BloggeRhythms 9/27/2012

Kimberly Schwandt of  Fox News.com wrote that “President Obama misspoke in a speech at Kent State University yesterday, saying "I want to see us export more jobs." He then corrected himself, with “I want to see us export more products - excuse me."

 

Now, although from what I’ve heard this guy say for the past four years, I truly wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted to help anyone but his own nation and therefore, really did mean what he said the first time. But let’s give him benefit of the doubt and accept the correction. My questions today, however, are about the reporter herself who works for Fox no less. Because she went on to write that: 

 

“Romney of course has had his own fair share of misspeaking also, when he said "I like to be able to fire people" and in fuller context was saying more about services provided, adding "You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

 

From the reporters comment, it seems to me she thinks it’s “misspeaking” to want to control your own business and blow out employees who don’t measure up or otherwise are no longer desired for whatever reasons. And perhaps she simply doesn’t understand that jobs in the real world aren’t permanent licenses to underperform, produce below standard, or are positions devoid of responsibility for  poor results. However, employers operate businesses, not charities or public works.

 

Beyond that, when Mr. Romney stated that if he doesn’t get what he expects service-wise, he prefers to go elsewhere, I believe he’s  perfectly right. Because the other approach, which the reporter seems to think is correct, results in reductions in standards, ever decreasing quality, absence of provider’s responsibilities, continually declining performance and consistently weaker results. In fact, the only things that go up when poor performers are retained  are employer’s overhead and operating costs.

 

However, without continuing on to an in-depth economic comparison or to business formulations and charts. let’s look at at simple examples of the two alternatives involved, and decide which approach seems to make the most financial sense by comparison, by asking a fundamental question. 

 

If you were deciding which entity you think operates best and performs consistently well year in and year out, would you choose outfits like Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart Stores, IBM, Ford Motors, GE, Berkshire Hathaway, or even Bain Capital perhaps? Or on the other hand, would you select the current administration as examples of superior performance, either regarding financial sophistication or managerial expertise? Or maybe any of the unions?

 

And I think, if you really consider the actual results among those who produce or fail on their own, rather than survive regardless…it’s always those who suffer consequences when performance is poor that produce the best results. And that's why I haven’t an iota of doubt that when it comes to demanding employees measure up or else, Mitt Romney is absolutely and unequivocally on the mark.  

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios