Framanista, I did not mean to offend you. I am sorry if I consider running a business in a business like manner, important. I know my approach sounds harsh and money oriented, and you are right, it is.
Last time I went to church, they passed around a basket to collect, what was it, oh ya, money. Joan Crock, here in San Diego controlled a huge amount of "money" that came from "business". She contributed millions to charity annually. She set up San Diego's biggest homeless shelter. She set up the Ronald McDonald house. I can not think of one charity in The United States that does not get it's funding from "business".
Why,if business is such a terrible thing, does everyone keep coming to it for money and jobs? Do people who run a business owe this to you? Have we committed some sort of crime for working hard to provide jobs to other people? Should a law be passed to insure that "money" that is donated to charity has not been soiled by "business"?
A " business" is nothing more than a group of people working together to achieve a common goal. If one person does not want to work, or pull their own weight or contribute to the common goal, they pull everyone else down with them. Look at it this way, ten people work together in a shop. One person does half the work of the other nine, yet gets the same paycheck. Soon someone else is going to notice, and they too will start doing half the work for the same pay. This cycle continues on until the whole crew is doing as little work as possible. You can see this almost every day at any government office or work crew by the road.
What do you think brought the U.S.S.R. to it's knees? The same thing, nobody wanted to produce. That is pretty much what you are professing, that instead of running a business in a business like manner, it should be run for and by the "workers". That didn't work so well in Russia, why do you think it would work well here?
I feel sorry for the womans personal problems, but she is dragging Pamela's business down with her. Why should Pamela be expected to pay for her parents illnesses? Would it not be fair for you to call her and offer to contribute, say 20% of your paycheck weekly until her parents are well?
Personally I get really sick about people who
expect business to carry and coddle them, and yet will go out and badmouth all business and our monetary system.
Running a business is not running a charity. Pamela's totally responsible for the success or failure of that business. Sometimes we have to make decisions we do not like, that's part of it. I know one thing, in that crew of ten I talked about, it would be much better for the whole crew to get rid of the one non productive worker than for the other nine to lose their jobs as well. I am positive the other nine would have compelling personal problems also.
What is better, one person with a problem, or everyone with a problem?
If Pamela goes out of business, who will her employees be pissed off at for them losing their jobs?
John
[ 01-02-2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: JRB ]