From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Smelling The Roses (was Re: Companies can afford it, right?)
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:27:39 GMT
Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk (igloo))
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization

In article <1163@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) rambles:

>In article <34146@unix.SRI.COM>, maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak) writes:

>> There's one facet of wharfie's arguments thast has been missed so
>> far, but that many friends of mine are all too aware of: 4 out of 5
>> startups fail.

>Ah statistics.  That statistic is true.  However it includes *all*
>startups.  The majority of businesses that have anything remotely
>resembling a reasonable business plan succeed.

Of course, "reasonable business plan" is measured by success. It was
not reasonable if the business failed, right?

>It isn't all that hard to do a moderately successful startup 
>[particularly if you don't have venture capital.]

It is extremely difficult to do an even borderline successful startup.
If it weren't difficult, there would certainly be many many more attempts
than there are presently.

>> So for everyone who has a company that even stays in business, four
>> others find a boarded up door with a sheriff's sale notice on it.
>> As for hitting the big bucks by going public and making those stock
>> options worth something...odds are not in your favor, folks.
>> Factor that in.

>Again, misleading.  Most of the failures are in things like family
>restaurants and the like. 

Did you wish to restrict startups to high tech or something? I won't
bother to ask why, because there is, IMO, no validity to such a 
restriction. Indeed, restricting to high tech makes the statistics
even worse. Consider those who have a dream and actually put together
a plan, then cannot raise the capital necessary. Many of them devote
serious time to their venture, and I consider that once the plan is
created and pursued, the venture has started. The likelihood of a
high tech startup getting to the stage of actually operating with
marketable product is much lower than the family restaurant. Yes, the
failure rates are skewed as there are many uncounted.

>A wise person takes the effusions of the powerful with a shakerfull of salt.

A wise person takes all promises of future reward for against lower
living standards now with a wharehouse full of salt.

>But Valerie, dear, my perception is that the shoe is on the other foot.
>Wharfie took exception to one of the Susan's effusions and stated his
>own goals and values and perceptions.  This has been followed by all
>and sundry slamdunking him.

I don't believe I've seen any slamdunking of wharfie the persona. I
have seen the slamdunk of an entire value system. There are those who
have great difficulty, apparently, in distinguishing the two. And that,
in my opinion, is part of the basis for the problem itself. I am NOT
what I do. I am NOT subsumed by my employment. I AM a free man. Yes,
I have to save and do whatever is necessary to earn the level of income
to achieve my goals and dreams. That no longer includes what has 
historically been called "the fast lane" nor does it include deferring 
income to the benefit of someone else's dream. Yet, with proper manipulation 
of variables, I have time to smell the roses, a measure of the quality of 
life I demand for myself and loved ones. I made the time for my children for 
at least part of their years as dependents. I should have grown to understand 
these things earlier in my life.

>Any way there are a couple of different issues here.  I agree intensely
>that our society is short changing our children in a rather suicidal
>way.  Susan appears to have the position that it is the responsibility
>of business to do something about it, and that they don't because of
>nasty corporate greed.  This, I opine, is so much bull and it is this
>bull that ticked Wharfie off, IMHO.

Given we have only a few types of institutions which can actually solve 
these problems, it seems that business is the best equipped to handle the
solutions. Wharfie objected by making the same lame claims that business
has made forever, and also supported several other concepts I found 
offensive which resulted in the roses thread. 

Anything short of getting your due COD is shortchanging yourself and your 
family, a great potential soc.men topic, IMO. EMP, educational goals and
"student sacrifice" belong as well although in a well tuned system those 
things wouldn't need to happen either.

>The function of widget companies is to manufacture and sell widgets.
>What I perceive Susan and others to be espousing is that widget companies
>should be taxed [in the form of mandated policies] to solve, in situ,
>the problems of society.  Now this is so much rubbish, to my way of
>thinking.  

Strange you think of mandated conditions of doing business as rubbish as 
all government theory determines that any center of earning power is to be 
taxed to solve societal problems. We've added to that taxing consumerism. 
Perhaps you have some better suggestions? I've read you telling us that
none of the offered solutions are acceptable

>A widget company represents a division of labor in the society;
>they are the ones with expertise in making and selling widgets.  They
>are not and it is counterproductive to the society for them to try to
>be experts in human resources.

Patent nonsense. They are experts in human resources in order to be 
able to utilize humans to manufacture widgets in the first place.

>The direct result of "business is responsible" is to differentially 
>discriminate against the most economically productive sectors of the 
>economy.

This went from nonsense to stupid in short order. First, there has been
no sugestion of differentiation let alone discrimination. You threw 
those hot buttons in for good measure where they never existed. 

Second, the reason why they are "most economically productive" is
because they have conned people into working for far less than the
actual value of their services. 

>It seems to me to be obvious that there should be a national health care
>system, and that there should be a universal child support system.  It
>seems to me be that there should be institutional structure to make it
>possible to be a care-giving parent without committing economic suicide.
>It even seems obvious to me that large, wealthy corporations waste a lot
>of economic resources on corporate plushness.

You seem to suggest we stick the large, rich corporations with the tab. Nope, 
lets impose a level requirement for support across the board. If a company 
cannot afford to stay in business given universal rules, then lets help it 
out of its misery.

>But I also think that this notion that business should assume, under
>duress, the responsibility for solving social ills is destructive both
>to society and to business.

You are, of course, entitled to hold incorrect or even stupid beliefs. 
No segment of American society has voluntarily undertaken the solutions 
to the problems we're discussing. Where solutions have been emplaced, it 
has been by mandate and under duress. We're not even providing low level 
health care insurance to a significant segment of the working population, 
leaving them to die or become dependent on society as a whole for most 
serious illness. 

The responsibility for solving social ills belongs to all of us. What
you need to remember is that in this country, a corporation is a person.
It is time to enforce the same responsibility on corporations as we
have been requiring of "natural persons."

Bill Vajk
Newsgroups: soc.men