or no job at all, and are content to live off the good will of others until they find that “perfect” job.

    Which leads me to mention another of those forgotten virtues. Responsibility. People seem to have forgotten how to be responsible and accept responsibility for themselves and their families. Responsible people focus on getting the basic needs of their family taken care of. Those basic needs are a roof over their heads. Food on the table. Clothes to wear. People shouldn't ignore their responsibility in getting these basics for their family, and expect big government to provide them. That's a sign of laziness. Or to have money but take government assistance all the same might be thought of as theft. Why get food assistance if you wear fancy clothes and drive a seemingly expensive car? Why pay with food stamps if you are showing off your seemingly abundant wealth? You should be paying with cash not with a government card for those groceries. 

Much could be said about responsibility and the need for people to take care of their own spiritual life. Just like getting the necessities of life so too must a person accept responsibility for their own spiritual well being. It’s not up to some aunt to pray for you and your redemption. A person must make that effort themselves.

Responsibility is such a big word that weighs a lot on people. Sometimes it's almost too much for some.

Thoughts on Individualism....

Some thoughts on the notion of Individualism.

Individualism is what made America great. It was the nature of frontier life where the individual was solely dependent on what they made  with their own hands that allowed them to survive on their own in the wild, amidst a hostile environment from both the native Americans and the elements of the weather. As time progressed society and civilization throughout the country, with the various advances in technologies, the increase in  the trade of America's abundant resources. In the 1800's trains were invented that allowed the increased transportation of large bulk goods such as steel, coal and logs that were the fundamental building blocks of this country. It has been through trade that man has felt the power of individualism, that of providing for himself and that of his family through the advantage of trade. 

    But above all individualism is about responsibility. To be responsible is the ability to care for oneself without outside help in the form of government direction. The government can’t help us when the power goes out. It's’ not going to light a fire for us to keep us warm. Nor is it going to light candles for us to see through the darkness. Thus we as individuals have to make the choices that make us responsible for our well being. We don’t want the government caring for us since it never ends well. When the government takes more and more control over our lives then we are going down that rabbit hole of socialism. 

But on the other hand it's the younger generations who are used to having everything given to them by their parents, and who are more politically active, that they believe that the government should do more, have more control over their lives. So that they don’t have to be so responsible. Or rather who don’t have to accept responsibility for their well being since they can replace parent direction with government protection and direction. Why should people care about student loans when they can get the government to forgive their loans? Again why be responsible when people can get others to care for them? But then you are being a burden to society rather than being a responsible, productive member of society. Thus being responsible and individualistic becomes a virtue, and a desirable trait that active members of society should exhibit.

An enriched life vs. a shallow life.

       A shallow life is the sort of story a person writes for themselves that is to me is all wrong and messed up. A shallow life is a life of satisfying one's own needs for pleasure and greed. A person might not have much but they will order the most expensive dinner, drink all the alcohol that they can afford at the moment. A person who leads a shallow life is consumed by consumption, they must spend money on something so that they feel good about themselves. People who lead a shallow life think nothing of racking up debt, borrowing money from others, or lack any form of pride and will just beg for money from strangers. Another characteristic of a person who leads a shallow life is fact that such people like to waste time by doing nothing creative by sitting in front of the TV watching movies or sports. Also another thing about shallow people is that they tend to avoid religion, thus they might lack any sense, or desire for direction for their lives. Then again they are happy with their directionless life. These shallow people waste not only time but the potential of what could have been with their lives.

An enriched life on the other hand is led by the virtuous. They see the value in saving money, and working hard. A person who leads enriched life appreciates the arts, plays, performances put on by local performers. A person who leads an enriched life finds value to tending to their homes whether it is mowing the lawn or maintaining the house somehow. These people also lead orderly lives and have religion in their lives, they seek to do good by putting the needs of others above their own. A enriched person values the small things in life such as the time spent with family by taking them out on family outings on the weekends by going to the beach or state/national parks. Other characteristics of an enriched life might include an interest in increasing ones savings and investments. Or taking an interest in political or world affairs that might have ripple effects that might somehow shape their lives. People who lead rich lives have goals, they want to elevate themselves above where they are. These are the sort of people who want better for themselves and who are not happy with the same old same old.

There's a difference in the way a shallow person holds a conversation and the way a person leads an enriched life holds a conversation. A shallow person talks mindlessly about nothing, and or about nothing of importance. A person who leads enriched life holds a conversation of value. When they speak they speak with words of value they say things that are worth listening to. Cell phones are part of the problem in part because of their ease of use which people take advantage of and abuse to chatter endlessly about nothing.

Modern technology is wonderful in that it allows us to share knowledge and everyone is able to collaborate on different ideas. Further technology allows for increased advances in all parts of society thus continuing to elevate the human race. But at the same time advances in technology also have the adverse effect of allowing people to remain shallow and being even more so. Though the counter to this technology can also allow for greater human enrichment thus advancing the human race. An example of how shallow technology can allow people to be is the online social network. Social network use to be a term associated with the group of people that a person was affiliated with. Now the term refers to online communities where people can instant chat and share pictures with each other and even gast! Up date their status. What value do these people add to the overall conversation of life? What value is there to people being online in the online social networks? When people socialize in person with their social networks at least they are interacting with others in a personal way, and the families could even get involved when families of the social network gather with their families. Are not extended families a form of a social network? The extend family is the basis for all other social networks. What might be good about technology for human enrichment is the fact the ease to which knowledge can be share with others. So basically we have the internet which might mean the place where the collective knowledge of the human race is stored rather the pipe line on which we visit the websites for various reasons. The more people know the more educated people will be and be better prepared to make prudent choices.

I think inside each of us there's a desire to enrich their lives, but by enriching our lives we grow deeper as people. By that I mean that we add valued substance to our lives. Rather than grow and live a story that is quickly forgotten when we pass from this life and when enrich ourselves we build and grow stories that people who know will tell others after we have passed. Thus the greater contribution to society the better chance that we will be remembered with infamy, or with fame and fondness.

Eric............

Rethinking the ten percent charity rule.

At what point do we follow the rule we ought give ten percent of our income to charity? I believe that the idea we give ten percent of our income to charity should only apply if you have no debt and make more than what you need for living expenses. Then again do people need some of the things that they buy? Who really needs a cell phone? A basic cell phone would be fine. But as a society do we talk too much? We need to as a society start thinking in terms of need vs. want. Then we will have enough to survive plus some to give to charity. But on the other hand we might question whether or not the ten percent rule is still valid in light if the fact that government offers a host of social programs as a social safety net. When there was no social safety net then it was imperative that people give to charity, since charities were all that existed to help the poor and the destitute.

So if ten percent went to help the poor how much does government spend on social programs? For the sake of the argument if the average tax rate is around twenty percent which is often spent on social programs. So we have to ask do we give too much to charity? With the government safety net the poor and the destitute have a higher standard of living than most poor people in other countries of the world. Thus in my opinion the biblical role of charity is no longer relevant as long as the current safety net exists.

We might look at another issue of the safety net, which is does the safety net get abused? The undeniable answer is yes! There is no incentive for people to look for work somehow, when you have a government willing to give hand outs. People find its easy to lie to government agencies and defraud the system. There is no incentive for people to find work when government gives out food stamps for an unlimited amount of time. If a two or three year limit were placed on how long people could collect assistance then people would be willing to look for work all the sooner in order to pay for the food. What is needed is a higher level social auditing to ensure that the poor are not wasting their money on things that they don't need vs. the things that they do need. If a person asks for a hand out from the government then they ought to be willing to loose their right to seek pleasure through luxuries that cost more than they can afford.

It seems to me that if there is too much charity in a society then certain character traits that were once valued in members of society are lost and society as a whole faces increased costs associated with those lost values. For instance when America was first settled there was an expectation that all members of society would work hard, be frugal savers, have pride before taking charity. This is in contrast to the changes that have taken place over the last forty years. With the increase/proliferation of welfare programs society has taken away any desire or want by the individual for a better life if they live in poverty. It was a mistaken hope that welfare programs would lift people out of poverty. But the reality is the limitless welfare programs take away vale/incentive that a person might want to get out of poverty.

Furthermore the endless welfare programs have a part of society that is lazy, wasteful with little pride in their lives. Also the system encourages vices, and abuse such as fraud, and lying since people feel they don't have to work or not work as hard to get the same benefits of society as those who do work and have to save for those luxuries that they cannot afford. Therefore we as a society need to change our view of welfare programs as being a hand up and not a hand out. Reforms need to occur so that people receive government assistance of any type for a limited time. We need stricter guidelines, as well as tougher enforcement for who qualifies for government disability. Also people need to be reminded that Social Security is a retirement supplement, and should not be thought of as the primary means for retirement income. Only after we as a society have changed our views, can we perhaps return to a nation of frugal savers and industrious hard workers. 

Eric.............

Secularism vs. Religion...

       We live in a society that is either secular or religious, then there are the societies that are a mix of both. American society use to be that unique mix of being both religious and secular, and where no one worked Sunday's so that they could go to church then after-ward’s be with the family. That was the age of the blue laws, laws that limited what business could be open. But there has been a dramatic shift over the last thirty years to a more secular society. Religion still plays a part in our society but it has increasingly moved to the edges of our lives as the blue laws were lifted, and the pressures, demands of employers that employee's be available to work Sundays'. Thus secularism the notion that religion plays no role in our daily lives has allowed for unrestrained capitalism to take over our lives. We have come to live in a world that demands workers be available 24/7 to meet the demands of the consumer. Therefore secularism is the umbrella that is inclusive of anything that might be a part of the capitalist nature. Capitalism if left unrestrained seeks to push religion out of the way so that it dominates society. We have to ask does this mean that capitalism and religion are at war with each other? If they are at war with each other its because of whats valued the people. The people being society. Therefore the value to society is to have businesses open so that consumer demands and wants are met, when the consumer wants. Thus the role of capitalism seeks to meet and full fill those needs of the consumer, which on any day of the week is right and just. But when businesses have to be open on Sundays we that we have whole sectors of the economy that are open for businesses as usual. But for businesses to be open on Sundays requires that employee's be available to work. By working weekends employee's loose the time that they would have spent going to religious services and spending quality time with the family. One way to counter this secular dominance is society would be for to religion to see its self as a service. Thus being a service wouldn't it be better for religion to offer services during the week? For the Catholic church this would entail offering a full scale mass during the week rather than the shortened daily version that has been traditional. This in turn might encourage more people to attend church. The church could set up an offertory box at the entrance to the church vs. the poor box and passing the plate, those who do not give on the weekend could be encouraged to give during the week.

Its not that capitalism, and religion are at war for dominance in society, its what value do we place at having one or the other? Religion needs to break tradition and meet the needs of consumers/worshipers or rather the faithful if you prefer. Religion needs to see its self as a service to society. The very nature of service it provides is moral guidance, and the reverence, worshiper of the most high. The problem with religion is that it takes on a attitude of superiority and that all should kneel before religion, even capitalism. Its with this attitude that the supposed conflict arises between capitalism and religion. But what is missing on the part of religion is the realization that the people who worship at its churches, temples, mosques must work to survive. By working and surviving and attaining the means by which to take the time to worship, people are more likely to be generous in both in time and money towards religion. Religion should not look at capitalism as a threat but as the very means by which worshipers work to survive in this world. Thus it is religion that should show humility and offer religious services not only on the traditional religious days of the week but in the middle of the week on which the majority of weekend workers might have off. It might mean offering services every day of the week or a couple days of the week. Regardless of when the services are, religion needs to recognize that it is the workers/ worshipers who it needs to lead and guide in the the worship of the most high. By serving the needs of the people religion is serving the most high. Therefore religion and secularism can coexist if religion were to show humility and creativity by servicing the needs of the people.

Though we could look at the issue of secularism vs. religion from another angle. When has or does secularism bow down to religion? The answer to that question lies in the idea that there could possibly be some major attitude shift in society. Whereas society for some reason becomes more religious and demanding that society as a whole follow religious norms. Such a shift could occur if some religious figure were to emerge that had both religious authority and secular authority. Through such thinking we can see that as religion has lost its authority, it has lost its importance to society we can see the rise of secularism as religion has declined in the value of society. Thus the notion of religion submitting to secularism and seeing its self as a service to the people because it is the people who still seek moral guidance, but on the other hand reject the notion of moral superiority of religious elders since they lack any secular power by which they might enforce religious edicts. Furthermore we can take the idea of religion a step even further and say the religion becomes a religion of the people. Or rather a church of the people for the people with the express purpose of worshiping the almighty. Thus the role of the church elders goes into meeting the needs of the faithful.

So does religion have to be at odds with capitalism or secularism? Religion does not, nor should it be at odds with capitalism, but it can enhance and be the moral guiding light of choice thereby enhancing the consumer experience. But on the other hand secularism has no place for religion, and the only way for religion to be a more popular option than secularism is to not only understand better than secularism, but to be better at serving the needs of the people.

Eric.............

What's Valuable to Me.

What’s valuable to me? Right under my wife and my son, my privacy is important. I love my privacy. Rather hypocritical coming from a blogger right? But the fact of the matter is that I don’t like to give out too much info about myself. Okay you might find me on LinkedIn but I don’t like Facebook, and you won’t find me there. Despite using services from Google you won’t find me through the Google plus. Mark Zuckerberg might have this vision of having everyone united and connected through social networks, preferably through Facebook. If you ask me it seems that the more we connect and share with others on Facebook, or through other social networks we become more the Borg from the Star Trek series, and I’m definitely against that notion that we become connected like the Borg. I prefer to be individualistic, and allow for the creativity of the individual which can trump the collective mindset any time. The more we share the more we connect with others through the internet and social networks the more we tell companies about ourselves. I can have a conversation with a few people and know that what I just told them won’t will stay with them, if I had the same conversation online then companies can take what I said to try, and use it to sell to me or whoever else was in on the conversation, some product or service. Which is great for selling me product that I didn't even know I wanted or needed, but at the same time by having that conversation online I gave up my right to privacy because what said is now part of a data pool that is analysed and parsed for meaning and substance beyond the intended result. Thus the value of my privacy. If I value it, then I must safeguard it, right? The first rule here is limit what you say or do online. Another good rule use the tools available to surf online anonymously. There’s a whole host of tools that a person can use. The next rule is to never post a blog. I am in clear violation of my own rule here since I love sharing my thoughts with the world! Another good rule of thumb if a person values their privacy remain reclusive to the rest of the world. Do we need that set top tv box that we place our calendars and a list of our daily activities in? When use such services we are giving service providers and even Governments more information about our selves, so that they can either sell us adds or can monitor our activities. So in a nutshell if a person wants to protect their privacy they should limit their activities online. It’s almost like being a groundhog popping out of his hole only to duck back in it for safety. One last point about staying off line is that by doing so enables a person to stay off everyone’s radar. How can you be found if you don’t do anything online that might identify who you are, and what you do?

Eric........................

Should Government regulate what our children eat?

Should government tell us what to eat and how big of a portion we should have? Should government  limit the right our children to eat what they want? Should government forbid the freedom of parents, of school children to have bake sales, or sell candy bars for fundraisers? We have the right to choose however we see fit. Thus if we find pleasure in eating, then it is our right  to eat as we please. It is not the role of government to tell us what we can and cannot eat. The main role for government when it comes to the food chain is to ensure that food quality and food safety standards have been met. It is our right to find pleasure however we might please, so that we can eat as big of a portion as want or that our wallet says that we can afford to eat. Government has no right  to say what portion size that we may have when we eat out. When it comes to school lunches for the children, government's attitude is that if it's paying for the school lunch program then it has a “right” to tell schools and parents what the children can and cannot eat at lunch. It is with this same attitude that the government pays for our children’s  education, thus government claims it has a “right” to regulate what types  of food are sold on school premises. Thus if a food item is deemed unhealthy for everyone then that item needs to be banned from school premises, which has the same effect as outlawing that item to school children, thus barring its sale on public property. But this argument is flawed in a couple of ways. The first way that the government’s argument is flawed is the government assumption that since government pays for the program that it can  demand terms and conditions that the people must follow in order to participate. This line of  thinking is wrong since it is through revenue generated by the collection of taxes paid by the taxpayer, which gives government the funds to hand out for the school lunch program. Thus any and all authority resides with the taxpayer the source of government revenues. The second reason as to why government thought is wrong, is that such mandates and regulations infringe on a person’s right to freedom. Such an infringement by the government of a person's right to freedom whether its choice or its freedom of movement is so immoral as to make the government regulations illegal since they either limit or take away freedom. But one might say that this talk of freedom and rights is all and good in the real world but it cannot nor should it be applied to the school system and or its properties. Again this line of thought ignores the rights of the taxpayer parents in the education of their children. A parent has every right to say either that I don’t care what my kid eats at school for lunch so that they can buy whatever they want. Thus a child is learning about the importance of choice and the freedom of choice. Or a parent might say “I want my child to eat only healthy things, thus they will take the time and spend the money for healthy snacks and lunches. In this respect  the child is learning what to eat to be healthy. Thus two students are learning two different  lessons. One is learning about the empowerment of choice and the other is learning about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. A person might ask but what about students selling candy bars and or having bake sales  at their schools to help pay for after school programs? I am of the belief following my earlier line of thought that parents being taxpayers are in effect stakeholders in government. What this means is that through the payment of taxes taxpayers own a part of government. A person might believe that such a status might include certain rights or a privilege not accorded to those who pay no taxes. In theory it should, in reality it does not. In theory parents being taxpayers, and thus stakholders in government would have the right to organize through  the PTO’s bake sales, cookie sales and or candy sales to help fund  after school programs such as trips for the school band, equipment for sport programs etc. In reality the government does not recognize the status of the taxpaying parents as being stake holders in government and thus does not  recognize their right to pay for  such activities by any means they might deem fit and proper. By not recogizing the rights of parents as being stake holders, the the government is acting  ileagally and unconstitutionally by denying the parents the right to choose how after school activities ought to be paid for. Furthermore by the government saying any and all sales cannot take place anywhere on school grounds it is again acting in an unconstitutional manner since it fails to either recognize or acknowledge that school grounds are like parks in that they too are public property. If the school grounds are public like the parks then the government cannot deny their use by the taxpaying public since it is the taxpayer who pays for their matience and up keep in the first place. Thus we have a government assuming rights never accorded  to it while denying the people their rights. So in effect government squashes the rights of the people so that it might assume those rights never accorded to it, nor meant to have. To summerize then the government has no right, to tell us what to eat. The government has no right what size portions we should eat. The government has no right to tell our children what they can and cannot eat. Lastly government has no right to forbid parent fund raisers on public school grounds since parents are taxpayers and thus stake holders in government.


Eric..................

Considering the Value of SMB's and Workers.

What is the value to society of a small business owner? What is a small business? A small business might be as  simple as selling flowers on a street corner, to an enterprise with 50 to 100 employees. A small business might serve a city or town. Such as being the only dry cleaner in town, or being the only ice cream stand around for miles. A small business might cater to a niche market and have selective buyers from all over the world. The more small businesses the better. Why? More Smb’s means that there are people willing to take risks in running a business. Furthermore more Smb’s mean more job opportunities for everyone. With job opportunities  comes the chance for a worker  to gain valuable experience. The more skilled a worker is the more money the skilled worker can demand to be paid. This in turn can help the Smb owner grow and expand  their business, in turn offering more job opportunities  to other persons seeking work. The cycle repeats itself in theory. In theory one worker or a small group of workers helps the Smb owner make their vision of their business a reality. Facebook is an example of a small group of workers who were skilled at computer programming and they helped Mark Zuckerberg turn his vision into reality. Zuckerberg needed skilled programmers to keep his business up and running, he needed it to be reliable and always on. Growth and expansion of the business created new opportunities  for other programmers, and even low level network technicians who were needed to build and maintain the server farms for Facebook’s website. Even the lawyers benefited from the success of Facebook. The bigger the company grew the more laws that started to apply to the corporation. Therefore there was a ripple effect in the economy in part just coming from the lawyer fees. But Facebook is an example of an Smb that grew into a corporate giant. Most Smb’s  don’t ever come close to the growth like Facebook did. Instead Smb’s focus on meeting the needs and demands of the local market that they serve. Typical Smb expansion might take the form of local of donut shop that gets very popular, then the owner decides to open another location across town. That location proven be profitable. In turn with every new location that is opened, and is proven to be profitable jobs are created, and people are able to buy life’s necessities even though it’s skilled or unskilled labor. Politicians like to hype the value of Smb’s when the run for office realizing the job generating potential that small companies create. As much as politicians want job creation they are always looking for new sources of revenue, and what better sources of revenue than the small businesses that are thriving and creating the very jobs that politicians love to hype so much. Not only does government seek to tax small business for additional revenue but it seeks to burden Smb’s with regulations that seek to protect the public and employees’ from every case of natural disasters and possible accidents in the workplace. All these regulations add costs to doing business for the small business owner. The more government regulate companies the more value it takes from the economy since the Smb owner might see the value of being in business dwindle away until they no longer see the value of operating their business. So at what point does government regulation becomes so burdensome as to stifle smb growth? That point is any point at which an entrepreneur no longer thinks that the value outweigh the costs of meeting regulations. Therefore though it seems unlikely, but politicians need to understand and weigh the costs to any proposed regulation that might overburden industry so as to might make it cost prohibitive to being in business. One could argue for tougher oversight of government agencies that make regulations on behalf of Congress, since these agencies are given the authority from Congress to make regulations as it sees’ necessary, which to me is wrong since the very notion of regulation making is left solely to Congress and the President according to the Constitution. Thus we could begin to look at the justification for government regulation and raise to question of the morality of certain regulations. But I will do that another time.

The value of employees.

Workers in donut shops might be considered unskilled labor since what they do can also be taught to anyone, thus they are easily replaced. Because of the value of the unskilled labor, their wages tend to be lower since society, and the market place value their skills less than that those of skilled labor. In contrast to this theory is the fact that many companies laid off/ fired some of their most skilled and knowledgeable people who tended to be older and who were expected to retire in twenty to fifteen years. Why? The most basic answer is because older more senior, in terms of years of service were making more money, as they get older their health care costs were expected to increase, thus costing the companies more than they were presumed  to be worth based in their skills. Thus the costs associated with an older worker rather than added value of the same worker became the determining factor as to whether to employ or fire certain workers. So we have a larger baby boomer population between the ages of 45-65, thus there are expected costs versus expected value. Are costs of an employee greater than, less than, or equal to the value that the employee adds to the company. Then we have to consider what effect  that the total cost and value of the employee will have on profitability. An example is the story of how Walmart for years had a position of greeter at all its stores. In theory here Walmart “valued” the position of greeter in its stores, greeting customers as they came in and acting as a security measure. But then Walmart determined that since the position was not a productive use labor capital that it need to cut the position from all its stores transitioning the costs to more productive uses of labor that are more profitable. So here Walmart determined  that the position of greeter was not as valuable to the companies bottom line, in a way it appears that it cut costs but in fact  it transitioned the costs of labor savings to the other departments that are more profitable for the company. In turn being more valuable to the company. In another example of value and employee cost is the notion in today’s corporate culture that unless the job you do can be billed to a customer you are not a valued employee because you are not adding to the companies bottom line. Today’s companies have to find the justification for the cost of having secretaries or administrative assistants as they are called. Again companies question what value admins add to an org. and whether or not the benefits of the costs  of a non billable position. Therefore job seekers in today’s tough job market have to be aware and ready to market what “value” they would bring to the company. In a nutshell companies care about two things when hiring new employees’ value and what increase in profitability can the company expect from the new hire, because companies have to be weigh the increased costs of bringing a new hire into the company. One might expect that unions might tap into the notion that companies value employees just for their ability to generate revenue for the company and that’s all companies value employees for. But that’s just it, the basic premise of any company is to generate revenue for the owners, and a return on investment. So the value basis of any employee in any company is that they help the company make a profit by providing some good or service, which without the work of an employee would not be possible.


Eric.................

Why we ask why.

Why do we ask why? Why do things work the way that they do? Why does the sun move around the sky? Why does the moon come out only at night? Why do we have to go to school? Why do we have to stop at a  red light? For every question that begins with why there's an answer. So why do we ask why? Perhaps it's our desire to know, to understand the reason as to why things happens, or the reason as to why we do things the way that we do things a certain way. Perhaps in knowing the reasoning behind the why we we then have order in our lives. Is is plausible the we need, we desire in our lives? Do we not create order in our lives? Do we not create structure in our lives? We have computers, smart-phones, that we use to keep track of our contacts and appointments. Do we not then have a form of order and structure in our lives? Another example is the fact that we have computers filled with data that is then transformed into information, that is then placed in a structure that we call a database. We collect data, sort, and organize it. Why? Because we like to know, to understand why others are doing the things that they are doing. We like to ask the question why. Why do consumers spend the way they do? We like to know such answers so that someone some where can make money by catering to consumer tastes and desires. We then have taken  our answer from why, and made it into something that a person can then take action in relation to our answer of why. Why becomes the goal of scientists as they seek the answers as to why something does what it does. Thus why becomes the principle question that we ask when  we don't understand something. The question why or how are interrelated in that they ask the same question just a little differently. Why then becomes a general question, that is in contrast to the how. When we ask how then we are asking for the specifics as to how something works. We might ask why does a computer work, or we might ask how does a computer work. Whats the difference? By asking why does a computer work  we could answer because it was made to work. Thus a general question met with a general answer. But a specific question, how does a computer work? Is answered with a very specific, and long and answer explaining the processes as to how a computer works. Therefore we have moved beyond why and now ask how. It is in answering how that our understanding and knowledge of something increases. We can see that there's a logical progression of human learning from the why to how do things work.