What it can buy I can use, I need money, that's what I want

Are we just a bunch of free agents? Is this what sports have taught us? If we think we aren’t making market value for our job, or if we’re unhappy with our current employer, we can’t seek a trade to another company, like athletes do, but we can apply and interview for a new job, essentially a try out for a different team that wants our services. When we get that new job, we play for that team for a while and when we’re unhappy or undervalued again, we try out for another new team. I’m a big believer in loyalty. I worked for the same company for 15 years before moving to Houston and switching careers altogether. However, as I stated a while ago, I am currently looking for more. Part of it is that I feel undervalued, but a bigger part of it is that I am underutilized. My intelligence level is way beyond this job, as well as the fact that this place is family owned. While they ask for my input, they don’t really want it, they have their minds made up before I open my mouth and that makes being here difficult. It’s too bad really, because this place has problems that I know I could fix, but I’m not being allowed to do those things, so I sit here and write blog entries when I have either the time or a topic to write about.

Going back to my original point though (are we just some free agents?), this seems to be a phenomenon that has only recently taken hold in the U.S., say the last 20 years. Before then, workers showed loyalty through good and bad times for their employer. I’m not sure loyalty really exists anymore. People come and go all the time, even here. It’s a wonder we get any work done because we’re always training someone new. By the time they know what they’re doing, they’re usually gone because they can get paid more elsewhere. Part of it I blame solely on this family for not paying their employees fair market value, but part of it I blame on the people themselves. They use this place to get their careers in order, get experience and move on to a better paying team. "That workplace may be better or worse, but there’s more money over there." That’s what the driving force is for most people. They need money to support themselves, their families, healthcare costs, childcare costs, 401K and other retirement funds, hobbies, habits, activities, vacations, social events, sporting events, transportation and the list goes on. I realize the cost of living is rising faster than the cost of wages and that people don’t want to settle for middle class anymore, you’re either wealthy or you’re not. It’s not about being happy in your mediocrity, it’s about being comfortable, maybe only slightly above mediocrity, but to them it’s comfortable.

The reason I’m bringing this all up is because in my economics class yesterday, we were talking about how companies should be required to give cost of living increases, even if they can’t match the current rate of increase, they should have to give you something to offset how much a home value or the price of gas has increased. I was quick to point out that not all companies could do this, such as small family owned companies like this one. I started to think about how to resolve this issue, or at least give a starting point as to how to resolve it and I came up with this:

Tax credits for companies who pay for healthcare and childcare costs for employees under a certain, government dictated, wage level . Instead of giving them tax breaks on silly things that hurt the environment, the local economy, or worse a tax break to the top 1% of Americans. Give them tax breaks that actually help the economy. For example, (and this is JUST AN EXAMPLE!) company X makes multi-million dollar profits on a yearly basis and employs 100 people under this wage level (let's say 35K/year). If they pay for their employees health insurance and pay for the 50 people who also have childcare costs, let’s say they have to pay 6K/employee for healthcare and 4K/employee for childcare (I don’t know how reasonable those numbers are, but we’ll go with them anyway), that’s 10K/employee, times 50 employees is 500K and then for the other 50 employees it will cost them 300K. That’s 800K/year to take care of their employees. Now, the company has made a very significant investment in its employees, what do they get in return? Well, they get a tax break on a certain percentage of what they paid out in those costs. I think it would have to work in brackets, sort of how it does now, where the more you paid, the more you get back. In any event, the company is winning because its employees are happier and the employees are winning because they just got a raise without their base salary increasing. Happy employees lead to more loyal and productive employees. Without the high turnover, the company becomes even more productive and sees its profits grow to heights unseen before. Maybe to partially offset some of this, the company also reduces the number of personal time off days each employee earns, not by a lot, maybe just a couple days/year, but this way, instead of a company paying you to not be at work, you are at work and being productive. Companies could get creative on how to offset these initial costs, but in the long run, doesn’t this sound like a huge win-win?

Now of course, here’s the glitch: does this plan make enough money for the government? If they are giving these tax credits out all over the place, is there anything left for them? Well, here’s the answer the Democrats are going to love: raise taxes. Of course, it can’t be a ridiculous increase or this wouldn’t work at all, but if we raised it even just a little, it could work.

What about the employees over that wage level? Well, maybe they get a percentage of their costs paid for, as they do now. To me it’s obvious that if you make over X amount of dollars/year, you should not be in trouble financially and if you are, it’s your own fault and your employer shouldn’t have to bail you out because you can’t budget well enough (let’s hope you don’t work in the accounting department!).

I believe companies have given-in to their employees in many cases, which is due to the low-level people in the organization sometimes being more important to the day-to-day functions than some CEO making $20 million a year is. But, in my mind, there are all sorts of benefits to this plan. It works for the company, the employee, the government and local, regional, state, national and global economies. It does have a downside though, psychiatrists may not have as many people coming to straighten their lives out because people would be happier. Well, I know I would happier, I could use the health insurance so I can pay for seeing my shrink.

It’s a choice between fact and fiction; And the whole world has gone astray; Except there’s no religion, no religion, no religion here today

So, I started out over here reading comments, which led me to here, but this post in particular. I've talked about religion and God before (here, here and here) and I only got through reading about half of that post when a few thoughts struck me. Now maybe this logic doesn't work for anybody else, but in my mind, it works just fine.

I began to reason that because homosexuality DOES exist, it helps to prove that Catholics/Christians are wrong about their God and that maybe it helps, in a small way, to prove that God doesn’t exist at all. Their God says that homosexuality is an abomination right? Then why does it exist? Why would He (or She) have even created the concept? Isn’t it fair to say that because the concept and the reality of homosexuality DOES exist, that God, in Catholic/Christian terms, could not co-exist? He’s all big and self-righteous about saying what a bad thing it is, but if it’s so bad, then why did you create it in the first place? I guess this argument goes along with the argument of Evil. If it’s so bad and we are supposed to love one another, then why does evil exist in the world? Even a religious man such as George W. Bush [as I chuckle and smirk] acknowledges the existence of evil.

Thoughts?

A Change Will Do You Good

Ok, so everyone is probably wondering where I’ve been right? What? You didn’t notice I haven’t been around? Fine. Be that way! So you don’t care that I’ve been ridiculously busy at work and only have time to make comments on the blogs I read, so what? See if I care that you don’t care about me – I DON’T! Ok, seriously, I do! Please come back and read me! I’m just so busy that I don’t have the time to do this as I wish I could. Plus, I’m searching for a new job which is extremely time consuming, but if anybody knows of a job opening that pays well and doesn’t require a lot of experience, feel free to let me know about it. I’ll take you out to dinner after I get said job, because with it’s great salary, I’ll then be able to afford going out to dinner!

Anyway, I have a specific topic I want to discuss and I plan on pissing someone specific off, so by all means, please comment on whether you think I’m right or wrong and if I am wrong, I’ll definitely apologize – but I’m not wrong, so don’t worry about it.

Ok, in the last few weeks, The Puck Stops Here has managed to anger me in ways that only comes about when I am deeply passionate about something; in this case, it is hockey. If you’ve read my previous posts about hockey (here and here), you’ll know this already. In order to properly understand why he has pissed me off, you’ll probably need to read THIS POST, THIS POST AND all of their subsequent comments. This WILL take a while. It’s ok, I’ll wait. (sung to the Jeopardy theme) Dum dum dum dum, dum dum dum. Dum dum dum dum duuum da da da da da. Dum dum dum dum, dum dum dum. Dum, da dum, da dum. Dum. Dum.

Ok seriously, you had to have read those posts and comments or you will not completely understand my position. Did you read them? Honestly? Ok, if not, you asked for it!

Yes, hockey has changed. It is not the same game it was 5, 10 20, or 50 years ago. That happens. Maybe you hadn’t noticed it in other sports, but it does happen in ALL sports.

Football has changed. The rules have changed. The game is harder hitting, the players are bigger and faster and teams have a salary cap. There was instant replay, then there wasn't, now there is again. The game that Jim Brown played is not the same game that Walter Payton played and his game was not the same game that Reggie Bush will be playing. It’s a billion dollar business played by multimillion-dollar athletes. Many of who have a “me first” attitude, which personally, I despise. Watch films of games from the 50’s and 60’s. The game was brutal, players were almost always bloodied, they played on fields that were not nearly as well-taken care of as they are today, but they played their hearts out because they loved the game. I don’t know how many of today’s players see it the same way as they did 50 years ago.

Baseball has changed too. The players are more athletic, train harder, although they rarely ever play injured (god forbid they have a hangnail), and is also a billion dollar business, played by multimillion dollar crybabies who are juiced up. Ok, not all of them. Nevertheless, seriously, who needs a $125 million dollar/10-year contract? Watch the series “When It Was a Game” and you’ll notice the difference between then and now is dramatic. Babe Ruth used to smoke, drink, and go hunting in the off-season. Now if a young guy doesn’t workout or play in the winter leagues, he’ll probably never make it.

Basketball has changed as well. It is starting to recover from the “Jordan hangover” and has some serious superstars that have taken the game to a different era. However it is still not the same game that Michael Jordan and his Chicago Bulls played. His game wasn’t the same as the game Larry Bird and Magic Johnson played. That game was not the same game Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain played either.

See my point? Hockey too has evolved; it’s changed. We had Gordie Howe. We had Wayne Gretzky. We had Boom Boom Geoffrion. We had Rocket Richard. We had Mark Messier. We had Patrick Roy. Now we have new superstars and maybe we’re in the same sort of “hangover” that basketball had after Jordan. But, we have some fresh, young talented players who will take the league to new heights in the next decade. Crosby, Staal, Ovechkin, Malkin, Miller. I don’t care that in the meantime, there is, as you have put it, mediocrity. To me, the game is still entertaining; maybe not as it once was, but if you watch the game for what it is - a game - it can be pretty good!**

Life is a series of high and low times. Hockey is coming out of its lowest time ever. We knew that it would never be the same after the lockout last year. Whether you care to accept it is your personal choice and it is certainly your right to express your opinion.

However, here is where I take issue with you. I have said a few times in my comments that it may be too early to tell what the complete ramifications of the new CBA are. I’ve also said that the teams that have had success this year, be it in the regular season or the playoffs, may be the future of the NHL, but unless we have a crystal ball and can see what that future is for sure, we can’t speculate on their successes or lack of until they happen. I realize this gives you something to do and a place to debate and I admit, I have taken part of it willingly. Nonetheless, I think your are so blinded by the past versus the here and now that you are unwilling to look at what the future may hold and you chastise everything that the NHL may be trying to accomplish in its future.

I will openly admit, your arguments and responses are well thought out and make sense if you know what the future holds. But you don't know and it appears to me, as your reader, that you don’t acknowledge the fact that you may eventually be wrong. You argue your points with conviction and I admire that, but you tend to not acknowledge or accept that another point of view exists. It is your way or no way.

Here is my point. If you don’t like where the game is headed; if you don’t like having to wallow watching “mediocre” hockey – THEN STOP WACTHING IT and STOP BLOGGING ABOUT IT. I used to enjoy reading your blog because it would get me fired up about things, but recently I realized after re-reading all of your particular comments on the “elite teams” post, that you’re not going to change unless in a few years you’re proven wrong somehow, probably with some metric system that someone will invent. If you’re not going to change, and it's your right not to, I can't keep reading, because I have better things to do than get all fired up about some guy who craps on the game I love.

It’s too bad it has come to this because I certainly don’t like pissing people off and I never intended to write this sort of post on here, but the passion I feel for hockey brings me to this level of anger after reading your blog.

**Of course I don’t have the time to go over everything about how each of the big four sports have changed, I gave a few examples of each and left it at that. Some of the changes have been for the better of the sport and some, many people would argue are not, but they’ve changed nonetheless and are more popular and make more money than ever before. This is where I hope hockey heads, even if it means we lose a little of how great the game once was.