Posted on 05/30/2009 7:31:15 AM PDT by Publius
LOL, I had exactly this situation occur to me. I was an employee in a small consulting firm, where we might price and accept small jobs ourself. I had a customer fight me on price for a certain job, and I lowered the price slightly, and he took it. Well, he demanded far more attention and handholding even than would have been expected by a normal customer who paid the price I originally quoted. So I was pissed, but I finally made it to the end of the job, after burning twice the man hours I expected. Then the Obama-head comes in and sits my boss and his down for like 45 minutes to snivel about the new lowered price!!! He probably burned half the price of the small job just in that meeting. So, anyway, despite his sniveling, a few months later he comes back with another job. I priced it at what it would be worth it to me to work for the guy, factoring in both the extra man hours and the unpleasant nature of having to deal with the prick. So this time my boss happened to see my price and said "But what if he thinks it's too expensive?" to which I had about 3 complete standalone rebuttals.
1) I quoted what it would be worth it to me to work for the guy, factoring in additional handholding and the unpleasantness of dealing with the guy. Since I had priced it that way, I no longer cared whether he took it or not.
2) The guy's a prick and will probably whine no matter what you charge, so why not make the price fit the whining?
3) For all his caterwauling about our price and service, here he was again with business, meaning one of two things: either the whining is a negotiating tactic, or he's such a dick none of our competitors would work for the guy so he had no choice.
In any of the three cases, the price was fine.
Germany and Japan after WWII. And the Warsaw Pact countries after the collapse of communism. They all repudiated the leaders and philosophy, for the most part, of what drove them into poverty in the first place.
I hope when our rebuilding begins we can do the same.
Good discussion, Still Thinking....signing off !
Thanks for the ping/post; thread. OUTSTANDING! Thanks to all contributors.
“Instead, turn of the century companies had the implied backing of government.”
Good point.
HST, turn of the 21st century UNIONS had the direct backing of government.
And cost twice that amount in the first year.
As soon as the deadbeats figure it out, they’ll disable themselves.
I refer you to Starnesville.
Another of Kennedy’s dumbass ideas!
**It was the unions that forced safety on the railroads, defining safety standards that still are in effect today.**
Actually much of the safety devices that saved the most lives was invented before Unions got big such as air brakes and the automatic coupler. Consumer desires for safety and government regulation lead to their adoption more than the unions.
In fact capitalist desires to improve profits has lead to changes as switching from more dangerious steam power to diesel and electric. When you take in account the amount of traffic the railroads continued to improve in safety from their earliest days until around the 1970’s. In the 70’s the union stranglehold and government overregulation caused an increase in train derailments due to poorly maintained tracks and poorly trained crews. Bankruptcy of railroads and deregulation and the weakening power of railroad unions ended the increase in derailments and other disasters and train derailments is much less common now.
It is like the auto industry. I saw a photo in an old life magazine of painters in safety garb painting cars on the assembly line in the 1960’s. Today it is done by robots with fewer long term health risks to workers. The auto unions fight to delay labor saving robotics on the line may of cost some workers their health.
As labor saving technology such as switching away from steam on the railroads reduced the workforce the numbers of workers killed or injured on the job would go down.
and...
According to Rand, Galt is declaring war against the philosophy of Altruism that forces some men to live for the benefit of other. Albeit willingly.
War had been declared upon John Galt, check your premises.
1) Is John Galt a man I would follow?
...Every man who has ever experienced combat knows that the knowledge of the potential self sacrifice of his friends for the team is what keeps him going. I don't see John Galt pledging his life, Fortune and Sacred Honor to his fellows countrymen. Dangy's first impression is right. Galt is a destroyer....
At this point in the book I don't think we have enough information to make this assumption. If your fellow countrymen have declared war on you, would it be a moral choice to pledge your life for them? Again, check your premises.
2) Is the world better off that John Galt lived?
Compare the real life fruits of our Founding Fathers who sacrificed everything for us. And the young men of all the wars who sacrificed all their tomorrows so that we may have a free and happy today. John Galt insults that sacrifice by rolling hand grenades into the industrial plant of America.
Your statement reveals that you are assuming the world in Atlas Shrugged is survivable while every indication so far is contrary to that opinion, again check your premises. The great insult is that the lives of all who have sacrificed will have been in vain if the looters succeed in destroying the nation as it was intended to be.
3) From where did the genius of John Galt come?
Galt's great gifts of genius are just that. A gift.
....and this random, luck of the draw aspect of talent should not give a any man the feeling he is superior to his fellow man. And is why I have always, and will always, fear the concrete realization of a Randian World.
A gift by its very nature is intended to be appreciated and used. Discarding a gift is usually thought of as an insult. According to your logic, if Galt had not used his talent he would be insulting his creator, wouldn't he?
and...
And dare I say it.....men who are willing to sacrifice for the common good ! As our ancestors did from Valley Forge to Normandy and beyond.
Having a personal interest in early American history, I'll have to disagree with this although I realize that for such a sweeping statement a simple answer hardly suffices.
Many people don't know what the country was like during the Revolution and it is a real eye-opener to study the details. Most of the militia and regulars at the time were fiercely independent men who were fighting for their lives family and property. They knew what awaited them if they failed. I'll give a hint, it wasn't a gas shortage. I'll post more in the appropriate chapter.
It is a sort of running thing with the guy, that's how it will be no matter what, and everybody involved knows it. So I have a deal with the guy who does his buying. Just buy it. His boss is going to go to my boss and cry about the pricing anyway, so I'll tell my boss what I need to have stay on budget and life goes on.
Part 3, Chapter 5, "Their Brothers' Keepers", if I'm correct. By a lucky coincidence, that chapter will be posted on the morning of Saturday, July 4.
Talk about synchronicity.
I have been experiencing the same thing. We are going through the book after reading it myself back in the early 90’s. I’m picking up a LOT that I didn’t pick up the first time through. Although Rand often seems to state the same thing ad infinitum, to the point where I almost say out loud “I get it! Can we move on?”, but I also find that my tolerance for that has increased as we’ve gone through it and seen some of the nuance in the different treatments of the same thing.
Back then, I was reading it on the recommendation of a couple of people at work (ironically, who worked for the government in one form or another). I think there were times when I might have skimmed to get through sections that now, the way we’re going through it (me reading it out loud), I can not skim.
That, and this book club, have really added to the experience this time through.
I know I'm late to the party here. (I probably missed the ping last week.) And this chapter is one of my favorites too. I actually got to read a small excerpt on Rush's show back in 1993. Here's an excerpt fro John Switzer's summary for that day:
Mike suggests that everyone read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"; in the book she presents a health care system adopted by a motor company, which is really an allegory for the entire nation. Mike would like to read three sentences from this book, and Rush says this would be okay, as long as they're not "typical, long Ayn Rand sentences." Mike assures him they're not and reads the following:Now, as for "management" being forced to treat all workers as interchangeable, I think some schools of management favor this. I cannot count the number of times someone asked, "What happens if ML/NJ gets run over by a bus?" The implication was that if someone who knew too much about a project left, that that project would be doomed to failure so it was better not to have anyone who was essential to the project. The problem for these management whizes was always that they had much higher probability problems than someone getting run over by a bus."When we voted for the plan, none of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had any doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut because they made it sound like anyone who would oppose this plan was a child-killer at heart and less like a human being.""Just like here," Mike adds. Rush agrees, but says the Clinton plan is even more frightening because the American people want the plan, so much so that they don't care about the details. All they want is secured health care that won't bankrupt them.Mike points out that the story in Rand's book does not come out well; in fact, the result is the complete collapse of the United States, as the providers of services withdraw from business. The "do-gooders" take over, just as is happening now in the United States, and Mike hopes that Rush can continue his efforts to stop this trend.
Rush says he has read some of Rand's work, and he notes there is a near cult of people who are devoted to her writings. What Rush finds amazing about Rand is her ability to use fiction to express points which most others can express only in the dry verbosity of academic writing. Those who find themselves agreeing with Rand's beliefs love the clarity and accessibility of her writings.
Right now one of the DJI corps is in the process of talking an eight figure hit on a very high visibility project because they view the people who do the work as interchangeable pawns. So they replaced a couple of us, who developed the technology involved over several years (company in the process of applying for several patents with our names as inventors), with people who might have been on the cafeteria staff who knew nothing of the work we had done and didn't seem to know that they should care.
Unions are bad, yes, but the people who join them probably view themselves as interchangeable and they should have the right to do so (without having the right to exclude those who do similar work). But unions always need compliant management to accede to their demands.
ML/NJ
Can you provide some references to back this up?
ML/NJ
I ran across that statistic several years ago in an article in “Trains” magazine.
ML/NJ
Clarity? [makes steelyard gesture with hands] OK, I guess so. Accessibility? Rand? You gotta be kidding me.
Now, as for "management" being forced to treat all workers as interchangeable, I think some schools of management favor this. I cannot count the number of times someone asked, "What happens if ML/NJ gets run over by a bus?" The implication was that if someone who knew too much about a project left, that that project would be doomed to failure so it was better not to have anyone who was essential to the project. The problem for these management whizes was always that they had much higher probability problems than someone getting run over by a bus.
I think maybe you overstate the case a little. Saying that there should be no one indispensable individual is the far end of the continuum from saying that everyone is interchangeable. Saying there should be a backup for everyone isn't the same as saying everyone is exactly the same. Corporations refuse to let the President and VP fly on the same flight for continuity/redundancy reasons. If that implies that they think ALL their employees are completely interchangeable, they're significantly overpaying the execs.
I think you're right to an extent. If no one can be indispensable, there can be no superstars. The removal of any one individual will have almost no impact. The overall performance of the company will continue to be the exact same mediocre shade of beige.
1893: Official counts showed 18,343 railroad workers were injured on the job and another 1657 were killed that year. There was no legal redress for injuries or deaths resulting from negligence on the part of their employers.
I'll see what else I can find.
1883: The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen was organized. Rail workers' wages averaged a little more than $1 a day. One-third of the nation's railroad brakemen were killed or maimed that year. An estimated 70% of all train crews could expect injury within five years of service. Insurance was not available to the individual railroad man, because of the hazards of his occupation. The Brotherhood offered members insurance – death coverage to $300.
From government documents:
"During the early phase of railroad safety history, the casualty problem dominated Federal and public concern. According to the data contained in the in the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Accident Bulletins from 1902 to 1911, the casualty problem for both passengers and employees was quite severe. During the 9-year period at the turn of the century, a total of 33,761 employees and 4,146 passengers were killed, and 403,259 employees, and 113,410 passengers were injured. Table 8 reflects the casualty problem for 1902-11."
I don’t know how to format tables for HTML, so I refer you to the table, which is on page 51.
I hope you can see why I was skeptical. We've gone from "10,000 employees died every year on America's railroads," to "1657 were killed that year," and we're still depending upon union sources.
I'd be interested to know what it was that killed the 1657. Was workin' on the railroad really rougher that whatever the 49'ers (Not the football guys!) faced? How did the 49'ers fare? How many people actually worked building railroads in any given year.
I hope you understand why I am asking these questions.
My feeling is that in years time we might hear about the great sacrifices of the many United Federation of Teachers slaughtered by the savages who were their students (or captives really)).
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.