Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

I understand it could be a chronic issue with certain quasi-slacker types.

 

I know polls are meaningless at this point and in most polls, Obama is leading by 4-6 points, but it seems like Romney has picked up some momentum, which is surprising, because everything I've seen and heard about him over the last couple weeks has seemed negative...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57415623-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-among-registered-voters-cbs-news-new-york-times-poll-finds/?tag=breakingnews

 

Maybe if you're running your business so close to the margins that you find yourself in a position where one person calling in sick temporarily threatens the viability of your operation, you're not quite as shrewd a businessman as would be ideal.

And maybe it would be less of an issue if so many employers didn't treat taking vacation time as a step down from pissing in the office coffee pot. Or if they, you know, actually provided vacation time.

I say that, by the way, as someone who (knock on wood) has never called in sick a day in my working life, which stretches back something like 16 years. (To be fair, I haven't worked all 16 of those years, as they include my four years in college and a couple patches of unemployment.)

 

I would figure that it's to be expected, what with finally confirming the inevitable and depriving people of any other Republican option.

 

I would have thought Obama would be up by 8-10 points by now. RCP average is 3-4.

I'm surprised because I haven't heard a positive word about Romney in ages. As people continue to point out, this will be 2004 in reverse...

 

1) On the campaign, Obama has not yet begun to fight.

2) That's among registered voters, but the Democrats' plans always include a lot of newly registered -- i.e. young -- voters. They aren't accounted for at all in that poll.

 

:

 

Yeah and imagine Jeff Bezos trying to start Amazon today

 

I've already been accused of being feisty today, but I am still going to give this a go.

In many, many businesses the number of employees needed to get through a given busy period is precisely calibrated to the amount of square footage devoted to operations. Square footage devoted to operations cuts into square footage that can be turned into revenue. Oh, and by the way, we're typically talking about pretty damn pricey square footage -- downtown business centers, hotels, etc. So it's not like you can just beef up on staffing a bit, because there ain't nowhere to put nobody.

Yes, you can always simply schedule a "spare" so that, if someone calls in sick, you're covered. But that requires you to pay for labor you absolutely don't need the vast, vast majority of time. The flip side is to run the risk of getting caught short, but if someone does call in sick then you are capped on the amount of demand you can satisfy. Because of the razor-thin margins -- don't get hung up on just the operating margins, the difference between per-unit revenue and per-unit cost -- you likely only begin to cover your cost of capital (i.e, finally flip over from losses to profits) way, way late in a typical demand cycle. So on those days when you are short, you're losing money. No matter how shrewd a businessperson you are, you cannot figure your way out of this dilemma.

There are some techniques for reducing the sting of this situation -- hey, I know I guy who can teach you lots about them -- but the essential challenge cannot be overcome.

 

Imagine the guys from Instagram trying to start Instagram today. Instead of October 2010.

 

I find that hard to believe, seeing as how: A) he and Woz started it in a garage; and B) that garage was in one of the most heavily regulated regions in the country.

 

I don't deny that Obama hasn't really begun to fight. Right now, he is just working to solidify his various bases (African-Americans, single women/women with multiple cats, college students) by throwing out a Boogeyman issue for each of them. Since seniors tend to have shorter memories, I expect the president to target them right before November.

I am blessed in that my three children are high academic achievers but I do tell them this: "you can accomplish anything you want to, but you must be willing to put in the work and the time". This may run against the current of the others in my age group (high 30s). As a group, we tend to be helicopter parents, ready to save our children from any adversity. From any challenges. We also tell our kids "you can do anything" but, as a generation, we shield them from circumstances that do build character.

Unfortunately, they also don't learn how to - truly - take care of themselves. I know I am being "bitter old man" here when I type this but I am so impressed when I actually come across a college-aged intern or younger colleague that actually has their act together, is curious and either knows information without having to Google it.

Where am I going with this? Smails had it right when he said, "the world needs ditch diggers, too".

Not everyone needs to go to a four-year college. Some people are best in a factory setting where a high school degree and the ability to show up for work matters most. Others at running their own business. Others (far too many where I work) in middle management in a soul-crushing abyss of pointless meetings.

If one of my children did not show a high level of drive or academic achievement, I would gently encourage the kid to follow whatever dream or pursuit DOES bring out that passion. I would not spend $100,000 for four years of mediocrity in college. Why throw good money after mediocrity? If nothing else, the kid would be 22 and, possibly, not saddled with all that debt as he or she figures out the best path.

Yet there is this constant push for college educations for all. For everyone.

No.

Doing that will turn college into extended high school and lessen the value of a college degree, all while the cost of college keeps going up and up.

A few pages back on this thread, one person wrote that Republicans/Romney supporters are not the majority in this country any more. As I look around - as a cranky, conservative Republican, I agree with that. It's absolutely true. Between the entitlement of the Baby Boomers Generation and the current generation of college kids raised on The Daily Show and the evils of Dick Cheney, Republicans under 30 are very hard to find. It's a lost generation.

Democratic leadership is very smart and very shrewd on this. Most Americans between 18-30 have been coddled by their parents. They've rarely been told 'no'. So, let's see... the president is promising health care until age 26 vs. the opposition trying to actually say 'no'.

No one wants to hear "no".