A Gathering Place for all Taylor Group Members, New and Old. Keep in touch, Carry on discussion & debate, and most importantly, play hard.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Contempt for Science
Here is a nice article by Slate's Christopher Hitchens on the growing contempt for science within extreme right/religious circles (i.e. Sarah Palin and her "witchdoctor" church folk).
Though I wholeheartedly agree that this article points to crazy.... I’d like to remind you that there is plenty of crazy on Obama’s side as well. You may not see it as the same but I do. If you believe one reporters attempt at painting Palin crazy, you should believe all the articles about Obama’s ties with terrorists, muslims, and socialism.
And therefore….
Socialism is about as stupid an idea as communism or “end of the world” religion. The disbelief is science is about as stupid as the disbelief in market driven economy (or belief in central planning of the economy).
She may be crazy, but the same historical and scientific evidence for the “stupidity” of her beliefs are almost as prevalent for the “stupidity” of Obama’s belief that he (and the US Govt.) can save the economy and plan a fair world where we all love each other in peace and harmony.
Once again the evidence is there, people shape the world… rarely Govts lead. Govts provide red tape and slow true progress. Real change happens with education and rational thought, not Govt intervention.
Grover Norquist is credited with a quote saying he "wanted to shrink the size of gov't to the point where you could drown it in a bathtub."
I don't understand the logic here. According to many conservatives/Republicans, slow gov't = problem gov't.
so I'll provide you with my logic as to why I'll never support conservatives who argue for drastically smaller gov't.
I don't believe that the current crop of Republicans talk about smaller gov't as anything other than a campaign slogan. As recent history would prove, Republicans have grown the size of gov't exponentially over the past 8 years. DHS is likely the single largest civilian gov't agency in existence.
If you also want to shrink the size of gov't, you are essentially advocating mass firings and huge job losses. The US gov't employs the largest civilian workforce at 1.8 million (excluding USPS, Wal-Mart is 1.1 million, FYI). If you fire 1/2 of those folks, mostly middle class workers(under 100K salaries) I would bet most would file for unemployment, another socialist program, thereby increasing spending to cover the lot of them.
Finally, I don't understand the premise here. If someone runs for office saying gov't is too large and too powerful and too much a part of everyday life, then promises that if elected, (s)he would reduce those agencies spending and sizes and overall shrink gov't, don't they promise to give up some of the power that the American people provide them as elected officials? If this sounds too good to be true then it likely is. I don't think that it's human nature. As you have said, Obama can't provide peace and harmony and make everyone love each other. Human nature is to take the power provided to you and expand on it.
I don't see Republicans winning elections by promising to shrink gov't when they do the opposite.
Alan Greenspan: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
The last time I went to the Post Office I was shocked at how slow one person could work... man they should be fired...
Then I went to the SS Office to get my son's SS Card and I was shocked at how slow one person could work.... then I said, man they should fire this guy.
Then I was called for jury duty, and I was told that the court was only open from 9:30 to 4, and I thought how the heck does that happen... no wonder why the system is so slow.
Then on Saturaday I got a chance to play golf with a friend who works for the Public Water Co. in San Fran. He mentioned how he had played golf 3 times that week, once with the Mayor of SF. Really, "Do you work?"... You should be fired.
I'm just saying these govt. jobs that are recieving our tax dollars are a little bit like welfare. I would work one week like any one of those guys and get a bad review for the year.
So, my point remains.
From previous comment: "The smaller the better. Though, I think the Govt would still be rather large, and rightfully so in our complex world."
There is a lot of fat to cut. Are you saying there isn't? Do we want to reward lazy people? Is this the cultural attitude we want to exude?
I tell you what, take a trip to Italy, wait in a line for a train ticket... Watch when the one guy working stops to have a 20 minute conversation with a buddy before he helps anyone in a 35-40 person line.
Is this the US culture you're shooting for? If so I can show you what acceptance of poor behavior gets you... I'll drive you through the Fruitvale District of Oakland. Or maybe I'll drive you over to Richmond and let you hang with the people who have also bought into the attitude, that eveyone deserves a job. Don't earn it... You deserve it!!
Mike, I think the attitude you're looking for is: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." A cynical view of government workers is that they accept moderately low pay for high job security and relatively good benefits.
While I'm sympathetic to this point of view and actually think it works, what do you suggest as an alternate solution? In other words, how do you motivate a low-skill, low-pay workforce to provide quality service? I suggest that private industry does not do that much better, but at least we're not paying for it, e.g. WalMart.
The only true motivation is pay. If you want people to work hard, they must be rewarded.
Most mundane jobs are very easy to track with customer service feedback or/and a simple metric or two. Post a board that follows people's progress. Fire the bottom 5-10% and give pay raises based on merit... it's not rocket science.
Most private industry has followed the path of least resistance, but many have broken away from the "pretend to pay, pretend to work" attitude. In the global market it's produce or perish.
Southwest Airlines, Amgen, GE, and many others have trimed the fat and have mannaged to pay only people who work....
Typical example from Amgen. Our typical med chem person produces 100 new chemical entities every year. Our outsourcing counterparts are struggling to produce 10 a year on average. Yes, we get paid more... and guess what we deserve it. If that number even came close to parity we'd lose are jobs instantly.
Read "First, Break All the Rules" Gallup Press. You'll see that mundane jobs to you are not mundane to all.
Example from the book... paraphrased... The cleaning staff at some hotels are paided more than managment. The hotel chain realized that the most important thing for repeat business was a clean room. The hotel then sought out the correct staff, filled the positions based on a set of criteria, and there bottom line drastically improved.
As the world gets more competitive, lazy will be a thing of the past. In less we allow socialism/protectionism to take hold. Then it really doesn't matter if your a total "d-bag".
Mike, I agree with your general thrust, though I note that 1)Southwest has a number of special reasons why it works has a model that works well and 2) GE's recent record isn't so wonderful.
However, government seems mightily resistant to such changes... especially when progressives like Bruce see government as a source of jobs.
9 comments:
Though I wholeheartedly agree that this article points to crazy.... I’d like to remind you that there is plenty of crazy on Obama’s side as well. You may not see it as the same but I do. If you believe one reporters attempt at painting Palin crazy, you should believe all the articles about Obama’s ties with terrorists, muslims, and socialism.
And therefore….
Socialism is about as stupid an idea as communism or “end of the world” religion. The disbelief is science is about as stupid as the disbelief in market driven economy (or belief in central planning of the economy).
She may be crazy, but the same historical and scientific evidence for the “stupidity” of her beliefs are almost as prevalent for the “stupidity” of Obama’s belief that he (and the US Govt.) can save the economy and plan a fair world where we all love each other in peace and harmony.
Once again the evidence is there, people shape the world… rarely Govts lead. Govts provide red tape and slow true progress. Real change happens with education and rational thought, not Govt intervention.
Someone who believes that gov't is the problem will only demonstrate that problem when they are put in power. It's backwards to think otherwise.
Self-fulfilling prophecies and all that.
Not a true outcome. If one believes Govt is slow and needs to provide only essential items. Then that person would provide for an efficient Govt...
The smaller the better. Though, I think the Govt would still be rather large, and rightfully so in our complex world.
Grover Norquist is credited with a quote saying he "wanted to shrink the size of gov't to the point where you could drown it in a bathtub."
I don't understand the logic here. According to many conservatives/Republicans, slow gov't = problem gov't.
so I'll provide you with my logic as to why I'll never support conservatives who argue for drastically smaller gov't.
I don't believe that the current crop of Republicans talk about smaller gov't as anything other than a campaign slogan. As recent history would prove, Republicans have grown the size of gov't exponentially over the past 8 years. DHS is likely the single largest civilian gov't agency in existence.
If you also want to shrink the size of gov't, you are essentially advocating mass firings and huge job losses. The US gov't employs the largest civilian workforce at 1.8 million (excluding USPS, Wal-Mart is 1.1 million, FYI). If you fire 1/2 of those folks, mostly middle class workers(under 100K salaries) I would bet most would file for unemployment, another socialist program, thereby increasing spending to cover the lot of them.
Finally, I don't understand the premise here. If someone runs for office saying gov't is too large and too powerful and too much a part of everyday life, then promises that if elected, (s)he would reduce those agencies spending and sizes and overall shrink gov't, don't they promise to give up some of the power that the American people provide them as elected officials? If this sounds too good to be true then it likely is. I don't think that it's human nature. As you have said, Obama can't provide peace and harmony and make everyone love each other. Human nature is to take the power provided to you and expand on it.
I don't see Republicans winning elections by promising to shrink gov't when they do the opposite.
Alan Greenspan: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
The last time I went to the Post Office I was shocked at how slow one person could work... man they should be fired...
Then I went to the SS Office to get my son's SS Card and I was shocked at how slow one person could work.... then I said, man they should fire this guy.
Then I was called for jury duty, and I was told that the court was only open from 9:30 to 4, and I thought how the heck does that happen... no wonder why the system is so slow.
Then on Saturaday I got a chance to play golf with a friend who works for the Public Water Co. in San Fran. He mentioned how he had played golf 3 times that week, once with the Mayor of SF. Really, "Do you work?"... You should be fired.
I'm just saying these govt. jobs that are recieving our tax dollars are a little bit like welfare. I would work one week like any one of those guys and get a bad review for the year.
So, my point remains.
From previous comment: "The smaller the better. Though, I think the Govt would still be rather large, and rightfully so in our complex world."
There is a lot of fat to cut. Are you saying there isn't? Do we want to reward lazy people? Is this the cultural attitude we want to exude?
I tell you what, take a trip to Italy, wait in a line for a train ticket... Watch when the one guy working stops to have a 20 minute conversation with a buddy before he helps anyone in a 35-40 person line.
Is this the US culture you're shooting for? If so I can show you what acceptance of poor behavior gets you... I'll drive you through the Fruitvale District of Oakland. Or maybe I'll drive you over to Richmond and let you hang with the people who have also bought into the attitude, that eveyone deserves a job. Don't earn it... You deserve it!!
Mike, I think the attitude you're looking for is: "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." A cynical view of government workers is that they accept moderately low pay for high job security and relatively good benefits.
While I'm sympathetic to this point of view and actually think it works, what do you suggest as an alternate solution? In other words, how do you motivate a low-skill, low-pay workforce to provide quality service? I suggest that private industry does not do that much better, but at least we're not paying for it, e.g. WalMart.
The only true motivation is pay. If you want people to work hard, they must be rewarded.
Most mundane jobs are very easy to track with customer service feedback or/and a simple metric or two. Post a board that follows people's progress. Fire the bottom 5-10% and give pay raises based on merit... it's not rocket science.
Most private industry has followed the path of least resistance, but many have broken away from the "pretend to pay, pretend to work" attitude. In the global market it's produce or perish.
Southwest Airlines, Amgen, GE, and many others have trimed the fat and have mannaged to pay only people who work....
Typical example from Amgen. Our typical med chem person produces 100 new chemical entities every year. Our outsourcing counterparts are struggling to produce 10 a year on average. Yes, we get paid more... and guess what we deserve it. If that number even came close to parity we'd lose are jobs instantly.
Read "First, Break All the Rules" Gallup Press. You'll see that mundane jobs to you are not mundane to all.
Example from the book... paraphrased... The cleaning staff at some hotels are paided more than managment. The hotel chain realized that the most important thing for repeat business was a clean room. The hotel then sought out the correct staff, filled the positions based on a set of criteria, and there bottom line drastically improved.
As the world gets more competitive, lazy will be a thing of the past. In less we allow socialism/protectionism to take hold. Then it really doesn't matter if your a total "d-bag".
Mike, I agree with your general thrust, though I note that 1)Southwest has a number of special reasons why it works has a model that works well and 2) GE's recent record isn't so wonderful.
However, government seems mightily resistant to such changes... especially when progressives like Bruce see government as a source of jobs.
Post a Comment