How common is this?

[bfw]

No it was not, but then neither was Carnegie, Rockefeller, Mellon, Pullman, etc. They bought and sold the government, the army, the cops to suit their own bottom line at everyone else's expense.

That would be the socialist agitprop version of history. What they did was build this nation's industrial base. If you want to see what this country would be like without them, go look south of the Rio Grande. Every time Rockefeller bought someone out, he offered them a darn good price, and gave them the option of taking it in cash or Standard Oil stock. Those who the leftists claim he destroyed were the ones who took cash.
If he bought the government, then why did they break up his company?

We need to protect ourselves from the government and we need the government to protect us from big business,

No, we need to make wise, well informed choices, and that is how we protect OURSELVES from big business, which, unlike government, cannot coerce us.
Businesses don't prosper if they ruin their customers.

 

[bfw]

Lastly, just FYI, I take offense to being referred to as a business student.

A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet. You're hung up on semantics. For the purposes of my point, it makes no difference - EITHER a business or economics student should understand why dive instruction will always pay poorly. The point is, you're not a poetry major, so you shouldn't need to ask the questions you're asking.

And before you get your knickers in a knot, your sig says "Managerial economics," as opposed to pure economics. Schools love to come up with new names for programs to distinguish them from all the rest, and your school's creative naming implies a more business admin slant, whether it's there or not. If you're truly studying pure economics, I'd make sure "Economics" is all it says on your diploma, or I won't be the last person to make that association, and the next one could be considering you for something that pays a lot more than dive instruction.

 

[vladimir]

The best protection individuals have against big business is tort law. So it is no wonder that big business is always clamoring for "tort reform". (Please everybody, don't drag out tired tales of multimillion dollar awards for spilled coffee--they are irrelevant to this discussion.) What is confusing is why "conservatives" clamor for it also. The alternative to litigation is government regulation.

 

[emttim]

A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet. You're hung up on semantics. For the purposes of my point, it makes no difference - EITHER a business or economics student should understand why dive instruction will always pay poorly. The point is, you're not a poetry major, so you shouldn't need to ask the questions you're asking.

And before you get your knickers in a knot, your sig says "Managerial economics," as opposed to pure economics. Schools love to come up with new names for programs to distinguish them from all the rest, and your school's creative naming implies a more business admin slant, whether it's there or not. If you're truly studying pure economics, I'd make sure "Economics" is all it says on your diploma, or I won't be the last person to make that association, and the next one could be considering you for something that pays a lot more than dive instruction.

For the purposes of your point, you failed to make one regardless so I do consider an inaccurate statement as relevant. I think you're too hard on business students if you expect them to understand why dive instruction will always pay poorly, since as I said before, business students (and many graduates) generally don't know jack ****. In fact, what is this you speak of about me asking questions? Quoted from my original post: "there's not much of a point to this thread other than to rant at how ridiculous an instructor's pay is". I didn't ask any questions to begin with...if you can't read, then I can't help you since any instruction to correct that deficiency would obviously have to be read.

As far as your assumption about what my degree is, I personally don't really care how you interpret it because it seems as if most companies simply want to see a degree; they could care less what it's in anyway. If you actually took the time to investigate my degree, which you obviously haven't since you seem more interested in making statements without necessarily having the facts behind them, you would have seen that the major difference between Managerial Economics & Economics at Davis is that Managerial Economics requires a lot more economics class, classes in accounting, programming and a mixture of natural & social science classes as electives. In fact, the only class I'm aware of for my degree that could be considered a business class is business law. And since I may have come off abrasive, I don't mean or take anything personal from your post or in my response, but I'm just too tired at the moment to subsidize someone else's laziness if they don't want to educate themselves on a topic that they apparently don't know much about.

The best protection individuals have against big business is tort law. So it is no wonder that big business is always clamoring for "tort reform". (Please everybody, don't drag out tired tales of multimillion dollar awards for spilled coffee--they are irrelevant to this discussion.) What is confusing is why "conservatives" clamor for it also. The alternative to litigation is government regulation.

For the most part, you're right, however I think tort law has become quite ridiculous in the U.S. in general. The multimillion dollar awards that you mentioned are not irrelevant to this discussion in the sense that they are excellent examples of how tort reform is necessary to some degree. Hell, if you want a shining example of why tort reform should be done, look at the litigation nightmare that has infected health care.

 

[vladimir]

For the most part, you're right, however I think tort law has become quite ridiculous in the U.S. in general. The multimillion dollar awards that you mentioned are not irrelevant to this discussion in the sense that they are excellent examples of how tort reform is necessary to some degree. Hell, if you want a shining example of why tort reform should be done, look at the litigation nightmare that has infected health care.

I should have said, "ancillary", rather than, "irrelevant". The details of how tort law functions are not trivial, but they are secondary in a discussion of how to protect the individual from government and big business.

 

[Thalassamania]

... No, we need to make wise, well informed choices, and that is how we protect OURSELVES from big business, which, unlike government, cannot coerce us.
Businesses don't prosper if they ruin their customers.

You either have not read any history or you're so locked into a doctrinaire political/religious view that you choose to neglect what you did read. We can all cherry pick for any persuasion, but you, sir, are the first here to descend into calling names and ad hominum attack. Deal with things on the facts not by attempting to smear people with stupid labels.

BTW, what is "socialist agitprop" anyway, and what do you have against it?

 

[RJP]

For instance, me and my best friend are talking about opening a company, but we've both agreed that as the company makes more money, the employees will get paid more.

University of California Davis, Managerial Economics Class of 2010

Oh, to be young and naive!

Do yourself a favor. Print this thread out.

Someday - after 2010 - when you're done sitting in lecture halls and reading textbooks about managerial economics, and you're out in the real world LIVING it, you'll probably get a laugh out of it!

In the meantime, look into some of Gary Fields' work on labor economics. His thinking on labor market models and income inequality is instructive here. Similarly, Stiglitz' work on equilibrium wage distribution is worth a look too.

 

[BarryNL]

Understandable, although I suppose I simply don't have the lack of ethics and morality required to do that sort of business.

That's the beauty of capitalism - decent people will always be sent into bankrupty by the ruthless.

 

[RJP]

That's the beauty of capitalism - decent people will always be sent into bankrupty by the ruthless.

A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place!

 

[emttim]

Oh, to be young and naive!

Do yourself a favor. Print this thread out.

Someday - after 2010 - when you're done sitting in lecture halls and reading textbooks about managerial economics, and you're out in the real world LIVING it, you'll probably get a laugh out of it!

In the meantime, look into some of Gary Fields' work on labor economics. His thinking on labor market models and income inequality is instructive here. Similarly, Stiglitz' work on equilibrium wage distribution is worth a look too.

Fair enough, I'll take a look.

I should have said, "ancillary", rather than, "irrelevant". The details of how tort law functions are not trivial, but they are secondary in a discussion of how to protect the individual from government and big business.

True. Tort law has gotten out of hand, however, without tort law people would be pretty much screwed when it comes to protection from big business. I can't say tort law protects the individual that much from government though considering the government does whatever the hell it wants anyway.