The American Dream

During my career, I have had the privilege to work with many bright, talented, and hard working individuals. I have worked for many people who fit this description but even better, have had the privilege of having such people on my teams.

Something I have learned over the course of 25 years in the technology business, is that there is no single recipe for success. In fact there are many pathways to success. I make this comment as I believe the technology industry is a reflection of all that is great about the American economic system. It is fluid, it is dynamic, it rewards those who deliver value, it gives unlimited mulligans for those willing to keep trying. It rewards hard work and innovation, and best of all, anyone who is industrious and willing can participate in the game. Technology firms, maybe more than most businesses, are interested in what you can do & what you can deliver and the rest is pretty inconsequential. Technology folks are rarely the snappiest dressers, because no one cares what you look like, if you can haul the mail.

As I stated earlier, I have been privileged to work with many very bright, talented, and industrious individuals in my career. When thinking about the opportunities that this industry and this country offers to anyone willing to take advantage, two people jump off the page as shining examples of the success that is possible in our country, like no other in the world. These two should be "poster kids" for anyone who has lost faith in the opportunity this country offers. Both of these folks come from working class, blue collar backgrounds - backbone of America kind of folks who were long on hard work, but short on fancy education. Neither of these folks has a pedigree, they did not graduate from prep schools nor attend elite private universities. They took advantage of their state college systems paying their ways through at least part of their college careers. They took what was ingrained in their roots and combined that with a tough competitive spirit. They started at the bottom rungs of the industry with the humility to learn and the drive to succeed. The result has been staggering. They are self-made, highly respected professionals who could have easily chosen much less challenging paths, but didn't. They have achieved sustained success over time. Everything they have, they got the hard way - through their hard work, their determination, the apt use of their talents, and little luck here and there. They did not hold the hand they were dealt they improved it. They are what our politicians should think of when they reference the American Spirit. They are living evidence that our economic society is indeed one of mobility and opportunity and those born into a circumstance are not destined to finish in that circumstance.

I think if our leaders knew more people like this, who are self made success stories, who leveraged opportunities available to the common man for uncommon results, they might understand little better why so many Americans just want a fair shot on goal and a chance to earn their way to success instead of a slice of someone else's pie. I have learned a lot from these two. I am proud to have worked with them, I am proud to have seen their accomplishments, I am proud that they are my friends. I only wish more people, especially people in Washington, knew their stories, because there are millions of others just like it. This is why America is exceptional, this is why so many flock to our shores, this is why I have such faith in the long term success of our nation. I have have seen what is possible, I know folks who are living it. I hope they are proud of what they have accomplished, because they ought to be, it is the American Dream.

Workers vs. Employees

I have noticed over the past 2 years that Obama and his fellow progressives are fond of the term "worker" when talking about business, economic, and employment issues. There are always programs and strategies to help "workers". Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I think the term implies that there are workers, and then there are non-workers. The workers are the ostensibly the middle class back bone of America folks. And that's fine, hard working, salt of the earth, resilient folks are the backbone of our country and our economy. However, I think the implication of the "workers" as they are always described is one of a perpetually adversarial relationship in the work place. This term implies that there are workers, who are well, working and then there are non-workers - I guess these are the fat cats sitting around with their feet propped up on their desks counting their money - made on the backs of the workers. Workers are good - and I agree, they certainly are both good and necessary for economic prosperity, but if you are not a "worker" it does not mean that you are bad, greedy, or exploitative as is implied in the progressive lexicon.

I think this messaging comes from the perspective of many progressives and many in the current administration who have spent little to no time in the private sector - managing businesses, making payrolls, serving customers, earning profits, and investing in future growth. They never talk about "employees" and "employers" and the mutually beneficial relationship that exists throughout the vast majority of the economy. Employees have a desire to earn money, they have their time, and they have skills to bring to the market. Employers, (businesses and their owners) have jobs that need to be done to deliver value to the market and therefore profits to the bottom line. There is an intersection of mutual interest between employers and employees. In most cases this is a productive and mutually beneficial relationship that fosters a win/win for all parties involved. Most employees are hard working, loyal, and productive. Most employers want their employees to support their lifestyles and have productive careers. Not all employers strive for a mutually beneficial relationship with their employees and not all employees are the model of consistent and selfless performance, but over most of the economy the relationship in the workforce is one of employees and employers working for mutual and common purpose. It is not that of oppressed "Bob Cratchets" scraping around for paltry wages in oppressive working conditions. It is not us vs. them and an on-going struggle against "the man".

However, I think if one's adult background is exclusive to the halls the Ivy league, the government, or the local union, it is easy to believe that there is always someone to go after, someone who is getting more than they deserve, and some fat cat whose pocket can be picked for the benefit of "the worker". In the world of the government, the union, and the academic theoretical, there is always a wrong to be righted and a grievance to be addressed. There is also a belief in perpetual employment stagnation and ignorance that many "workers" today can be employers tomorrow. The reality is, that absent meddling from external forces the employer/employee relationship works well. Market checks & balances and the free will of both parties creates an equilibrium that keeps employers motivated to keep employees happy and therefore productive in the business and motivation for employees to maintain earnings stability and career growth through quality work and skill development over time.

Employees work. Employers work. Managers of business work. To proclaim the focus of topics of business and employment always tilted to the benefit of the "worker" mis-characterizes the nature of most employment experiences. External forces to help workers are usually additional intrusions into a relationship that naturally would work pretty well, if the progressives would simply let it. Maybe their indebtedness to unions won't let progressives change their mantra, but if they want to reverse their losses from the past mid-terms, they might want to project a more business aware image, rather than simply cheer leading for causes that unilaterally transfer funds from one pocket to another.

Consistency Can Be Inconvenient

Today is election day. I expect lots of ridiculous comments from the pudantry on both sides of the ideological spectrum. That's part of what makes this so much fun. I have read a lot of commentary and analysis about the coming election, but there is one connection that has not been discussed. It popped in my head when I heard a story about the governor of Arizona Jan Brewer (America's hard-liner on illegal immigration) campaigning in California. The ensuing story was about California's proposition 19, which proposes legalizing recreational pot use in the Golden State....

If you saw the movie "the Fly" remember what happened when a fly was accidentally mixed with the human in the teleporter test? Hang with me here just a second...hopefully the uncommon mixture here is not quite as tragic.

It seems to me, that supporters of Arizona's new immigration law and California's push to legalize recreational pot smoking are on the same side of their arguments and should support one another...though I suspect they would both be generally perplexed and offended at this suggestion.

Arizona is pushing a state's right to enforce essentially existing immigration laws - at the state level, primarily because the feds have done such a crummy job of enforcing federal law. After lots of grandstanding over this issue and much angst in the professional media, as we stand today the 9th Circuit court will decide whether or not a state can write and enforce a laws that are currently the domain of Federal law.

Now, let's look a the California pot smokers. I have heard and read several times that the Californians can pass any law they want with respect to smoking pot for recreational purposes, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because smoking pot is a federal crime covered by federal statute and the California law will be trumped by federal law....hmmmmm, aren't the pot smokers arguing the same position as the pro-boarder security crowd in Arizona...state law - based on local needs and local conditions should trump federal intrusion or federal inaction? Why yes it is.

It seems to me in the record of missed opportunity this is a biggie. Pot smokers and boarder security advocates pushing for the same fundamental rights - they are both being tormented by "the man". I think if they are intellectually honest they could see a formidable coalition in the making. Consistency is not always pretty nor convenient, but if you think about it, theses folks are on the same side of the fence, whether they like it or not.