People...

On Oct 7, 5:54 pm, Gene Seibel wrote:


"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can
only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse
(a liberal gift) out of public treasury. From that moment on the
majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits
from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always
collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a
Dictatorship."

We are there. The takers have won.

Makes sense, especially here in Canada where we have a nanny state
that spends far too much on people who need a kick in the pants. But I
think there are some factors introduced by the Social Engineers that
have created much of it. For 30 years at least we've been telling kids
that they are #1 and that they deserve this or that. We've taught them
about self-esteem---a necessary part of one's makeup, but it seems to
have become the ONLY part of their makeup, for many. Everyone else can
just get out of their way, because THEY are important. They also
ignore traffic rules as often as possible ("you can't tell me I can't
do that") and think cheating in university is OK and normal. Anything
at all to get ahead. We've had the no-spanking stuff carried to
ridiculous extremes so that the kid can thumb his nose at the teacher,
later at the cop, and then at the judge. We've let universities train
way too many lawyers and way too few engineers and doctors. We have
groups that won't let anyone starve. We have parents who will buy
their kids anything they want, any education they want, and will
defend the kid when the teacher says he's lazy. Then when that kid has
to finally get to work, whether at college or in the workplace, he
can't handle it. Never had to work before.
Don't get me wrong. There are really needy people out on the
street, many who, 20 years ago, would have been in institutions
because they were mentally or physically incapable of caring for
themselves. Many of those places were closed to save money. But the
vast majority of takers are wholly responsible for wrecking their
minds or bodies or for refusing to go to work at bottom-end jobs and
work their way up, then expecting the rest of us to pay for the
repairs.
A friend lived in Mexico for awhile. He said that they had no
welfare safety nets, and that a man's family was expected to look
after him if he was in dire straits. That same family would throw him
out to starve if he refused to work when he was again capable. Reality
at its best.

Redneck Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 7, 5:54 pm, Gene Seibel wrote:


"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can
only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse
(a liberal gift) out of public treasury. From that moment on the
majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits
from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always
collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a
Dictatorship."

We are there. The takers have won.

Makes sense, especially here in Canada where we have a nanny state
that spends far too much on people who need a kick in the pants. But I
think there are some factors introduced by the Social Engineers that
have created much of it. For 30 years at least we've been telling kids
that they are #1 and that they deserve this or that. We've taught them
about self-esteem---a necessary part of one's makeup, but it seems to
have become the ONLY part of their makeup, for many. Everyone else can
just get out of their way, because THEY are important. They also
ignore traffic rules as often as possible ("you can't tell me I can't
do that") and think cheating in university is OK and normal. Anything
at all to get ahead. We've had the no-spanking stuff carried to
ridiculous extremes so that the kid can thumb his nose at the teacher,
later at the cop, and then at the judge. We've let universities train
way too many lawyers and way too few engineers and doctors. We have
groups that won't let anyone starve. We have parents who will buy
their kids anything they want, any education they want, and will
defend the kid when the teacher says he's lazy. Then when that kid has
to finally get to work, whether at college or in the workplace, he
can't handle it. Never had to work before.
Don't get me wrong. There are really needy people out on the
street, many who, 20 years ago, would have been in institutions
because they were mentally or physically incapable of caring for
themselves. Many of those places were closed to save money. But the
vast majority of takers are wholly responsible for wrecking their
minds or bodies or for refusing to go to work at bottom-end jobs and
work their way up, then expecting the rest of us to pay for the
repairs.
A friend lived in Mexico for awhile. He said that they had no
welfare safety nets, and that a man's family was expected to look
after him if he was in dire straits. That same family would throw him
out to starve if he refused to work when he was again capable. Reality
at its best.


Right on.

Isn't that an Alexis de Tocqueville quote?

Yes, circa 1848.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Flying Machine -http://pad39a.com/gene/
Because we fly, we envy no one.

Yes, he seems to be the Nostradamus of the USA. I think that George
Orwell may have been inspired by Alexis...

Sounds like your reputation has gotten around. :-)

Guess so. We've been the top-rated hotel in Iowa City for the past
three years...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'm in no way criticizing your pay, or management style. It is just a
commentary on the fact that higher pay will usually attract a better class
of employee. Some may even switch from another job to come to your place,
if the pay is higher and the job is more interesting.

True, but with margins razor thin, and competition from our gummint-
built new hotels growing over-more ferocious, there just isn't much
room to do more...

One major impediment to filling one of the desk jobs has been that it
includes some morning hours. (Mary and I take Wednesday/Thursday as
our "weekends", so we need someone to fill those morning hours.)

Morning hours pretty much weeds out students -- which is 90% of the
workforce in Iowa City. It would be great for a retired person, but
lots of businesses have caught on to hiring "gray"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

There is a supermarket in my town (also a college town) that pays
about twice as much per hour. They don't have problems finding good
employees, and it is a pleasure to shop there - even though they are
not cheap.

We would love to pay our employees $16 per hour. Heck, I'd like to
pay myself that much!

We are in a strange spot regarding our prices (and, thus, our ability
to pay more). Many who stay with us request "the cheapest thing
you've got" but -- after hearing so much about us now -- they expect
the world from us.

These high expectations can lead to real problems. I always feel
guilty giving someone "the cheapest thing we've got" knowing that it
won't live up to their expectations (or what they've heard) of us, but
the flip-side is that I can't afford to give them the coolest
honeymoon suite for $69, either.

It's a real Catch-22. We find ourselves ever more busy -- we're now
running 80+% occupancy -- but we're scared to death to raise our
rates, due to our competitive position. In fact, we haven't raised
rates since we bought the hotel in 2002 -- that's five years of
holding the line on rates -- but in the meantime we've added service
after service.

This has severely limited our ability to pay our employees more, since
we're being ever more tightly squeezed by energy costs (up 35% in five
years!) and tax increases. Eventually the pressure will become
impossible to bear, and we will be forced to raise rates -- but surely
at the expense of occupancy.

Finding the "happy medium" is always the trick, and has forced many
good businesses under.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

True, but with margins razor thin, and competition from our gummint-
built new hotels growing over-more ferocious, there just isn't much
room to do more...

Whatever the reasons for low pay, you'll inevitably get what you pay for.

It would be great for a retired person, but
lots of businesses have caught on to hiring "gray"...

I suppose whoever pays the most will win, especially when hiring "gray"
employees who know their priorities.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Jay Honeck writes:

True, but with margins razor thin, and competition from our gummint-
built new hotels growing over-more ferocious, there just isn't much
room to do more...

Whatever the reasons for low pay, you'll inevitably get what you pay for.


True enough in your case where you make nothing.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
There is a supermarket in my town (also a college town) that pays
about twice as much per hour. They don't have problems finding good
employees, and it is a pleasure to shop there - even though they are
not cheap.

We would love to pay our employees $16 per hour. Heck, I'd like to
pay myself that much!

We are in a strange spot regarding our prices (and, thus, our ability
to pay more). Many who stay with us request "the cheapest thing
you've got" but -- after hearing so much about us now -- they expect
the world from us.

These high expectations can lead to real problems. I always feel
guilty giving someone "the cheapest thing we've got" knowing that it
won't live up to their expectations (or what they've heard) of us, but
the flip-side is that I can't afford to give them the coolest
honeymoon suite for $69, either.

It's a real Catch-22. We find ourselves ever more busy -- we're now
running 80+% occupancy -- but we're scared to death to raise our
rates, due to our competitive position. In fact, we haven't raised
rates since we bought the hotel in 2002 -- that's five years of
holding the line on rates -- but in the meantime we've added service
after service.

This has severely limited our ability to pay our employees more, since
we're being ever more tightly squeezed by energy costs (up 35% in five
years!) and tax increases. Eventually the pressure will become
impossible to bear, and we will be forced to raise rates -- but surely
at the expense of occupancy.

The issue is not occupancy but revenue per day. A full hotel paying bugger
all for the rooms is not much use nor is holding out for premium rates with
the hotel empty.

My experience of US motels is that at the budget end (ie less than $70) all
they seem to offer is a bed, variable television, possibly free internet,
ice and a donut and coffee for breakfast so the opportunities to add revenue
from customers is limited.

Similar establishments in Europe tend to have restaurants and shops attached
which gives additional revenue from residents or even from local trade and
can make a big difference to the top and bottom line numbers, to the extent
that revenue per day can be 50% on top of the room rate. But then there is
not the plethora of fast food outlets sucking the customers away.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
There is a supermarket in my town (also a college town) that pays
about twice as much per hour. They don't have problems finding good
employees, and it is a pleasure to shop there - even though they are
not cheap.

We would love to pay our employees $16 per hour. Heck, I'd like to
pay myself that much!

We are in a strange spot regarding our prices (and, thus, our ability
to pay more). Many who stay with us request "the cheapest thing
you've got" but -- after hearing so much about us now -- they expect
the world from us.

These high expectations can lead to real problems. I always feel
guilty giving someone "the cheapest thing we've got" knowing that it
won't live up to their expectations (or what they've heard) of us, but
the flip-side is that I can't afford to give them the coolest
honeymoon suite for $69, either.

It's a tough game Jay.
I'm no business man, but surely it's better to get $69 for that top class
room 2 or 3 nights a week, than have it sit empty earning nothing?
Mind you, you'd think that 'someone' would work for $8 an hour, as it's
certainly better than nothing at all!
Crash Lander
--
Straight and Level Down Under.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/