How Prophetic Was 'Atlas Shrugged'
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years ago to Philosophy
I received this e-mail a couple of days ago. How similar does it strike you as the owner's of John Galt's employer, The 20th Century Motor Co. that caused him to shrug, or remind you of James Taggert? Note the use of the words, 'equal and livable wage', and 'Champion of Change'.
"The White House, Washington
Hi,
I'm Randy, the founder of the Red Hen Baking Company in Middlesex, Vermont.
Our 42 employees are the core of everything we do -- the heart of Red Hen. That is why my wife Liza and I insist on providing paid sick days, an equal and livable wage, health coverage, and other benefits that help everyone balance the work they love with the life they lead. Through these workplace policies, we know we're making our employees more secure, our bakery more productive, and our business more profitable.
It's common sense -- plain and simple. That's why I'm so excited and honored to be at the White House today as a "Champion of Change" for working families. I'll be joining President Obama, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, and other champions of workplace policies to talk about how crucial they are to building a stronger business. This is too important of an issue for anyone to sit on the sidelines. So you should join us, too.
Watch live at the White House today starting at 12:15 p.m. ET to hear what ordinary people are doing to make an extraordinary difference for America's hardworking men and women.
You can join in on the conversation using the hashtag #WorkingFamilyChamps. Whether you're an employer, an employee, a working mom or dad, or brand new to the workforce, your voice can help lift up the challenges millions of working families face and the solutions that will make a difference.
So I'll hope you'll join us live and be a champion for your employees, coworkers, or your community by standing up for common-sense workplace policies.
Because the bottom line is this: Employees that are happy at work perform better. Focusing on policies that make sense for working families has paid dividends for our business. There's no reason more companies across the country can't do the same thing and realize those benefits.
If you have thoughts, I'd love to hear them. I hope you'll join the conversation today.
Thanks,
Randy
Randy George
Middlesex, Vermont"
Can you point to other predictions from AS that are real today?
"The White House, Washington
Hi,
I'm Randy, the founder of the Red Hen Baking Company in Middlesex, Vermont.
Our 42 employees are the core of everything we do -- the heart of Red Hen. That is why my wife Liza and I insist on providing paid sick days, an equal and livable wage, health coverage, and other benefits that help everyone balance the work they love with the life they lead. Through these workplace policies, we know we're making our employees more secure, our bakery more productive, and our business more profitable.
It's common sense -- plain and simple. That's why I'm so excited and honored to be at the White House today as a "Champion of Change" for working families. I'll be joining President Obama, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, and other champions of workplace policies to talk about how crucial they are to building a stronger business. This is too important of an issue for anyone to sit on the sidelines. So you should join us, too.
Watch live at the White House today starting at 12:15 p.m. ET to hear what ordinary people are doing to make an extraordinary difference for America's hardworking men and women.
You can join in on the conversation using the hashtag #WorkingFamilyChamps. Whether you're an employer, an employee, a working mom or dad, or brand new to the workforce, your voice can help lift up the challenges millions of working families face and the solutions that will make a difference.
So I'll hope you'll join us live and be a champion for your employees, coworkers, or your community by standing up for common-sense workplace policies.
Because the bottom line is this: Employees that are happy at work perform better. Focusing on policies that make sense for working families has paid dividends for our business. There's no reason more companies across the country can't do the same thing and realize those benefits.
If you have thoughts, I'd love to hear them. I hope you'll join the conversation today.
Thanks,
Randy
Randy George
Middlesex, Vermont"
Can you point to other predictions from AS that are real today?
Previous comments...
"that help everyone balance the work they love with the life they lead." and 'an EQUAL and livable wage" doesn't strike me as capitalistic. Equal to what or who, all the other 42 workers, equal to the owners? And if everyone is paid equal, what incentive is there for workers to improve or be more productive?
I don't even understand what the business owner means by this.
I've seen people do it, but I struggle to keep things working paying people the going rate. I have no idea how someone stays in business with an arbitrary rule on how much to pay for something.
There is no conflict between the interest of the owners and the interest of the workers. That conflict is the very base for socialism and many capitalists wrongly bought it.
Frederick Taylor wrote one book, published in 1911. He said there that all he wanted to show is how the conflict between high wages and low cost was just apparent. The rest of the book and his methods were developed to eliminate that conflict (by the way, those methods are wrong in the majority of cases). Of course nobody remembers that of Taylor, only the study of time and movements.
So, yes, I agree with you: equal is nonsense and I repeat I don't believe it is the case even when that Randy declares it. The important point is caring about employees is in direct interest of the owners, and was reflected on the quote that I offered previously.
When *the others* say sensible things, I prefer to praise them for those rather than smash them for the rest of it. And agreeing on the objective, then we can discuss alternatives of actions.
This is strike 1.
1. Socialists have preached a fight between employers and employees for many years, sowing the hatred that gains votes for socialists.
2. This struggle is apparent because most employers are creators of jobs, so they look for employees that freely will collaborate to make their enterprises successful.
3. As many employers accepted the struggle as given, socialists have gained power because employers engaged in the fight. Many of them abused.
4. When an employer shows how better off his company is caring about the employees beyond their expectations, I celebrate it instead of calling him stupid.
By the way, the arrogancy of your reply deserved silence.
#1. I can certainly agree with that item.
#2. Employers, in my view, don't look for employees that 'freely' do anything. Rather, it's a value for value arrangement, as long as unions and government stay out of the arrangement.
#3. I don't know of any employers that one could point to that had a business in order to abuse employees or to engage in struggles or even had such goals as any part of their business plans. That propaganda has led to significant influence gains by union socialist during the 30's and 40's thanks to FDR's help. The struggle of American business has been to keep unionism out of the businesses and plants. And they have been more and more successful, with non-governmental union membership down to the order of 10% or less of the American workforce.
#4. I would suggest that the employer that cares about his business and pays value for value to his employees, as a side effect, provides a much greater opportunity to those employees than does any altruistic 'beyond their expectations' treatment ever could.
You're still on strike 2.
#2. If it is not *freely* then it must be forced. It is impossible to trade value for value if it is not freely. So you contradict yourself in that one. Employees must go freely to work, and there are many situations where this is not true.
#3. You can twist my words as you wish. There is plenty of evidence to point many employers abusing. That is undisputable. I certainly don't believe their goal in business is to abuse and I didn't say that in the first place.
#4. Who said otherwise? What you apparently didn't understand was that going beyond employees expectations is, in my opinion, in direct interest for the business. Because (I will sustain my last claim) companies don't produce value for the good performance of some or even the majority of the employees in isolation; the value is produced when the whole company is synchronized, and for that you need collaboration. The more synchronization, the greater the value. It is a team effort. If it wasn't, there would not be companies at all, only individuals trading time for money.
By the way, altruism is a good thing. I know what AR said about it. She redefined the word and I agree with her on the message: nobody has the right to force you onto altruism (disgusting and it is not altruism anymore), but it is a good thing when someone does good to another just for the sake of being good (it is in self interest). I didn't use that word but as you introduced it in this argument, I just recalled the accepted meaning in the dictionary.
I must say that your patronizing tone is very unpleasant, your reading skills are just acceptable and I couldn't care less about your strikes thing. You may have the force to hide me off the thread, but you didn't show where I was illogical. Go ahead, make my day :-)
1. It makes more sense where work is systematized and output is highly corrected to time in. I'm not saying it's right, but that condition makes it easier for people to sell the employee / employer conflict narrative. It's harder when work is creative. Much systematized worked is being automated, so this struggle narrative is harder to sell.
2. I suspect it's a vocal minority that accepts the narrative. Every day millions of people go to work and solve customer problems and never think about a workers' political struggle. When a politician wants showcase his "concern for the workers", he does an interview like this and blasts out an e-mail, so we hear about the unusual case of labor being politicized.
Strike 1
While entrepeneurs are perceived as "selfish sharks", socialists will get the votes of the majority. We all know the consequences of it. I see my country (Chile) captured today by those looters.
Equal pay is nonsense and only slaves would accept that. Slave workers that are forced to work on less, or slave owners that are forced to pay more, being less or more than what the market says.
Livable is just a necessary condition. If it is not livable, the worker needs to adjust the living cost, but it is obvious that nobody can sustain an impossible situation for long. And yes, this is the typical manipulation of words.
My claim is that caring for employees is good for business. I can prove this rigorously.
I worked at Hewlett-Packard for about 27 years and when I saw the trend by 'upper management' to treat employees as "cost centers" and not 'profit producers,' I knew that The End Was Near.
I realized that the flow could have been Good Management => Happy Sales and Support Teams => Happy Customers.
When the first link in that chain rusted, the chain was bound to break. It was just a matter of time.
The bakery's website does not appear to me to sound 'socialistic' of 'mooching' as they do describe 'using their profits to improve the company'. They're apparently not operating as a non-profit.
I do wish they could have been less 'unspecific' about what they meant by 'equal pay,' and other 'benefits' like those. Sloppy thinking, editing, communicating.
And normal here, nowadays!
Cheers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_...
The Little Red Hen is a perfect children's story to teach about Producers vs. Moochers.
Then I read the rest of your thread, including comments from others and the links to the actual company.
Are you sure that this company is not set up as a "shrug" company?
Even in 'shrug' land, everyone's work doesn't deserve equal pay. Value for value??
I hope this means voting for the RIGHT people!
This has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat.