This generation of kids...

[John in Covina]

Business with out ethics is a problem. I went through 2 different sales pitches about sales positions and learned that many businesses today such as insurance are run at the district level by people that pay lip service to ethics. I went through a sales program and then listening to what the district manager would say and I could feel all sorts of warning alarms go off in my head. To top it off I was flipping channels and came across a program that was about outlining the practices of scam artists and the parallels with the selling program I was taught was like a check list. It pushed all of the same buttons to get people to buy.

I was sitting with several sales men as they made calls. When they spoke to prospective customers, the successful ones were either stretching the truth or out and out lying. It made me heartsick.

 

[sheeplady]

We need for-profit schools. They fill an important educational niche in this country by providing access to education that many would otherwise not have.

Regards,
Tom

As a person who is training to someday work for a non-profit college as an academic, I agree with you. These schools fill niches in our society. Some of the problems that are preached as being "for profit school problems" are actually problems that have to do with the academic post-secondary system in general.

I also second that academic scientists work awfully hard, with little financial gain. At least in the US, if a scientist creates a cure, the university owns the patent (faculty are considered work for hire here), and the scientist will not see one cent made from that patent. And the pressures on research faculty are immense.

The plain truth is that we need corporate banks- anybody who has actually run their own business knows that a lot of businesses have to work on credit, and that credit has to come from someplace.

 

[Tiller]

I think that there's far more honor in actually *producing something tangible* -- making cheese, for example -- than in simply shuffling numbers around on a computer screen, and for most of our history, the culture shared that view. When Thomas Murphy, the chairman of General Motors back in the '70s, famously stated "We're not in the business of making cars, we're in the business of making money" it was a sign of how that culture had shifted, and of where we, as a society, had lost our way.

(By the way, Mr. Murphy, how'd that philosophy end up working out?)

I think you're being a bit idealistic here Lizzie. Business has solely always been about making a profit from the beginning, it serves no other purpose. Whether Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, or Sir James Lancaster, ever wanted to admit it so openly or not a companies solely exist is to make a profit. A business isn't a manor house. I think if more of us were honest with ourselves, we would agree that the only reason any of us learn a skill is so we can make a profit and support ourselves. Then again I don't think profit is an evil word, which I know makes me a minority in some places.

As far as the working class culture goes, the reason some of the members of it (including myself atm) have no interest in staying working class is because we want an easier life. You can romanticize hard physical labor all you want, and you can write great stories about how amazing the simple life of a farmer is, but many of us want to avoid having a beaten up back by the time we are 35. Laura Ingalls Wilder may have made putting up a fence sound romantic, and it as declared to be "honest work", but only someone who has dug out the holes and hammered in the post knows there is nothing majestic about it.

Also this idea that the working class is under attack in pop culture, well I simply don't see it, at least where I am. I know certain subcultures who look down on workers, such as the hipster community. When it comes to the culture that I am in, once you get outside small town USA the general vibe is an annoyance towards "educated idiots", and the "evil rich". Maybe it's because I'm from a rural area, but the "redneck and proud" culture is alive in well, and dominate. It's not the people on Wall Street, who claim they are nothing more then simple people who like big trucks, cheap beer, and women of low virtue. It's the people themselves who embrace and further the stereotype. Not only that, but they take pride in it!

The entire country music industry those nothing but send out hit after hit about being a member of the rural working class, how tough life is, how we may not be edumacted but we don't want no edumacation anyways, all we want is some beer and a pick up truck so we can take Mary Sue out to the hollow and have a good time. Meanwhile the supervisor at my mill dun kicked my dog, so I punched him in the face and told tha' sumbich what for like a real man! And if you don't like me well you can kiss ma overall covered behind, you yella suit wearin money makin dog!

In the city it's usually expressed with rap music, where we be down in the ghetto fighting with the man and the police, who just don't get us. We be keepin it real unlike all those posers who be working for the man! I don't owe anyone anything!

I'd argue that these created "working class cultures" whether false or not have done more harm then help. Some of the individuals of the working class though, who have chosen to live up these stereotypes. Hell around here I know people who look down on individuals who try to "better themselves" and betray "their people". I know people in my own family, who are almost ashamed by the fact that their ancestors were once "big men" in town. Why? Simple, it betrays their image as a skoal chewing, Confederate flag in the back of the pick up (and mind you my family has been in the North since we arrived in America back in 1858), good ole boy, "I don't care "bout nothin'n'none" attitude. Which then means that actually learning a skill and trying to be more well off financially makes you a traitor("You think your better then your people boy? You think havin some fancy degree makes you better then me boy?"). I have a cousin who likes to claim that our Grandfather was a "logger", which he was of course, but they also forget to mention the little fact that he also owned the logging company, a working farm, and a few thousand acres of land.

That's what I have seen anyways, from my little slice of heaven in upstate New York. I've never meet anyone who is "well off" around here who looks down at a man who does physical labor. I know plenty members of the "working class" who look down on anyone who tries to move beyond it though. This idea that anyone who has been financially successful with their life is a traitor to "their people", is just as bigoted of a view as anyone who looks down on physical laborers.

 

[sheeplady]

And where does this relate to This Generation Of Kids? Well, when was the last time a guidance counselor told a young student that a blue-collar job was a perfectly acceptable option? My brother-in-law makes 80 grand a year as an electric lineman, so it isn't about the money. It's about *class distinction.*

Well, I witnessed teachers telling kids they might as well drop out (in front of the class), because they couldn't hack anything. "You were born poor, you're going to die poor. What makes you think you're going to do anything better than welfare? Your parents are welfare. What makes you think you're so special you can do anything other than living off my tax money?"

I'm pretty sure they are still telling the kids the same stuff, since some of the same people are still working there. Not everybody is getting the "you're too special to not go to college." I'm convinced that a lot of kids are still getting the "you're not special enough to do anything."

The problem is that we have a lot of class warfare in the US- both up and down, sideways and across people's classes. And class is about more than money. Perhaps class warfare isn't the quite right word- but there are a lot of assumptions made about people's class by people who haven't gotten out of their own little slice of it, and can't understand how the other half lives. And don't want to.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think you're being a bit idealistic here Lizzie. Business has solely always been about making a profit from the beginning, it serves no other purpose. Whether Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, or Sir James Lancaster, ever wanted to admit it so openly or not a companies solely exist is to make a profit.

"Let me say right here that I do not believe that we should make such an awful profit on our cars. A reasonable profit is right, but not too much. So it has been my policy to force the price of the car down as fast as production would permit, and give benefits to users and laborers. Business is a service, not a bonanza." -- Henry Ford, 1917

Now, I'm not a Ford fan -- the Battle of Willow Run, the Protocols, and all that -- but I think he was as right as two rabbits when he made the above statement. Of course, he was just a blue-collar mechanic at heart and not a Harvard MBA, so obviously he couldn't have known anything about business.

 

[Tiller]

"Let me say right here that I do not believe that we should make such an awful profit on our cars. A reasonable profit is right, but not too much. So it has been my policy to force the price of the car down as fast as production would permit, and give benefits to users and laborers. Business is a service, not a bonanza." -- Henry Ford, 1917

Now, I'm not a Ford fan -- the Battle of Willow Run, the Protocols, and all that -- but I think he was as right as two rabbits when he made the above statement. Of course, he was just a blue-collar mechanic at heart and not a Harvard MBA, so obviously he couldn't have known anything about business.

I can't say I'm a fan of Mr. Ford either, but that is because of his outright antisemitism. Besides that he did have a remarkable life, and had some admirable qualities, he's entrepreneurial skills being one of them. I think the fact that Mr. Ford was a blue collar mechanic helped him become a successful business man. In order to market to a certain audience you have to know their values, and Mr. Ford was interested in making a car that the "every man" could afford, and he sold the idea of his brand as such. Now call me a cynic, but if Mr. Ford had instead choose to sell his brand as a product to the upper class I doubt he would have made to many statements about his opinions on profit. I'd also suggest that such sentimental statements, helped him look good to the people at large with his fights against the labor unions.

Mr. Ford appealed to the majority, made cost effective cars and made out like a bandit. Sam Walton did the general same thing with Wal-Mart. It's smart marketing, and good business combining to make large profits.

I'd also add that men such as Andrew Carnegie did believe that the rich had a social responsibility, and certain standards to live up to. I personally agree with such sentiments, but I would suggest that Mr. Carnegie didn't create Carnegie Steel Company/US Steel in order to create jobs. I have a gut feeling that he started the company to make a profit. Honestly though I don't see that in and of itself to be a problem, what the man did with regards to other "ventures" though I do have a problem with, but if I get into that to much it could/would be political.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There were plenty of robber barons and corporate pirates in the late 19th and early 20th Century, to be sure. And Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busters put them in their place. Likewise the sweatshop operators and their ilk, who roused Samuel Gompers' ire. Those business values were thoroughly discredited in their day, but those who forget history, etc. etc.

 

[noonblueapples]

And where does this relate to This Generation Of Kids? Well, when was the last time a guidance counselor told a young student that a blue-collar job was a perfectly acceptable option?

When My son declared at the end of eighth grade that he wanted to be an auto mechanic and go to the tech high school his teachers first explained to us that he was too bright for that. When we insisted they started to convieniently loose paper work etc. It got to a stand off where we had to deal with the superintendant just to get him in.

On the flip side of this argument though I (having worked blue collar or service sector my whole life) see so many working class people who essentially have turned themselves off at about age 20. Thay act as thogh they don't need to think or learn or have reasoning or culture due to the class they are in.

 

[Tiller]

There were plenty of robber barons and corporate pirates in the late 19th and early 20th Century, to be sure. And Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busters put them in their place. Likewise the sweatshop operators and their ilk, who roused Samuel Gompers' ire. Those business values were thoroughly discredited in their day, but those who forget history, etc. etc.

Indeed, we could go on and on about this or that with regards to the history, and what aspects are right and wrong when it comes to the struggle of the private and public sectors. We can debate economic theories, and in the end be bored out of minds. Nothing endues sleep faster then economic theory, except perhaps my Mother's Thanksgiving dinner.

I would just simply suggest that "making money" has always been what business is all about. Even going back to the artisan and merchant classes of the Mercantilism era. Business has always existed to create a profit for the individuals engaging in it, and culturally this has never changed. It's always about exchanging and valuing what person x is offering, well he values what you are giving him for his product/service. I simply don't think it was the product of the 1970's.

 

[LizzieMaine]

On the flip side of this argument though I (having worked blue collar or service sector my whole life) see so many working class people who essentially have turned themselves off at about age 20. Thay act as thogh they don't need to think or learn or have reasoning or culture due to the class they are in.

I've seen that too -- and I wonder who made them think that way? Who gave them that idea? Parents? Popular culture? Or both?

It's interesting to compare today's culture with the culture of the '30s. Things that are today considered rarefied highbrow stuff -- opera, classical music, Shakespeare -- were among the most popular radio features among working class audiences. It was considered a mark of distinction in a working class home to have the Encyclopedia Britannica or Dr. Eliot's Five Foot Shelf Of Books in the living room. Has working class culture dumbed itself down -- or have the people who package and sell culture decided not to bother with the blue collar folks anymore?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I would just simply suggest that "making money" has always been what business is all about. Even going back to the artisan and merchant classes of the Mercantilism era. Business has always existed to create a profit for the individuals engaging in it, and culturally this has never changed. It's always about exchanging and valuing what person x is offering, well he values what you are giving him for his product/service. I simply don't think it was the product of the 1970's.

The idea that the only responsibility of a business is to its stockholders, however, was definitely a product of the 70s and 80s, and that's the point of view I'm attacking. A businessman expressing that view in 1935 would have been strung up.

 

[Pompidou]

It's the idea that anybody can rise from poverty to wealth that became the "American Dream". This is certainly a powerful motivator for why many people went into business. The middle class has always envied the upper class and entertained hopes of joining it, since its very creation.

 

[Juliet]

Derek,
That's awfully nice of you, thank you. Only in all honesty we didn't exactly choose this field, it was more coincidences all coming together. We're a private research company - we provide services, develop and produce a product/technology that will be used, and usually have several research lines.
Ironically, we have an international project starting soon, in which the ultimate product will be a natural preservative for meat and fish. But at least not cheese lol
See, there's a little catch in all of this. Most of the time research (if not requested by a corporation or institution) is co-funded by public grants. In public grants, there are fashion trends every other year or so. In order to receive funding (and it a heavy battle, as it is already), scientists will slightly modify the official "packaging" of the research they would like to pursue. Say, they want to extract a new substance/extract a sought-after substance from a new source. Usually this is groomed to a trend, e.g. cancer research, or lately nanotechnologies, and the main research is done parallel to the course of the grant.

 

[Pompidou]

Derek,
That's awfully nice of you, thank you. Only in all honesty we didn't exactly choose this field, it was more coincidences all coming together. We're a private research company - we provide services, develop and produce a product/technology that will be used, and usually have several research lines.
Ironically, we have an international project starting soon, in which the ultimate product will be a natural preservative for meat and fish. But at least not cheese lol
See, there's a little catch in all of this. Most of the time research (if not requested by a corporation or institution) is co-funded by public grants. In public grants, there are fashion trends every other year or so. In order to receive funding (and it a heavy battle, as it is already), scientists will slightly modify the official "packaging" of the research they would like to pursue. Say, they want to extract a new substance/extract a sought-after substance from a new source. Usually this is groomed to a trend, e.g. cancer research, or lately nanotechnologies, and the main research is done parallel to the course of the grant.

Tiller,
You're absolutely right, that business is based on profit. I think Lizzie what meant was more the way big corporations take it a bit too far, especially in regard to most of their employees.

Lizzie is right in that they take it too far. She's right in that it was the 80s that saw huge changes in corporate behavior. I say, the only reason corporations in the past may have been more socially equitable is because they wouldn't have been allowed to be otherwise. As she said, such a businessman would've been "strung up". I wouldn't attribute it to any lofty intentions of the business. The goal is to make money and not get in trouble for it. They did just that - got as rich as they could while staying within legally and socially accepted parameters. If they thought they could've doubled their income with a change in thought process, and gotten away with it, and they didn't because it wouldn't be the right thing to do, that wouldn't seem very human like to me. It's easy to condemn the tactics of the wealthy when you're not. It's hard to resist when you've got the opportunity. On one hand you've got Andrew Carnegie, and on the other hand you've got people that wish they were Andrew Carnegie but didn't get the chance. There aren't many people who had the chance to be Andrew Carnegie but said, "You know, I'm better than that."

 

[Juliet]

The entire country music industry those nothing but send out hit after hit about being a member of the rural working class, how tough life is, how we may not be edumacted but we don't want no edumacation anyways, all we want is some beer and a pick up truck so we can take Mary Sue out to the hollow and have a good time. Meanwhile the supervisor at my mill dun kicked my dog, so I punched him in the face and told tha' sumbich what for like a real man! And if you don't like me well you can kiss ma overall covered behind, you yella suit wearin money makin dog!

In the city it's usually expressed with rap music, where we be down in the ghetto fighting with the man and the police, who just don't get us. We be keepin it real unlike all those posers who be working for the man! I don't owe anyone anything!

Had I been drinking, I would've sprayed my monitor. That was just hilarious!

I hope I'm not offending the upper or the middle classes with laughing at this))))))

 

[Derek WC]

It is quite hilarious how kids today (Saying that like I am not one) seem to think that all of these country singers really live in the country, while they live in up state new york or Los Angeles or something, and that these rap singers are in gangs and kill people and whatnot while glorifying drug use and sin in general, yet they are probably afraid of gangsters enough to wet themselves.

 

[Pompidou]

It is quite hilarious how kids today (Saying that like I am not one) seem to think that all of these country singers really live in the country, while they live in up state new york or Los Angeles or something, and that these rap singers are in gangs and kill people and whatnot while glorifying drug use and sin in general, yet they are probably afraid of gangsters enough to wet themselves.

There are enough examples of said stars who were the real thing to spread the illusion to the whole industry. I mean, you could probably google rap artists who were killed by gunshot, or rap artists who were arrested, and find no small percentage. Some say prison time even helps the career. As for country, I can't say. I don't follow either, but at least the plight of the rap artist tends to make headlines. The origins of a country singer would never flag my attention.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I say, the only reason corporations in the past may have been more socially equitable is because they wouldn't have been allowed to be otherwise.

Which is precisely the point I was making at the very beginning of the discussion -- it's the *culture* that has changed for the worst, and the depradations of the past three decades are only the symptoms of a diseased culture. We've sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.

 

[Tiller]

The idea that the only responsibility of a business is to its stockholders, however, was definitely a product of the 70s and 80s, and that's the point of view I'm attacking. A businessman expressing that view in 1935 would have been strung up.

Oh I agree with the fact that nobody would have openly said that in 1935, but I do think the majority of businessmen and women of any age generally thought that a business' main responsibility was to the people who owned it. They may also argue that said business is a plus for the community because it does x, but I doubt many would say that the business has to do x out of a moral idea if it hurts the business earning potential. It's just been voiced more since the 70's and 80's.

Many farmers wouldn't give a damn about say an endangered species of ground hog that is ruining his fields. Some (like the law for example lol) would say that he has a social responsibility to not kill the species, well the farmer sees them as a pest since he is losing profit potential because he can't use his field. The farmer believes he is protecting himself (the owner) and his earning potential, well others may believe he has enough money and should be caring for the rodent so they can be preserved for posterity. The farmer would argue that his land and farm's only responsibility is to make him and his family money, it isn't their to be a wildlife preserve.

You can take the analogy for any business(whether owned by an individual, a partnership, or a group of stockholders) being faced with something seen as a social obligation. Now on different issues some of us will agree with the business owners sometimes, and other times with the perceived obligation, depending on the situation. I just think that since the end of Manorialism, property and business owners ultimately feel that their enterprise exist to make them money first and foremost. It's the idea that a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow. He has a right to the fruit of his labor, whether it comes from his back, his hands, or his mind.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Oh I agree with the fact that nobody would have openly said that in 1935, but I do think the majority of businessmen and women of any age generally thought that a business' main responsibility was to the people who owned it. They may also argue that said business is a plus for the community because it does x, but I doubt many would say that the business has to do x out of a moral idea if it hurts the business earning potential. It's just been voiced more since the 70's and 80's.

Except for this guy.