New theory: PREVIOUS generations had a sense of entitlement

[alleycat]

When I went to mail some letters at the Post Office the other day, there was a very normal looking mother with a small child in a stroller who was holding a sign that said "Please help, I need to feed my family". I gave her twenty bucks. She started crying.

On my way home I drove by the hotel turned "residence of last resort" for families that have lost their homes. The one featured on 60 Minutes last year, because the school bus now stops at the hotel to pick kids up for school (because there are so many living there). There are 1700 homeless children in my school district, which is the highest rated and one of the wealthier school districts in Central Florida.

There are still 900,000 unemployed in Florida. I don't know what is going on in the rest of the nation, but I think it is safe to say, that there are a lot of people out there of all ages that are just trying to make it to next week.

Just saying....

900,000 unemployed in Florida! Wow that is just horrible. I can not believe that 900,000 people have made bad choices that have got them and their families in this position. Things happen, employers ship jobs overseas, business fold because of the bad economy, there a cuts in all sort of staffing. Life happens to these people and families. It is not always because people have made bad choices.

[alleycat]

By poor choices do you mean lose their jobs (despite many being educated) to global outsourcing. Of course, somehow they are supposed to have saved enough money to stay in their homes, and take care of their children. Hum wonder how many of them didn't have the good fortune to have parents who could take care of them so that they could also take care of their grandchildren. Obviously, becoming seriously ill despite healthcare insurance (still had over 200,000.00 in debt personally) never occurs to some people. I'm sick of this discussion, no jobs, no money and everyone is suffering in this country. We need jobs not retroric. Yes, I'd gladly pay more taxes to have those jobs, etc. back in this country putting our people back to work so that they could feed their families, etc. Entitlement, no, common sense yes.

Very well put Frankie!!!! ?Thank you!

[skyfall123]

Maybe some of them are victims but in most cases there is a series of poor decisions made over time.

Is that true? I don't know. If those people had minimum wage jobs in our "right to work" state then they would have been banging home around $7.31 per hour. Most likely they were part time employees since employers didn't want to pay them benefits like health care, vacation pay etc...so figure 30 hours at $7.31 an hour equals $219.30 per week before taxes. So after taxes maybe $200 per week.

Are there a lot of options for people who make $200 a week? I don't know. Are their a lot of options for people who make $200 a week, then get layed off? I don't know the answer to that either.

Now the unemployment rate was low single digits a few years back, so these same people will and want to work.....but there currently are not enough jobs to go around.

I don't know ...just saying.

[skyfall123]

Ryan this last Christmas (at a resort I did work for) a group of twenty five minimum wage hotel room attendants formed a caroling group and performed for free in front of hotel guests. They sang in six different languages. The resort guests were all charmed and management was beaming as a result.

Two weeks later when the January occupancy numbers were reviewed, management made a decision to lay off twenty workers, even though business would pick back up in mid February.

Middle management fought the layoff...after all the hotel was running a million dollar a month profit....it was Christmas time....and these were minimum wage employees. Top management insisted, so the cuts began.....first the 80 year old Spanish speaking women who cleaned the executive offices. Then the Jamaican who cleaned the public restrooms....on and on it went.

A week later top management said they want to cut five more people. So one of the smarter managers took the photo of the carolers and asked the GM, which one of the carolers do you want to cut? The GM backed off once he looked at the actual faces of the people he wanted to let go.

Again the hotel makes about a million a month in profit....but the top suits figure a million and another hundred or two dollars is really what was needed.....after all this is the NEW American way.

[ryoder]

I feel bad for those people and if it were my company and I was hiring seasonal workers I would counsel them before hiring and tell them exactly what they are getting themselves into. I would show them that they have no contract and that employment and hours are contingent on need alone. I would also consider having them do some other work during down time if they have the skills.

There is nothing illegal about what he did. If I want to cut back on hiring people to clean my house I should be able to do so. I shouldn't have to show my profits or losses and make a case before a judge in order to cut back on my expenses. The same goes for a company. Ethics cannot be different for a company than for an individual. So if it is unethical for an employer to cut back on cleaning services, then it is unethical for me to do so as well.

Peter Drucker wrote about it in the 80s. I had to write a paper on this and many other topics in my business ethics class.
What is “business ethics”? > Public Interest > National Affairs

If this is the case, then I would think very carefully before hiring anyone to clean my home. In the case that I do hire a work crew to clean the house, do I owe them a job for eternity?

Personally I wouldn't hire temporary workers who feel entitled to a permanent position.

[skyfall123]

These employees had all been there more than 5 years. It's the NEW America mentality. I can hire and fire you at will. It doesn't matter how good or loyal an employee you have been....the only thing that matters is my balance sheet.

[MomOfMany]

These employees had all been there more than 5 years. It's the NEW America mentality. I can hire and fire you at will. It doesn't matter how good or loyal an employee you have been....the only thing that matters is my balance sheet.

There is absolutely nothing new about that and it sure hasn't been just an American mentality either.

[LaterBloomer]

Sort of off track, but here you go. I recently read that it used to be that something like 80% of all stocks were held be individuals. (I assume that the other 20% were held by trusts, pensions, etc.) Now, something like 30% of all stocks are held by indivduals, and the rest are held by other entities. I'm assuming that these other entities are trusts, mutual funds, etc. (I apologize for not citing my source. I read it recently, but I forgot where.) It would be interesting to know how, if at all, this change from the majority of stockholders being individuals to the majority being groups has affected American business. Do T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc. think that they have any responsibility to direct/influence/advise companies on CEO contracts, moving manufacturing, etc.? Are these big mutual funds colluding with big business? Does anyone know anything about this? Okay, even if you don't know anything, do you have any ideas, conclusions, thoughts? It sort of ties in with the topic at hand. If you disagree I apologize for trying to hi-jact a thread.:confused:

[skyfall123]

There is absolutely nothing new about that and it sure hasn't been just an American mentality either.

Yes, you are right. I don't know what made me think that American businesses ever operated in a compassionate way. Maybe it's because I operate a business and don't behave that way....but then again, I still do business on a hand shake.

[ryoder]

Alot of those stocks are held by pension plans for retirees and teachers with 403Bs and people who contribute to 401ks.

Thats why its the CEO's duty to increase profits. If the stock price sits still then those funds don't make any money.

I actually don't invest in stocks or mutual funds at all. All of my investments are cash equivalents that pay 2% or so per year but I have little chance of losing my investment.

Imagine the fallout if all of these investments started losing money left and right due to misguided social causes that took the CEO's eye off the ball.