Working hard to get ahead [Makers and Takers]

[Fitswimmer]

You’ve read the thread, right? They have.

And yes, the nature of the thread is “sweeping generalization.” I am simply noting that, unlike government, business makes money by earning it, not printing it or taxing it. Unproductive business disappears. Unproductive government is eternal.

The question is the relative probabilities. Government jobs are riddled with cronyism. One need only review the non-performance related requirements for such jobs to see this; experience confirms it.

The “everyone” fallacy is duly noted. “Not every…” formulations are the last refuge of the derailer around here.

The question is whether success is dependent upon effort. See Charles Murray’s excellent “Human Accomplishment” for the evidence that it is. It is sad that so many today require such proofs of the obvious.

It is sad that so many have such a negative view of their fellow man.

 

[Teflon93]

It is sad that so many have such a negative view of their fellow man.

On the contrary—I believe my fellow man will be quite successful by any measure and is quite capable of achieving great things in any sphere, given only sustained effort.

That is a far more positive view than the notion that such accomplishment is virtually impossible absent random chance or corruption.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is sad that so many have such a negative view of their fellow man.

That cuts two ways – the most negative view of man is that he needs a nanny to take care of him – usually in the form of an elite group to run the government.

 

[He_Man]

Another characterization:

People who identify as strongly conservation are ussually materialistic egotists who get off on making money and acquiring assets, ‘things’ to make them feel more worthy - and they can never have enough.

Their principle pleasure is deriding those who are less successful. Life is a game and they must be it’s winners, while others must be losers, otherwise their success is meaningless. Without this dynamic they would be without motivation for anything. Competing and being better than others is what drives them.
…

But then that would be a derogatory generalisation about a large number of people I didn’t know…

How can you get offended by statistics, if they are accurate?

If the stats said “100%”, you’d have a beef. As such, they seem to be numbers. They have no bias or agenda.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How can you get offended by statistics, if they are accurate?

If the stats said “100%”, you’d have a beef. As such, they seem to be numbers. They have no bias or agenda.

Let me help you understand his comments:

The Parable of the Three Bears

Once upon a time there were three bears, a mama bear, a papa bear and a baby bear. One morning they went for a walk. When they got home, Papa Bear said, “Someone’s eaten all my oatmeal!”

And Baby Bear said, “Someone’s eaten all my oatmeal!”

And Mama Bear said, “Gripe, gripe, gripe! I haven’t cooked the flippin’ oatmeal yet!”

 

[Fitswimmer]

That cuts two ways – the most negative view of man is that he needs a nanny to take care of him – usually in the form of an elite group to run the government.

There is an elite group running the government-they’re called corporations. Big farm, Big oil and Big Pharma-they’ve got it all sewn up.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is an elite group running the government-they’re called corporations. Big farm, Big oil and Big Pharma-they’ve got it all sewn up.

And they’re all hiding under the bed, waiting to grab your feet.

 

[Teflon93]

There is an elite group running the government-they’re called corporations. Big farm, Big oil and Big Pharma-they’ve got it all sewn up.

How then do you explain how the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

Given how the CEOs and directors of corporations are compensated, reduction of the corporate tax would vastly increase their income and job security.

And yet it hasn’t happened.

Moreover, look at the biographies of Barrack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. You’ll find they’ve spent next to no time in the private sector. Interesting pedigree if business runs the government, no?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How then do you explain how the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

It’s the politics of envy. Anyone who stops and thinks knows corporations don’t actually pay taxes – they simply pass on the tax to the consumer.

But demagogues have convinced people that somehow taxing corporations isn’t taxing them.

 

[rtconstant]

I’ve worked for big corporations, small companies, and the government as a quality professional.

I can tell you that outside of the armed services, the worst by far in terms of incompetent management and indifference to quality is the government.

OK

The armed forces, which you wouldn’t stereotypically think of as primarily focused upon quality or efficiency or stewardship or advancing abstract notions of the general good, in fact far and away exceeds every other aspect of government in these areas. They are the exception which proves the rule.

I totally agree. Honestly while not as dynamic in administration as public companies the military often runs a cleaner ship.

Government produces no value. It takes from the productive, value-producing segments of the economy to do what it does. When we’re talking about such necessary services as national defense, that’s a very good and necessary thing. When we’re talking about the bureaucratic paper-pushing that the vast majority of the government employees engage in today, that’s nothing but a drag on the economy.

Yes our government is very inefficient.

It is interesting to see all those who clammer to hammer corporations, which produce measurable value anyone can see by picking up a stock report, and which efficiently deliver the products and services which have made our standard of living vastly higher than that of our ancestors. Many of you are no doubt the same people who yearn for expansion of the dead-end, worthless government jobs discussed above, and for doing so in part by slashing the only productive part of the government, the armed forces.

Yes corperations do produce money no one claimed otherwise. However, you become a bit over enthusiastic when you blanket and say they effeciently deliver products. It would be more accurate to say they adequately deliver products. Some companies are effecient most could improve by miles. Yes, industry and imperialism has increased the standard of living in the West greatly, and continues to do so no one argued otherwise.

As the last half of your paragraph its made of straw.

It should also be noted that the common denominator here is that the armed forces, as corporations, are meritocracies. This is to contrast them with labor union, academic, and civil service jobs, where seniority is determinative. It is no wonder that people who exist in a pocket of the economy where the only thing that matters is not rocking the boat and collecting a paycheck for a week longer than the next guy would be skeptical of meritocracy—it doesn’t exist in their bubble.

But who’s fault is that?

Some corrections here yeah I’d agree the military for the most part is bases a lot of its upward mobility on merit. However, corperations are not nearly as oriented toward merit as the military. Its funny that you brought up “not rocking the boat” as that is integral part of corporate upward mobility.

f you see something that needs improving in a company you never just suggest or implement it. First you see who put that policy in place, then you decide if you want to risk offending that person. Now sometime you get lucky and offending one party might indear you to another. That’s strategy.

Also excelling at your job can be dangerous. If you do to well you run the risk of making others look bad and worse you can make your managers worried. When a subordinate is independantly reliable he’s a threat. You have to guage how much effort your manager will reward how much is to much. I remember being pulled aside once by my manager and told to slow down my work pace because of the abover issues.

Also another danger of effecient working behavior is that you can easily get yourself into trouble. If you average 7 “units” a day but your colleagues average 3. If things occur so that one day you produce 5 units you will be seen as being lazy. However, if your colleague that same day produces 4 he will be seen as having done an excellent job.

Self promotion. Managers don’t care about what you do. They care about how you promote it. If you quietly and progressively improve your numbers it is unlikely it will be noticed. You have to promote verbally and unabashedly every minor thing you do, not to be arrogant but seriously if you don’t your manager will never notice. They don’t look at results they look at appearances. If you’re self promoting then you seem active and dynamic.

Remember that the status quo typcially benefits management. Any sudden changes in a corporation either good or bad run the risk of upsetting the power structure. The word of the day in management is survival.

 

[Fitswimmer]

How then do you explain how the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

Given how the CEOs and directors of corporations are compensated, reduction of the corporate tax would vastly increase their income and job security.

And yet it hasn’t happened.

Moreover, look at the biographies of Barrack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. You’ll find they’ve spent next to no time in the private sector. Interesting pedigree if business runs the government, no?

If you look at the people who keep politicians in those nice jobs, you’ll find Big Pharm, Big Oil and Big Agriculture. If they want to keep those nice jobs, they’re going to keep those folks happy. The little people with our tiny donations aren’t keeping them in power.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I said no. The reason I said this is that working hard alone will not get a person ahead. A person needs to work hard and smart to get ahead in today’s world.

Take the auto industry for example. An auto worker can work very hard on a truck assembly line and may be the hardest working employee. But, if he doesn’t see the writing on the wall that truck plant is in danger of closing and not apply for a job at the sub compact assembly-line, hard work may not be enough.

 

[rtconstant]

How then do you explain how the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

Because Democrats pander to the general populace by appealing to their sense of of self-righteousness. Of course those taxes just get passed on to the consumer because the corps sure aren’t going to absorb them. The Democrats realize this as they’re all rich white guys like the Republicans but they built their demographic support on a notion that they “care” about the “working man”.

Given how the CEOs and directors of corporations are compensated, reduction of the corporate tax would vastly increase their income and job security.

Possibly, certainly it should. However, I worry that to many of our companies now have refined their taste for cheap over seas slave labor into a hunger now. Companies are not likely to revert back to employing americans because they make much more money this way.

And yet it hasn’t happened.

Of course not. One side of the isle is opening up things so that our jobs can fly out of the country while the other side is taxing them to encourage it while simultaneously increasing their voter base by creating more of the “disenfranchised”. Mean while they all profit. Its a good deal.

Moreover, look at the biographies of Barrack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. You’ll find they’ve spent next to no time in the private sector. Interesting pedigree if business runs the government, no?

While I see what you’re getting at I think we all understood that the point that was trying to be made was that politicians even if not directly affiliated with major corporations are at the very least in the pocket of a couple. I doubt anyone contests that.

 

[Teflon93]

It’s the politics of envy. Anyone who stops and thinks knows corporations don’t actually pay taxes – they simply pass on the tax to the consumer.

But demagogues have convinced people that somehow taxing corporations isn’t taxing them.

While I think this is true, it is also very difficult for corporations to pass such taxes onto consumers in any but the most inelastic portions of the the economy. On a practical level, the taxes tend to come right out of profit, rather than incrementally added onto price to preserve profit margin.

Now, the other dirty little secret is that corporations are much more tolerant of government regulations, which tend to keep smaller, niche players from taking corporate market share due to the cost of compliance.

OSHA and the IRS have probably done more to hurt the ability of your local hardware store to compete than Wal-Mart’s sourcing products from Asia has.

 

[vern_humphrey]

While I think this is true, it is also very difficult for corporations to pass such taxes onto consumers in any but the most inelastic portions of the the economy. On a practical level, the taxes tend to come right out of profit, rather than incrementally added onto price to preserve profit margin.

Because the taxes apply to all corporations, there is no competitive aspect to them – if K-Mart’s taxes go up, so do Wal-Mart’s.

Now, the other dirty little secret is that corporations are much more tolerant of government regulations, which tend to keep smaller, niche players from taking corporate market share due to the cost of compliance.

That’s true. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit, **in a competitive environment. **

People who complain about capitalism often miss that bolded section. The evils of “capitalism” are really evils of anti-capitalism – almost always in the form of government intervention to make the system less competitive.

OSHA and the IRS have probably done more to hurt the ability of your local hardware store to compete than Wal-Mart’s sourcing products from Asia has.

Of course. To paraphrase Pogo Possum, “We have met the enemy and he is our government.”

 

[Teflon93]

Some companies are effecient most could improve by miles.

Since my adult life has been spent trying to improve efficiency and quality, how could I disagree with you?

It is worth noting, however, that corporations are far more efficient than government by any measure in getting things where they need to go. And I say that as a former logistics officer.

However, corperations are not nearly as oriented toward merit as the military. Its funny that you brought up “not rocking the boat” as that is integral part of corporate upward mobility.

That’s the stereotype, but not the reality. “Not rocking the boat” is only a factor when everyone’s making the numbers, and then only in corporate cultures which value comity over innovation. If we miss our numbers, the boat’s rocking hard, the change comes fast and furious, and risk-takers who bet right rocket up through the ranks.

f you see something that needs improving in a company you never just suggest or implement it. First you see who put that policy in place, then you decide if you want to risk offending that person. Now sometime you get lucky and offending one party might indear you to another. That’s strategy.

This may have been the case in the 50s, but having now worked for three Fortune 100 companies that is not the case among the biggies in corporate America. Indeed, I’ve only found the emphasis on policy to be found in highly-regulated industries (aeronautics, medical, and the like); the protection of turf was much more prevalent in government than in the corporate world, where reorgs happen too quickly to even keep track of what your turf is.

Also excelling at your job can be dangerous. If you do to well you run the risk of making others look bad and worse you can make your managers worried.

Sounds like a bad manager. But “good enough for government work” has its own cachet, for good reason.

Also another danger of effecient working behavior is that you can easily get yourself into trouble. If you average 7 “units” a day but your colleagues average 3. If things occur so that one day you produce 5 units you will be seen as being lazy.

It depends on the manager and whether one is producing to demand, to place into inventory, or to use up capacity. If you’re not selling 7 units a day, producing 7 units may be worse than producing the 4 you are. This is a key message of Eli Goldratt’s “The Goal” and related works. It is the fundamental principle of Lean - produce only what is needed.

Self promotion. Managers don’t care about what you do. They care about how you promote it. If you quietly and progressively improve your numbers it is unlikely it will be noticed. You have to promote verbally and unabashedly every minor thing you do, not to be arrogant but seriously if you don’t your manager will never notice. They don’t look at results they look at appearances. If you’re self promoting then you seem active and dynamic.

Man, that’s a lot of straw!

Managers get paid based on the numbers, most places. It is increasingly common in American business for the How to matter, but we’re still largely paid on the What. Different companies of course have different cultures and different mixes as to how each is weighed. I worked for one huge company where all that mattered was making the number. I now work for one where they’ll forgive a miss on the number, but unprofessional conduct or lack of teamwork will get you canned. Both companies are very profitable and in the Fortune 100. Corporate culture being slow to change, if you find yours doesn’t fit, you can move to another more suitable for your sanity.

If only we could change government so easily.

The word of the day in management is survival.

I’m in management, but the word of the day is “business value.”

It is true that delivering business value aids survival, but we’re talking survival of the company in a competitive marketplace.

I think most of the rest of your post comes from a time capsule of business in the 40s. It simply isn’t typical of the corporate world today, although the “management by fear” mentality you speak of can be found in pockets.

Again, the criticisms one makes of the corporate world is doubly true in the nonprofit sector, where having the wrong ideology, the wrong politics, the wrong last name, or insufficient aversion to change drastically limits career advancement.

There is far more diversity in the background of a corporate CEO than of a college professor, union boss, or GS19, and for the obvious reason that competition is extremely limited within these other roles, which maintain a guild mentality inherited from the Middle Ages.

 

[Teflon93]

If you look at the people who keep politicians in those nice jobs, you’ll find Big Pharm, Big Oil and Big Agriculture. If they want to keep those nice jobs, they’re going to keep those folks happy. The little people with our tiny donations aren’t keeping them in power.

How many votes do the hypothetical heads of Big Pharm, Big Oil, and Big Agriculture get?

It is not money which fuels the political class, but the power gained from votes.

How else do you explain:

1. Big oil not being able to drill in ANWR, not being able to drill in proven offshore drilling sites, and not being able to increase U.S. refinery capacity desperately needed to cut the price of energy?
2. Big Agriculture not being able to use the most effective pesticides to improve crop yields due to environmental concerns, and not being able to develop suitable government-owned land for agriculture?
3. Big Pharm having to accept Medicare price controls and the loss of intellectual property and patents to foreign producers?

The common denominator is “Because voters support these things.”

Politicians are addicted to power—they do what is popular to maintain power.

Why anyone would want to feed them more is beyond me, given they never seem to solve any of the problems we supposedly empower them to solve.

The real issue isn’t Big Pharma or Big Oil or Big Agriculture—it’s Big Government.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How many votes do the hypothetical heads of Big Pharm, Big Oil, and Big Agriculture get?

It is not money which fuels the political class, but the power gained from votes.

How else do you explain:

1. Big oil not being able to drill in ANWR, not being able to drill in proven offshore drilling sites, and not being able to increase U.S. refinery capacity desperately needed to cut the price of energy?
2. Big Agriculture not being able to use the most effective pesticides to improve crop yields due to environmental concerns, and not being able to develop suitable government-owned land for agriculture?
3. Big Pharm having to accept Medicare price controls and the loss of intellectual property and patents to foreign producers?

The common denominator is “Because voters support these things.”

Politicians are addicted to power—they do what is popular to maintain power.

Why anyone would want to feed them more is beyond me, given they never seem to solve any of the problems we supposedly empower them to solve.

The real issue isn’t Big Pharma or Big Oil or Big Agriculture—it’s Big Government.

Amen.

Big Pharma, Big Oil and Big Agriculture are boogymen invented by Big Government to scare voters.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m currently reading the book, Conspiracy of Fools–the true tale of Enron’s collapse.

The author flashbacks a lot, and it appears that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling came from nothing. No one handed them a dime. In fact, their families seemed against them getting ahead, and were of not much help. Now, these two ended up going down a bad path eventually, but not their motivation to go to Harvard, (for Skilling)and to aspire to CEO statuses can really happen for anyone in this country–if you want that position in life. Oprah is another icon of what this country was built on…we live in a country of opportunity. If you choose to work hard (and smart) then you too, can have the same opportunities as those like Bill Gates, Oprah, Buffet, and the Ken Lays of the world. Again, success is subjective. I don’t look at successful people, as mere financial gain only…yes, they might have worked hard to gain financially, but are they happy in their personal lives? What is their relationship to God, etc?

But, let’s just speak strictly financially, if you work hard, stay focused on your goals, and work smart…you can achieve anything you put your mind to. When we look at “rich” people…maybe they were poor people who just worked hard.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Speaking of the Rich…here’s a story about Warren Buffet. One of the smartest rich guys in the country. If the government listened to him, we’d have plenty of tax revenue to pay for all sorts of things.

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”