Publius

I feel the same way about your outlook. It must be a helpless feeling having to wait for individual geniuses to come along to fix the world's problems. Better outlaw abortion because what if one of those babies was the next Einstein, Buffet, or Gates? How comforting it is to know that there are many many geniuses waiting in the wings should one fail, and the progress of mankind will move on regardless. What a strange assessment of human achievement. Being smart, keeping a strong positive mind, working hard, are essential. But do you think everyone who possessed these traits became an elite 1 percenter? Read D'Kian's examples. There are millions more. I don't resent anything or anyone, that would be irrational. It is also irrational to deny that good fortune plays a strong role in who rises to the very top of the pile. I beg to differ. Every invention is as much a product of its time and place as it is the man. Edison had many competitors that were driving him. If he were to have been killed by a speeding horse and carriage, humankind would still have developed his innovations, albeit those innovations would have occurred a small time later and in a different form. Not a footnote, and not devalued; read what I said. He put the final piece together to come up with natural selection, but he did not generate the idea by himself. You seem to possess a high school history book view of history. I suggest you dig deeper into how innovations happen. You almost have to make an exception for Newton, he was pretty unique. Maybe someone who knows more on the time period would have more insight. Your deification of these men has a religious air about it. Dig into some anthropology and you'll see what I'm talking about.

This is the statement I was looking for. Is there anyone reading this who would disagree with this statement in any way?

You're in luck, I've saved you the trouble. That is a credible source. Great. The Congress is just full of self serving politicians who have no devotion to public service or intellectual honesty. Pretty cynical outlook. I've known many politicians in my time as a journalist. Yes they have to say many things to appease the base, but almost without exception most I have known were truly dedicated to public service and doing what they thought was right. Remember being a member of Congress is not a lucrative job, especially considering the alternatives in the private sector most could have. As I mentioned earlier: What should the proper view of dealing with environmental concerns be given the current political situation? Since we are not living in an Objectivist society, what is the prudent course to take now? Are there any legit examples of environmental problems that there should be some concern about?

What are the environmental concerns that prompted this action in the first place?

I took a few minutes to look it up. It seems the Oil and Gas industry spent $83,907,485 last year, compared to the green lobby's $13,567,446. The campaign contribution disparity is even more stark: Oil and Gas in 2006 $20,193,657, enviro organizations $2,939,097 The working assumption here appears to be that policy makers are all mushy-headed bleeding hearts. Maybe so, but I don't find this a compelling argument to say "Well, their judgment is clouded by emotion." This may be true for children or the average working man. But I mean, I can't picture Carl Levin is sitting in his office in Washington fretting about bunnies. One strategy by environmental groups is to sue the government or individual companies and win judgments. Often these are heard in federal court and heard by a judge or a panel of judges. So emotion is generally not a factor I would say. Not sure what you mean by ideology. Wouldn't this ideology have to be near universal in the public sphere? Perhaps a better line of inquiry might be, what should the proper view of dealing with environmental concerns given the current political situation? Since we are not living in an Objectivist society, what is the prudent course to take now. Like drilling offshore, for example, there seem to be some genuine risks to the environment, risks that would be potentially devastating for the ecology of the coasts, fishing industry, tourism, etc.

I have started a new thread in a more appropriate area to address a major question I have been wondering about. From a lobbying perspective, do environmentalists have more money to spend towards lobbyists and affect public policy, or do energy companies? I would assume the latter would have them outspent by a longshot. How does one explain the disparity in influence of environmental groups then when it comes to drilling for oil? In another thread, as just one example, I see much power and clout attributed to environmental groups. Just some random statements: If not lobbying, where does this power come from? If we have a cash and carry government, why can't big business just buy more government influence (not that I'm advocating buying gov't influence)? Like I said, the money clearly has to be on the side of the energy companies.

I guess I was just looking at some of the statements I've read here that environmentalist groups have all this clout. From what I've read just on this thread: If not lobbying, where does this power come from? If we have a cash and carry government, why can't big business just buy more government influence (not that I'm advocating buying gov't influence)? Like I said, the money clearly has to be on the side of the energy companies.

From a lobbying perspective, do environmentalists have more money to spend towards lobbyists and affect public policy, or do energy companies? I would assume the latter would have them outspent by a longshot. How does one explain the disparity in influence of environmental groups then when it comes to drilling for oil?

Great post, well done. I too reject the idea that the 1 percent of the population have god-like capabilities that we all must rely on for our salvation. It takes genius, drive and hard work, but fortunate circumstances also play a huge role in who ends up being a super-success. Innovators don't work in a vacuum; they exist in a continuum of other people working towards similar goals, feeding off each other's achievements and ideas. Eventually you read about Charles Darwin in a history book, but you don't read about all the men who expressed similar ideas on evolution much earlier than he did, and who died in obscurity. So I don't think any one man is infinitely valuable, in a historical context.

What I am talking about is only relevant in the short term anyway. We live in the world we live in, not what we want it to be. And the short term reality is there are only so many people who are going to move out of low skilled jobs because opportunities are limited. As the economic engine churns, more opportunities become available to low skilled workers. But this is a long slow process moving at a glacial pace. Surely the equation changes if we let in more waves of immigrants. So that comes back around to the main point. Unions are important because working hard is not going to get everyone promoted. I think you are counting your chickens before they hatch. You are extrapolating a hypothetical template of innovation and free market freedom into the uncertain future. Never bank on technology that isn't there yet, just because you feel that given the right circumstances and time, innovations will crop up to solve all our problems. Technology advances in unpredictable ways, and at an unpredictable pace. Of course the driving force is economic. I don't see a shortage of unskilled workers on the horizon any time soon, though. BTW I still prefer my tacos made by hand, preferably a clean one

I'm having a hard time following your thoughts here. Are you suggesting that the economy is only accommodating restaurant workers, retail workers, most factory workers, farm workers, etc? The technology for automating all low skilled jobs is not developed enough yet to do away with low skilled workers, not for a long time. Retail stores can not be set so as to not need stockers and other store staff. Trucks of merchandise can not drive themselves to their destinations. Crops such as coffee, apples, tomatoes, etc need humans to pick them. Restaurants need humans to prepare food, serve dishes, clean up, etc. Your last thoughts are a little disjointed and perhaps you can clarify your meaning.

I don't know that this is the case. I haven't read the law but I think companies can permanently replace striking workers, which is pretty much the same as firing them.

I don't why you have become obsessed with potholes, the dimensions of the problem as I see are far larger in scope. I don't see vice in private ownership, its just that no one has outlined how it could be done vis a vis roads. I believe it is a rational consideration that the system be morally implemented, but it must work too. As I see it, there are a limited number of areas where the dimensions and impact are far reaching and ubiquitous (like the road system), that some kind of quasi government organization must be set up to manage it. That is, one that is privately run but government owned. So if a company or consortium fails at making the system run efficiently they can be ousted in favor of a more competent one. Other such organizations would oversee ecosystems, and the air traffic control system, perhaps other things. If someone can find a way to privatize roads, ecosystems, the air traffic control network, etc., then I am all for it.

To reiterate, safety is only one of many potential inconveniences to motorists, as mentioned earlier, of this privatization plan. RCX's Chicago-Milwaukee road may also be highly congested. Maybe it has few places to pull off and rest. Maybe alternative routes are just too expensive, or are unwilling to allow your truck to traverse its roads because they are owned by a rival company, your trucks don't meet their specs, etc. A lot more thought has to go into how to implement this kind of idea. Ownership of the media is a huge opportunity to shape public opinion. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is so intent on gobbling up media outlets? Your example happens to be one that that represents the rare story that achieves national media attention. National media comb local media outlets for stories, they don't have the resources to do their own groundwork, especially now. That's why local media is so important, it truly shapes public perception.

Every individual has a potential opportunity to move up if they choose to work hard. I'm not denying that. The upward mobility of low skilled workers is limited though. This is true as long as they remain low skilled. What also is true is this: few consider the economy needs low skilled workers, millions and millions of them; without them the economy would collapse. Every inventor who creates a new product, he needs a factory of workers to make it. Every garment manufacturer needs a textile mill of workers to produce for him. Marketing companies need legions of phone operators. Retail stores need countless bodies to stock the shelves. Every low skilled worker cannot simply work hard and rise out of working a menial job, simply because there are not enough skilled jobs to go around for everyone, and those menial jobs are essential to the whole economy. I'm not familiar with the NLRA or other laws, but my understanding is that an employer can hire permanent replacements for striking workers. This rarely happens as it is usually not a good long term economic move to retrain an entire work force from scratch. So I don't think the employers are being forced to comply with demands. I didn't mean to denigrate your accomplishments. My intention was to point out that good fortune plays a part in many people's success. You will find many if not most successful entrepreneurs will readily admit this. You have a better chance of getting luck in your favor by working hard, but many many people work hard their entire lives and don't get an opportunity such as you were presented with. Ask yourself, what would you be doing today if that person hadn't crossed your path? Also I don't see people who are working unskilled jobs as pathetic, as you said. A vibrant economy, upon which so many entrepreneurs and professionals depend to make money, is nonexistent without them.

It sounds like you worked hard, but to be honest it sounds like you didn't go looking for your career, it came and found you. So consider yourself lucky that the right person came along and took a chance on you. And it doesn't sound like you are in a situation where a union would be beneficial to the work force. The upward mobility of low skilled workers is limited. One of the common things that happen are putting pressure on sorters to not stop the belts when there is a dangerous overload of flow from unloaders. Much psychological pressure is put on workers to not report injuries. BTW you can't lay the blame for Detroit's woes at the feet of the unions. The Big 3 agreed to those contracts. It is not the high wages so much, especially since the huge buyouts will effectively mean new workers will be paid half of what the old employees were getting. Rather the lack of foresight by the the Big 3 top brass in creating vehicles that people want. Toyota is doing great, albeit paying about 30% less in wages in the US, but negotiated through the same UAW.

And what is it that they deserve, and who decides? Low skilled workers have little leverage independently to negotiate, so grouping together they can achieve more than one can individually in most cases. The above comment implies that people should never look to gain leverage to negotiate better deals. This runs counter to any business philosophy that I am familiar with. Companies are always looking to get leverage in negotiations with other companies to get "something better", not "what they deserve." Why should it be different for workers? In a low skilled job situation, working hard is a virtue but is not going to get you much leverage at the negotiation table, because you are still a low skilled worker and easily replaceable. You must rely on the good graces of your employer.

Safety very often pays, except when it doesn't. (hypothetical) Road Company X sees more than the usual number of accidents or safety issues on its roads. It gets sued occasionally but it only pays actual damages and can afford to take the hits. Problem is, its the company that has got the most direct route from Chicago to Milwaukee, and maybe its the cheapest too since they cut all those corners on infrastructure. No other business can enter the market because there are not enough property owners willing to sell to make a similar route available. So we put up with the crap roads from Road Company X because its the only alternative, and Road Company X knows it. That doesn't mean RCX completely gouges its customers and blatantly ignores safety issues or logical inconsistencies in its designs. It stops short of the point where customers seriously consider alternatives. Did I mention Road Company X owns the big daily newspapers in Chicago and Milwaukee, its mouthpieces to downplay criticism? I guess being a bit over the top but maybe thats because its late and I'm tired. But this whole idea of privatized roads doesn't make any sense to me.

The purpose of some roads will be for safe passage for motorists. Maybe, maybe not. The purpose of the roads will be to make money. The safety of motorists is only important insofar as it serves that purpose. What is the standard of "safe", and who gets to decide? How would the public even know if a road is safe? A private professional group of civil engineers could provide standards, maybe, but would this happen? Not necessarily. What if there are all sorts of conflicting ideas on what makes a road safe? Or what constitutes the most logical signage? Or the best design for intersections? What if a group of prominent engineers is paid by Big Highway, Inc to promote a certain standard, while Super Roads, Inc has their own standards and their own engineers? What happens when private roads intersect and no agreement can be reached on how to merge? I just don't see the evidence that this would work as seamlessly as it is claimed.

This might not seem like such a big deal but what about standardization? We take for granted the standardization of government owned roads. Namely the mileage markers, exits signs, caution signs, traffic signals, stop signs, road width, overpass height limits, load limits, entrance and exit ramp protocol, etc., etc., etc. Would it not be a logistical nightmare to not have a universal standard? Wouldn't private roads all have varying standards based on what suited the owner's needs for that individual road?

D'Kian, I'm assuming the system is very corrupt down there In Mexico. Apparently rule of law does not apply, as you couldn't even make sense of the court ruling. I'm not that familiar with unions, but I wasn't aware that unions could compel raises and prohibit an employer from firing them. What federal and state laws do you mean? The closed shop/open shop state laws, the NLRA? My understanding is that its an employer's right to hire permanent replacement workers to continue operations during a strike. I think its called the Mackay doctrine based on an old Supreme Court decision. I have never been in a union but my wife is in one with UPS. She appreciates the union even though there are quite a few absurd things that go on because of it. Namely, people that get fired for good cause and then the union intervenes and gets their jobs back, exorbitant union dues on part time employees, indifferent union reps, etc. However the constant pressure from management to ignore safety standards is ongoing, despite the union contract and OSHA. I once came close to being in a union. I was working part time at night for a marketing company of about 12 employees, myself having no interest in unionizing. Four of the older employees banded together to push for a union, and got enough people to sign union cards to bring it to a vote. That's when the company owner contacted a union busting consultant. He fired two of the employees the next day, as he was able to demonstrate somehow that he had planned to eliminate their positions anyway. He promoted the other two into management, essentially taking away their potential union vote. Over the next few months he subtly intimidated the rest of the staff into not voting union by pulling individuals in for meeting and probing them with questions. He even directly asked me if I was involved, which is illegal according to my understanding. Luckily I wasn't. Ultimately the big union the original four had petitioned decided it was best to not even bring it to a vote. So that was that. The remaining two union organizers that were promoted were subsequently fired not long afterward.

Is there something wrong with unions in principle, or just the way unions are commonly organized and managed?

Not sure this is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. Although UL is a tremendous company that has created standards of quality that are universally respected, it is still one of several companies, known as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, approved for such testing by the U.S. federal agency OSHA. So there are federal standards it must comport with. Now this doesn't mean that UL is not a great example of the government outsourcing inspections to private firms to create efficiencies and innovations.

But isn't the code adopted by the states and federal government as a standard? I'm not sure just how voluntary it is, if the code must be followed if you are going to have any business with the state. I found this old story from 1922 about this topic. It was the ASME itself that was looking for state action to coordinate inspections of old boilers by private companies. This organization has some info on how private inspection agencies, Federal Inspection Agencies, are accredited by the government. So its not really an example of private enterprise regulating itself.

I'm uneasy about the prospect of a company paying another company to vouch for its services/products. There just seem to be too many examples out there of such close financial arrangements leading to corruption. Such as Arthur Anderson and Enron, for example. Sure companies have all the incentive in the world to deliver quality goods and services, but yet there are endless examples of tainted meat, defective child seats, dangerous medications, etc., unleashed on the public, liability be damned. The cost/benefit analysis often results in companies choosing to keep news of the offending product on the down low. Wouldn't the best arrangement be for people to voluntarily fund independent certification firms for food safety and products? An official seal of approval from such an organization would mean so much more to me than one from a certification company I knew was paid money by the company they were supposed to be vouching for.