Change Is In the Wind

Change is good. Change is exciting. Sometimes you have to have change to just get away from a bad situation. Sometimes change is good in and of itself because it opens up new and wonderful opportunities. Sometimes its a combination of both. I have never been scared of change. Maybe it's because I handle it well; I've rarely if ever felt so overwhelmed I needed to quit. I believe that if you don't accept change you become like the dinosaurs, and I am not about to be going the way of dinosaur. I am going to not only accept change as it comes, but seek it out.

Small changes can be a Microcosm of the much larger picture. Seemingly insignificant events can cause a chain reaction, the butterfly effect. This chaos can be frightening, but if you navigate it correctly, you should be able to come in for a soft landing.

Time to Cancel Blockbuster?

I've been thinking more and more that it is time to cancel my Blockbuster subscription. Lately, its felt more like a chore to watch all the movies I get from them then something I really want to do. I still get about 3 movies a week from them, but in all honesty, I watch them somewhat reluctantly.

I'm also not crazy about the service. The movie turnaround time is pretty bad considering I'm not a heavy user anymore. Most of my movies don't get scanned in as "returned" until about 2 days after I send it. This despite the fact that their are "distribution" centers all over the L.A. area.

Also, they do really funny things with my queue. I get movies I don't really want that are like 5th or 6th on my list of things I want. I'm not a heavy user anymore. I should be able to get one of the top 5 movies in my queue. I know Netflix throttles its users and determines priority this way, and I'm pretty sure Blockbuster does it as well, but this should not be happening to me considering I'm a relatively light user.

Maybe I'll give it another month. But I'm starting to think it might just be worth it to just rent movies the old fashion way.

Kobe Bryant Scores 81 Points!

It was one of those games you talk about where you were when it happened. I happened to be in the car with my girlfriend after having a great dinner at Houstons. I had missed the previous two Laker games traveling and I didn't want to miss this one, but it was a special occasion so I made an exception.

On the way back from the restaurant I tuned in to see if the Laker game was over. I had caught the first quarter of the game and the Lakers were down by double digits and playing really bad. I wasn't expecting much.

Much to my surprise, I heard the announcer say that Kobe had scored a career high 67 points. I thought I must have misheard. There was no way he could have gone off for 67. Then I thought, the game must be almost over. But there was still five minutes left in the game!

I started to drive quicker, in an attempt to get home to see the end of an historic night. Kobe didn't disappoint. He would go on to score 81 points. 81 POINTS!!!! Do people realize how insane that is? It's the second most points scored in an NBA game ever, second only to Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game. (which will never be beat. Then again, why bet against Kobe?)

Some people will say Kobe shoots to much, and needs to pass more. But I play a lot of basketball. I've played in games where I thought guys are shooting the ball way too much. But I also have played in games where a guy is just on fire. And if a guy is on his way to score 81 points in a game, you shut up and you pass him the ball. You do everything you possibly can to make sure that he gets as many looks as possible. It's not often you get to witness history.

Lies That HR Tells

I was in my company meeting the other day and the HR lady told people they made a mistake about how a charity we are running would work. Instead of the money being taken out of on a pre-tax basis, it would be taken out post-tax. But she assured everyone it would be OK because you can just take care of it at the end of the year on your tax return.

I couldn't believe the crap I was hearing. If you know anything about taxes (and you really should if you don't) you know that THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING! I can't believe any HR person can get away with saying that it is.

What am I talking about? Most people DO NOT itemize their tax bill. Most people take the standard deduction which is $5000. That means, you are better off taking the standard deduction until you have at least $5000 in deductions. How many people have $5,000 in deductions ($10,000 if you are married)? Fully 2/3 of all Americans take the standard deduction. That means they get NO tax benefit from donating to charity, having a mortgage, or having any business expenses. Zip, zilch, nada. All those tax breaks you supposedly get (my favorite being the mortgage deduction) actually don't benefit you unless you have $5,000 in other deductions.

Now, should the #1 concern about giving to charity be your tax break? Of course not. But for an HR person to say that it is equivalent is just a flat out lie.

Maryland Overrides "Wal-Mart" Bill

Yesterday, the Maryland Senate overrode the veto of a bill that would require employers to spend at least 8 percent of its payroll on employee health care or pay the difference to the state in taxes.

This is effectively a "Wal-Mart" bill because it is the only company in the state that currently hires over 10,000 employees and does not pay the minimum 8 percent.

Now any regular follower of my blog knows on what side of this issue I fall, but I am not here to argue that. I just wish, just once, that a company like Wal-Mart would say, ok, if that is the cost of doing business, so be it, and then pick up and walk out.

It will never happen, but boy do I wish I could see it. Then we would really get to see who needs who. Maybe Wal-mart really does need to have a presence in Maryland. Maybe they need the of revenues that state represents to Wal-mart's bottom line (my guess would be that I would fall in less than 1%). Maybe the states would realize that some jobs are better than no jobs, even if the state has to foot some of the medical bills. Maybe then, the citizens of a state could decide once and for how important Wal-mart is or isn't.

It may be sick and perverse, but the economist in me would love to see the experiment.
It's funny. As much as Wal-Mart doesn't think about , or just discounts, the negative effects of its policies on the state's economy, the Wal-Mart critics don't think about the positive effects Wal-Mart brings either. We as a society are so compartmentalized. We see things for what we want to see them as and how they directly affect us without thinking about the larger consequences.

GPS - where is the line?

On the radio today, there was a story about Sprint refusing to release the location of a GPS phone which would have helped find the location of a child which was mistakenly taken when a thief stole a SUV in Riverside. Sprint has a procedure to allow law enforcement to obtain the information, but apparently this did not take place. In response, Riverside politicians threatened to now allow Sprint to put up any more Cell Phone towers.

Are you kidding me? First off, I'm not entirely sure Sprint did the wrong thing. While I can sympathize in this particular case, the life of a child was at stake, there is no way that Sprint cna just release the position of one of its phone for whatever reason. But T, how can you be so heartless? The life of the child was at stake!

Think About It. What happens the first time a person calls screaming that their child is missing and in fact the phone is on the person of their ex-girlfriend who they are now stalking? She is trying to hide from him, but he clevely concocts a story and bam, he finds her and kills her. Maybe this example is a little extreme but the point remains, you can't just be giving out the position of these phones without proper clearance from law enforcement.

I mean really, clearly this is a stunt by the idiot politicians of Riverside to win a few brownie points with their constituents. Their threat of not allowing any cell phone towers is hardly a stiff penalty considering that Sprint probably has coverage throughout most of Riverside already.

401K - The Lie

There is so much crap spewed about the 401K plan it drives me nuts. This was painfully evident to me when we last had our 401K meeting. I for one do invest a great deal of money into my 401K but I do it full well knowing how it fits into my overall financial strategy. (I am however about to drop my contribution to 0% for the next few months) Many people do not.

1. 401K plans make less sense for high-income individuals - How can this be? I mean don't the rich save more in taxes? It depends. If you remain a high income individual retirement, which is likely, than you will pay taxes at your personal income level. However, if you were to invest in the stock market instead, you would only have to pay the capital gains tax instead. This stands at 15% rather than the 35% you would otherwise get taxed.

2. You may end up paying more in taxes later - The US has historically low tax rates now. If you believe, like me, that the budget deficit, the trade deficit, aging baby boomer population are areas of major concern, than you probably believe that at some point, the U.S. will raise taxes again to cover the shortfall. That being the case, it is better to pay taxes NOW rather than pay higher taxes later. Also, in all likelihood, you will have less deductiosn than you do now. You will most likely have your mortage paid off, no child deduction, have less business expenses, etc.

3. Diversification - Most people just don't understand what diversication really is. It's kind of frightening really. They think diversification is just picking lots of the different funds in a 401K plan and that will handle diversification. This concept is just flat out wrong! In fact, people may be exposing themselves to much more risk than they expect when they follow such a strategy.

4. People who are investors who shouldn't be - Could you imagine if the government mandated everyone had to drive their own car to work but nobody had to take a driving test? There are enough crazy people on the road as it is, can you imagine if there were even more people who had no idea what they were doing. That is essentially what they did when they started 401K plans. Millions of people started investing in it but have no idea what they are really doing.

5. Your money is not liquid - Most people vastly underestimate the need for liquidity but it can be very important in times of financial crisis. The problem is that you are not able to withdraw funds in a 401K plan until you reach 59 1/2 without paying some significant penalties. If you were to take the money and invest it yourself instead, in the exact same financial products, you would be able to pull out your money at any time without penalty.

6. You have much more limited choices - You are at the mercy of your 401K plan in terms of what you can invest in. If you have your own IRA or just money in a taxable account, you have a lot more options in terms of what you can invest in. Maybe all the funds and investment choices in your 401K plan just suck, and you would be better off diverting your money into different vehicles.

Again, my advice is not to not invest in your company's 401K plan, my advice is to really Think About It. Don't just do it blindly because you think you should. However if the alternative is to save in the 401K plan or not save at all, then, of course, save in your company's 401K plan.

Pat Robertson is an Idiot

If there is a reason I will never believe in any particular religion it's because of idiots like Pat Robertson and statements like this.

The callous way so called religious leaders can throw around the idea of divine retribution is just appalling to me. If God is so worried about smoting people who do bad things how come there are lots of murderers, child molestors, rapists, terrorist, etc. running around? Where is the line? How does God determine who he is going to smote and who he doesn't? If he hasn't smoted the murderers and child molestors, is he impliciting saying that those things are OK?

Blogging Dropout Rates

I have been blogging now for almost 3 years (My exact first post was Jan. 8 2003 in my old blog). I have blogged on and off but for the most part have been pretty consistent, trying to get out 3 or 4 post a week.

I wonder how long the average blog runs. I wonder how many blogs are already abandoned. If you try and get some of the more popular names on blogspot you will find many blogs that are simply abandoned. I wonder why blogspot doesn't just go and reclaim dead blogs. Maybe for posterity? Couldn't they just archive the pages somewhere else to free up the urls? I would think they could send an email to the blog owner telling them they need to confirm they still want the blog, and then delete it when there is no response. This could happen after a period of inactivity, say 6 or 12 months.

I found some statistics here and here but nothing I would say as definitive. My bet is that the average blog only last a few weeks before someone gets bored and decides they no longer want to do it. I bet that the percentage of dead blogs must be very high, my guess would be about 85% of blogs that were once started are now dead. Anybody else have some guesses.

My New Years

It was rather uneventful. My actual New Year's Eve was spent watching 24 with a bunch of friends. Pretty good show. But I can no longer stand Elisha Cuthbert, and I use to think she was kinda cute.

The next day was a little more exciting. My girlfriend and I walked down the Rose Parade Route. I had forgotten how much I don't like large crowds, especially rowdy ones, which is the case with those lining up for the parade. We ended up walking all the way to Orange Grove to see the floats up close, and that was well worth it. I had never been that close to the floats before, so it was great to see them.

However, the walk back wasn't so much fun. It started to pour right when we turned around to walk back home. To make it worse, we didn't realize how far we had really walked. All told, we walked 8 miles from my house, to the end of the route, and back. Needless to say, I got home very tired and very wet.

Google - Is the Tide Turning?

America is a funny place. It's a place where you can become wildly successful in a relatively short amount of time. But as soon as you get to the top, people find a way to tear you down. America seems to love the rise and fall story. I think next in line is everyone's favorite search engine, Google.

2005 was Google's year. The stock has been on an absolute tear this year. Google keeps releasing great and wonderful services. Obviously I'm a fan of their Blogger service. I use their Google Maps service, and their mail service, and pretty much everything else that Google throws out there. Their mantra of "Don't Be Evil" is admirable and speaks to a lot of ordinary people tired of the Enrons and WorldComs of the world. But the tide may be changing.

Google has been wildly successful. But for some reason people don't want to see others be too successful. There was a time when people all loved Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc. But at some point, these companies became pariahs. When a company gets big enough to dominate its space, people start complaining about the company being too big and too powerful for its own good. You are slowly starting to see people who don't like Google. They complain about how it is too powerful in deciding who comes out on top in search. There is the Book Scanning controversy, and very soon there will be even bigger uproar of Google's Video plans.

Is it jealousy? Fear? I'm just not sure. I will be interested in seeing the evolution of this company to see if it suffers from the same fate as other market dominators.

The Housing Bubble

Most of the readers who read my blog know that I believe there is a housing bubble going on right now. I believe the top has been reached and that we are going to start to see price declines over the next year. How steep those declines will be remain to be seen.

What is interesting to me is the talk on the other side of the isle by those who do not believe a bubble is formed, who believe that prices will rise or stagnate.

I am a huge fan of real-estate. I believe it is normally an excellent investment. You get to live in the asset while the price appreciates. It is tax-favored so you can realize large captial-gains without having to fork anything over to Uncle-Sam. But what has gone on over the last three years is bordering on mania.

Economics is called the dismal science and it is a aptly named. You see, economics is not kind. We are witnessing a huge asset bubble that, when it burst, is going to hurt a lot more people than anything before it. Most everyday American's don't own stocks, and certainly didn't participate in the internet stock bubble. But most American's do own homes. And many new home owners have bought homes on exotic mortgages. It would be like all these Americans not only buying Microstrategy and Pets.com at the height of the bubble, but buying them on margin!

Of course the naysayers say that houses aren't stocks. Well stocks aren't tulips either, and we all know how that one ended up. An asset is an asset. And any asset can be prone to speculation. It is true that housing is more illiquid than stocks, but that may just compound the problem as pepole will be unable to get out of their homes and thus be upside down in their mortgage. The problem with the dot-com bubble was that the assets were illiquid. When everybody went looking for the way out, nobody was left to buy. They had to dramatically drop the price because the asset wouldn't sell. It wasn't liquid.

During the Dot.com bubble it seemed like any idiot could become a millionaire. He just needed an idea, a web-page, and Bam! he would issue an IPO and make millions. Well the same thing is going on in real estate. Idiots are making money. People who have no experience in housing, who wouldn't know a closing statement is or a 1031 exchange is, are making lots of money.

Near the top of any bubble, you will see that even idiots can be richly rewarded. But it can not last. You see, housing prices can not rise indefinitely, no asset can. Housing prices can not diverge from its underlying fundimentals for long, and real estate has. Stock prices are tied to the earnings the company is able to produce. Over the long haul, stocks MUST be tied to the earnings created. The price of a house MUST be tied to the rental income that it could generate if rented out. Over the long haul, a renter must be cash-flow positive, no one can sell at a loss forever. There is no magic behind it. It just must be. It's simple economics. Ignore reality at your own peril.

Because of the above facts, most recent homeowners are in for a scare. Wages have not increased. Rents have not increased. How can housing prices be justified? The answer, they can't be. When people realize the game is up, don't be standing in front of the door; you will get trampled. When nobody is left stupid enough to pay what you paid for your asset, what are you going to do?

People are hopeful. They always want to believe that this time is different. Economics tells us that it never is. Believe me on this one. The housing market is on the cliff, and its about to take a dive.

Reality Real Estate

I should be a journalist. At the very least I'm starting to think like one.

The other day I was sitting on my couch flipping through the channels when I came across a real estate show on HGTV. I don't remember exactly what the show was titled but basically it was about people trying to sell their homes and all the hassles that they face when doing it. They weren't getting as much as they thought they were going to and the process was much harder than they realized so they were extremely frustrated.

I thought to myself, "If this doesn't signal a Housing Bubble I don't know what does." I mean reality TV about sellling a home? Have we hit a point where we are actually interested in how others are doing selling their property? Are we that real-estate crazed? That can only say one thing to me. The bubble is about to burst.

Then I flip to the Washington Post and there is an article on the exact same thing I was thinking about. Maybe I should be a journalist. Then again, maybe its just that psychic thing kicking in again.

A Muted Christmas

I didn't have much of a Christmas this year. My girlfriend got me a gift but that was about it. I gave gifts to a few people but otherwise, I didn't really give gifts out this year only because I find it is a big hassle. I usually give gifts because other people are getting me a gift and out of a sense of guilt, I do it too. Other people tell me its the thing to do this holiday season so I have always begrudgingly done it so that I don't look like some sort of Scrooge. I believe in giving gifts to those who are close to you like my family and my girlfriend. I even believe in giving gifts to the people who work for me because its important to show you appreciate all their hard work during the year. But this year, I have no one left reporting to me, so that part of it was easy.

But in the end, if I'm honest with myself, I find that I wish people wouldn't get me a gift so that I wouldn't have to get them a gift. It's not that I'm cheap, it's just I find it to be extremely stressful during the holidays to try and get gifts for everyone. I hate crowded malls and I hate spending hours trying to come up with the right gifts for everyone. When you add that to all the other stress that comes around this time of year it can be overwhelming.

So this year I decided to do myself and others a favor. No gifts. This helps me out because I don't have to worry about shopping, and I hope it has helped my friends out by letting them do the same for me. It probably has helped them more than me since I'm told I'm notoriously difficult to shop for.

The funny thing is, I'm not alone this year. It seems to me that most of my friends also didn't do much gift-giving this year. For one reason or another, most of my friends couldn't give gifts this year. This is probably a bad thing because many are just facing financial difficulties. I'm not sure if this is an epidemic or what but I certainly hope it is not. Anecdotally, you can probably chalk this up to increased energy bills, sky-rocketing home prices, etc. But I'm curious, what are other people seeing this year? Was your gift-giving or gift-receiving impacted this year and if so why?

Merry Christmas

One thing I love about Christmas is that the freeways are always clear right before and right after Christmas. I came into work today and there was almost no traffic on the freeway. It was beautiful. If only Los Angeles could be like that all the time.

Of course there is the flip side that I hate. I can't step into a mall for month before and several weeks after Christmas. If anyone is going to brave the malls either tomorrow or on Monday, please don't get crushed.

I hope everyone has a safe and wonderful Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or whatever else you may celebrate in this Holiday Season!

NYC Subway Strike

It looks like the NYC Subway Strike may be over. I don't really take either side on the issue as I think both the city and the workers are wrong. Here's why.

I don't like unions but I also beleive they have a right to exist so long as it is a voluntary association. If a group of workers wants to strike to gain concessions in wages and benefits, I have no problem with that. My only beef with them is there fairly unrealistic expectation. An operator can expect to make on average in $63,000. Even in NYC that's a lot of money for relatively low-skilled work (Yes you can live in the city on that. I did with much less). They then want to insure that they can retire, with full benefits, at 55. Compare this with Private-sector employees and the gap is just huge.

However, I think Bloomberg's comment that the workers are being "selfish" is dead on; I just don't think that's a bad thing. People have to do what people have to do. If you believe you are not getting paid enough for your job, you need to be able to leave the job. The $1 million fine is pretty ridiculous. Forcing these workers to work because of some "public need" is just outrageous. Is it making it harder to live in the city? Yes. Is it hurting the city economically? Yes. But tough. If you are going to live in a city that depends so much on its public transportation, and then allow the operator of said system to unionize, then you run the risk of this exact thing happening. Nobody should be allowed to compel someone else to work just because they "need" them to. Slavery ended a long time ago.

I guess my big problem is (big surprise) the Federal government. The federal government mandates that workers are allowed to strike, and that employers can hire temporary workers to replace them. The problem is that the employer MUST take back the striking workers after the strike has ended. This is just stupid. If you want to strike you forefit your job. Why on earth should I take you back?

Of course labor loves this law but it is now backfiring in their face. Again, just another perfect example of what happens when government makes up illogical laws to try and "protect" a class of citizens. How did it backfire? Simple. NYC just made it illegal for public employees to strike. That is why they are now being fined $1 Million a day. That is why union leaders are facing criminal charges. They have made it illegal for someone to leave their job. Doesn't that scare anybody else?

You give government an inch, they will not only take a mile, they will take serveral miles.

Cute Overload

If you want to say "awww" go check out this site, Cute Overload. I won't still the sites thunder by posting one of its pictures here but they have found some seriously cute critters over there.

Should The Lakers Go After Ron Artest?

The Indiana Pacers are trying to trade Ron Artest. For those who don't follow basketball closely, Ron Artest is Indiana's very volatile but very talented forward. In my opinion, Ron Artest is a top 15 player in the league. He is an absolute beast on the defensive end and he has a pretty decent offensive game as well. He has won a Defensive Player of the Year award which is extremely difficult from any perimeter position.

But Ron Artest has his issues. He makes Dennis Rodman look almost sane. He was the main player in the whole Detroit fiasco where he went into the stands to fight the fans. He was the player who asked for some more time off so he could work on his rap album (which by the way flopped). But like in all sports, the more talented you are the more people are willing to forgive you. In fact, it isn't just like that in sports, its like that in all aspects of life.

The question becomes, should the Lakers go after a player like Ron Artest and what should they give up for him if they do pursue him. There is no denying is on-court performance. But is a potential time bomb worth it. If I'm the Los Angeles Lakers, I have to think it is. I say that only because the Lakers have the best coach in the history of the game, Phil Jackson. Players like Ron Artest are few and far between. I greatly value defensive ability and few can bring it to the table like Artest.

But what is he worth? In my mind there are only two untouchable players Kobe (duh) and Lamar Odom. Many pundits however think the Lakers should part with Odom to get Artest. I am not one of those people. Lakers have gone one a decent little run as of late, going 5-1 on a recent 6 game road trip. The team looked horrible at the beginning of the season but seems to have turned it on as of late. If Artest didn't have his head problems, I do the trade in a second. But the fact remains that he does have mental issues which means you just can't depend on him. You can depend on Odom. He is inconsistent scorer but he is by far the Lakers best rebounder and playmaker. He is a matchup nightmare for the opposing team.

Is Artest worth some of the Lakers young players, namely Andrew Bynum? I think Bynum is going to be a great player. For an 18 year old kid, he has shown tremendous ability. But I think this is one instance where the gamble might pay off. There is no doubt that Artest is a top-tier player when his head is on straight (the problem is it is so rarely on straight). Andrew Bynum may never be as good as Artest is right now, so it may be worth the gamble.

Stanley "Tookie" Williams Executed

Tookie Williams, founder of the notorious L.A. gang The Crips, was executed last night for the murder of four people in 1979. Over the last several weeks, there has been a call for clemency from various groups because Tookie is a reformed man. While incarcerated, Tookie has worked to write books and encourage youth to turn away from the gang life.

Let me say first that I'm opposed to the death penalty as it is actually practiced in the United States. In theory, I support the death penalty. I have no problem with the execution of a person who has taken the life of another. It is not that I'm a vengeful person, actually quite the opposite, but I do believe that ones life becomes forfeit when they take the life of another. It might be better said that I don't necessarily care what happens to someone after they commit the most unforgivable of sins.

However, I do not condone the death penalty as practiced. My reasoning is thus:

• It needs to be applied uniformly and fairly and it is not. Minorities and the poor face a much larger percentage of executions.
  
• Mistakes happen. Innocent men have been executed. And as soon as you execute someone, there is no taking it back. I believe that if one innocent man is executed it is one too many.
• I don't think its all that bad. Maybe it's because I don't really fear death, but to me, it would be much worse to waste away in prison for the rest of my life.

But that being said, I have no problems with the execution of Tookie Williams. While he maintains his innocence in this particular case, there is little dispute that he founded an organization that is responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths in the last 25 years. It matters very little for me that he is a "redeemed" man. It is easy to reform when you are locked up away from society and facing certain death. Regardless of his reformation, the facts remain that he is responsible for numerous deaths. And as I stated before, in my mind a person's life becomes forfeit the moment they take another's life. It doesn't matter what happens after that point.

Christian groups have been calling for compassion. But if we as a society are going to condone the death penalty, I see little reason why the state should show compassion. If Tookie is indeed reformed, than these Christian groups should take solace that he will find compassion in the eyes of God. But lets let God make that determination, not the state.

Owner vs. Workers

Jennifer made a comment on my last blog about how McDonalds depends on needing to have access to its workers 24/7 or else face bankruptcy. This came on the heels of a discussion I had with someone else about the importance of executive compensation so I might as well touch on the subject.

I'm not sure exactly how McDonalds and access to their workers even got into the conversation, but the argument that McDonalds would go bankrupt without their workers is specious at best. Are workers at the lowest levels important to the success of any company? Absolutely. No company can succeed without the people doing the work that makes a company run. But, are they more important than executives and company owners? No. I feel I do very important work at my company, am I more important than the CEO or the shareholders? Hardly.

Now, where would the McDonalds' workers be without McDonalds? They wouldn't have a job. Now if the counter argument is that they could easily find another job somewhere else, the logical next question is why don't they? If working at McDonalds is so miserable, and other jobs are so plentiful and easy to come by, wouldn't all the McDonalds' workers leave en masse?

It is much easier for a company to find low-skilled labor in this country than it is for a low-skilled worker to find a willing employer (I believe the opposite is true for high-skilled workers). Further, it is much more difficult to start, finance, and maintain an new enterprise than it is to provide low skill labor. So the employer is faced with the more difficult job and easier replacement than the low skilled employee. Now who is dependent on whom?

I am not trying to diminish the importance of working Americans. I'm a working American. But the idea that employees are somehow more important than executives and owners gets a lot of traction in this country and it is a notion that is simply untrue. Is it true in some circumstances? Are some executives and owners idiots? Absolutely. But idiot executives do eventually get replaced. And owners? Well its their money to lose, if they want to take a big pile and money and burn it for heat, its perfectly within their right.

Providing capital and executive and strategic direction is hard. If it were easy, everybody would be doing it. Can a company function without either this or its low-skilled labor? No. They are both important. But one should never make the argument that the worker plays a more important role or is somehow more crucial than his employer.