SCCutler said:
Bill, you are spot on here. One of the most distressing things which has happened to political discourse in recent times is the inherent presumption in reportage that being supportive of business automstically means being dismissive of individuals, which is bunk (and I attribute this, in large measure, to the ability the left-leaning media has to frame the issues through choice of story and editing tone).
Spike, I agree in principal with two exceptions. First is that I don't think the media is the only cause. Second, I can state with some authority that it's not just the left-leaning part of the media, but also the right-leaning part of the media that frames issues in the way you describe. Now, as for how/why I can state that, I saw how it worked from the inside. The job I left last year was a Sr. Exec position with one of the country's largest media & entertainment companies (one that many detractors accused of being wholly conservative because of who some of the program hosts were). The folks that produced the broadcasts framed issues to
gain audience among the target demographics. It was all about gaining audience, and therefore revenue & profits, not because there was any attempt to be fair or present alternate views.
It shouldn't be too hard to figure out which company if you consider the information above and the city in which I live.
Funny thing is, all my clients are small businesses, and all of the people who own them value their employees and want to do more for them than they are allowed or able to do.
I think that's very true in small companies, and true to a lesser degree in bigger companies. Many big companies see employees as a cost center, and once the company gets to a certain size, it loses much of the personal touch.
An example: Jack Welch had a theory that a company should regularly identify and fire the "lowest ranking" 5 - 10 percent of the employees. Where these employees were in ill-fitting jobs, it was OK to transfer them to a better fit. Along with this "stick", he also had a carrot of providing extra compensation to the top performers. All well and fine, good theory.
I know one company (personally) where the CEO announced an edict to the staff-heads: "Jack Welch says that we can get good performance by eliminiting the non-performers. Therefore, you shall rank all employees and fire the lowest 10%". No transfers unless the employee identified the opening on his/her own. And ALL raises & bonuses were limited to 2% that year, even for the top performers. This CEO ignored the "carrot" part.
I won't argue Welch's approach - it is one theory. But to b^$#erdize it and apply it the way the other company did is NOT caring for employees. Guess who has major morale and economic problems now? ('the beatings will continue until morale improves').
Big problem, though, is the increasingly-common dependency culture, people being told that they cannot succeed without having something done for them, always (of course) by the government. From where, one asks, does the government get the resources it spends, and how much more can be extracted from those who are productive before they simply give up? Today's a good day to be asking these questions, eh?
Dependency is more than the government. It includes benefits doled out by companies. It includes frivalous lawsuits. It includes the little signs that say "for your protection we will check your ID". Along the way both political parties realized that they can draw power by creating dependency.
That is, of course, just my opinion.
