One week ago yesterday, I was exiting the parking ramp at 7th and Grand Ave. in Des Moines at 7 a.m. Having parked free all weekend, I wanted to get out before I raked up any parking fees. As I approached the exit, I noticed the gate down and the attendant booth empty.
As I pulled to a stop, I scanned the messages and buttons across the self-serve terminal. Nothing fit except the “Press for assistance” button. So I did.
I immediately heard a dial tone and dialing. Moments later, I was talking to a nameless voice in an office who knows where. I explained my situation and he replied, “OK, I’ll let you out.” After listening to keys punching, I saw the arm rise and exited. Last time I’d used this parking ramp, an attendant had been present to answer my questions and let me through the gate.
This incident brought to mind a response I received to my column about living wages for workers. The reader stated wages reflect the value of the work and claimed the minimum wage drove small businesses to close their doors. His example was the loss of full service gas stations.
I found it a strange coincidence that when I shared this reader’s views the next day with a friend from Clarinda, she retorted, “It wasn’t the minimum wage. It was Casey’s. People decided they wanted soda and cigarettes instead of service.”
She came to her conclusion via the experience of her father and grandfather who owned several service stations in southwest Iowa during the period we went from full to self service gas stations.
Which leads me to ask, who sets our priorities? Did we really decide we wanted to pump our own gas or did someone else decide there was more profit in selling soda and cigarettes? Did the parking company decide they could increase profits with fewer employees? Because I know from my days as a corporate manager and school board director, people (employees) are usually one of the biggest expenses.
But I think maybe we are hitting the law of diminishing returns. If we don’t employ people to work, people will not have money to purchase goods and services.
Unfortunately, Americans have come to see business as the economy, rather than as one sector. Healthy economies also have healthy government, military, non-profit and religious sectors. But we’ve been led to believe business drives everything.
Likewise, we’ve been taught to believe government has a spending problem; in fact, that government IS our problem. But as a recent Facebook infographic of the lastest collapsed bridge notes, “We DON’T have a spending problem. We DO have a priorities problem.”
So maybe we should ask who is setting those priorities. Are we citizens demanding fair wages and government policies to benefit people? Or are we allowing someone else to call the shots? Because as my husband once said to me, “Cherie, I can’t read your mind.”
What we do matters. We can choose to shop locally at stores that employ people to bag our groceries and at farmers markets with products from local growers. We can read news from many sources instead of listening to or watching only our favorite talking heads. We can vote. We can contact our government representatives – local, state and federal – about matters that concern us. If our church and other organizations are important to us, we can support them with our time and money. If we believe workers should be treated fairly, we can join a union.
Simply put, we can act. So, what are you doing to help set our priorities?
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Friday, June 21, 2013
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Do we want government run like a business?
One of my nephews posted a clip on Facebook last week from The Daily Show’s coverage of the Republican National Convention. In it, the Daily Show decides to streamline America, running government like a business.
Hilarity ensues as Daily Show correspondents confront delegates from states receiving the most federal budget assistance while paying the least in federal taxes. As they tell a delegate from Mississippi who opines the market should decide if an organization succeeds or fails: “Whoa, dead last in per capita income — you are costing the government $20 billion!”
“Suddenly, when actually faced with the numbers, running America like a business didn’t seem like a good idea after all,” deadpans Daily Show correspondent John Oliver. “And it was every state for themselves.”
The final scene pitted Minnesota, Wyoming and Mississippi against each other to “keep their job,” with one of their delegates making the pitch to stay in the union.
This comic theater asks a serious question. Do we really want our government run like a business? Because the goal of business is profit.
As an example, let’s take schools. Our schools were developed to educate our children. Is this goal compatible with making a profit?
I know as a former school board member that schools make business decisions: from which vendor to purchase milk, bread and gasoline or how to cost-effectively air condition a building. But the first and foremost concern is providing the best education for kids. Do we really want to sacrifice that goal for profit?
Do we want to hire the least expensive teachers i.e. the least experienced, less educated teachers and perhaps fewer of them – to ensure a profit? Because that is the choice we’ll make if we run a school like a business.
And that’s one of the problems with some of the new privatized educational models being pushed, such as online schools. In states like Iowa, where school is financed on a per pupil basis, online schools will receive the per pupil amount. But any money they save by cutting expenses will go directly toward their profit. See how that works? From taxpayers’ pockets to private profit – instead of to educating students.
Results for online schooling to date are mixed at best, certainly indicating a need for at least more research. In an article last December titled “Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in Classrooms,” Stephanie Saul of the New York Times wrote of the leading online education company, K12 Inc.: “Instead, a portrait emerges of a company that tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload and lowering standards.”
I’d note the same business model is used plenty of other places. Again, google “Iraq no-bid contracts.” Google Enron. Or, MF Global. Heck, read George W. Bush’s resume, and check out Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone article titled: “Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.”
In fact, the last few years have given us one example after another of businesses run into the ground, yet we’re still insisting business operates better than government.
Americans have lost sight of the social compact we make to act in community for the benefit of all – or at least as many as possible. Certain things are too important to be driven by something as mercenary as money.
Hilarity ensues as Daily Show correspondents confront delegates from states receiving the most federal budget assistance while paying the least in federal taxes. As they tell a delegate from Mississippi who opines the market should decide if an organization succeeds or fails: “Whoa, dead last in per capita income — you are costing the government $20 billion!”
“Suddenly, when actually faced with the numbers, running America like a business didn’t seem like a good idea after all,” deadpans Daily Show correspondent John Oliver. “And it was every state for themselves.”
The final scene pitted Minnesota, Wyoming and Mississippi against each other to “keep their job,” with one of their delegates making the pitch to stay in the union.
This comic theater asks a serious question. Do we really want our government run like a business? Because the goal of business is profit.
As an example, let’s take schools. Our schools were developed to educate our children. Is this goal compatible with making a profit?
I know as a former school board member that schools make business decisions: from which vendor to purchase milk, bread and gasoline or how to cost-effectively air condition a building. But the first and foremost concern is providing the best education for kids. Do we really want to sacrifice that goal for profit?
Do we want to hire the least expensive teachers i.e. the least experienced, less educated teachers and perhaps fewer of them – to ensure a profit? Because that is the choice we’ll make if we run a school like a business.
And that’s one of the problems with some of the new privatized educational models being pushed, such as online schools. In states like Iowa, where school is financed on a per pupil basis, online schools will receive the per pupil amount. But any money they save by cutting expenses will go directly toward their profit. See how that works? From taxpayers’ pockets to private profit – instead of to educating students.
Results for online schooling to date are mixed at best, certainly indicating a need for at least more research. In an article last December titled “Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in Classrooms,” Stephanie Saul of the New York Times wrote of the leading online education company, K12 Inc.: “Instead, a portrait emerges of a company that tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload and lowering standards.”
I’d note the same business model is used plenty of other places. Again, google “Iraq no-bid contracts.” Google Enron. Or, MF Global. Heck, read George W. Bush’s resume, and check out Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone article titled: “Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.”
In fact, the last few years have given us one example after another of businesses run into the ground, yet we’re still insisting business operates better than government.
Americans have lost sight of the social compact we make to act in community for the benefit of all – or at least as many as possible. Certain things are too important to be driven by something as mercenary as money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
