So there are probably numerous reasons behind the historic loses by the big three, Ford, GM and Chrysler, but here is one that really struck me as a fundamental flaw that keeps them from recovering.
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105735/The-65-mpg-Ford-the-U.S.-Can't-Have
This isn't the first time I've heard this argument of 'we don't think anyone would like it/buy it so we won't even attempt to change it.' Seems to me if your company is struggling as much as Ford and the others are, and you have a product that gets better mileage than others in a mpg concerned market, wouldn't it be prudent to give it a go? At least test market the car? This is why the European and Japanese companies are constantly kicking the hell out of the North Americans. They are taking chances and paving the way. The Big Three are constantly playing catch up.
The no one will want it, so we'll keep pushing the low mpg product to the NA market. You know, the same things that people aren't buying now, but people still want them. How does that make any sense?
The big three seem to be so anchored in a bygone era, they can't see any alternative but 'stay the course'. That worked wonders for the American Government over the last few years didn't it?
Sure they have all announced their latest and greatest hybrids, but for the most part they are still a couple of years away, will it be too late?
Time will tell. But why in thew world contribute to you own demise by not even attempting to distribute a product that 'could' help you help yourself? Sounds like some of the same type of 'thinking' that killed the electric car in California a few years ago. If by 'thinking' I mean 'we will decide what the consumer wants, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.'
Amazing. Never thought I'd see a variation on Colbert's Truthiness used as a business plan.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Don't Try to Defend Them
Okay, I was going to rant about the state of my beloved Vikings coaching and quarterback ineptness, (in short, fire the coach, cut the QB, they both have reached new heights of suckitude) but then I heard the news that gas prices were going to drop by 9 cents today. Sounds great right? WRONG, the reason they are going down so dramatically is that the possibility of damage from Hurricane Ike pushed them up by 13/14 cents last week. Now, that the hypothetical 'catastrophic' damage didn't happen, prices are going back down. See a discrepancy there?
Now, before any one tries to defend the oil companies, let me say this to you in as calm and even way I can muster:
SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Listen, I know that there was some damage to the refineries, I understand that. I know there may be some lost production from those refineries around the area Ike hit. It's not rocket science. But the constant stream of excuses for the greed of oil companies is tiresome, to say the least.
I read last week someone in a on-line forum try to justify a 13 cent per litre hike because of supply and demand. I'm sorry it doesn't apply. This was a pure anticipatory price hike on the hypothetical damage that could happen to affect supply over the coming days/weeks. These are not the only refineries in North America, the supply was not sufficiently effected, yet prices did not return to pre-Ike levels. A token effort was made to put the price down so people with a memory retention of shorter that a weekend will buy. The rest of us can see what you are doing oil companies.
It takes less than five minutes to look at the oil/gas prices over the last year and see there is something not right with the old lines and b-s they like to feed the public. Using Toronto prices, not because I'm biased, but because that is were I am, last year at this time gas was roughly 92c/litre, crude oil was roughly $80 barrel. Today current prices are 129.4c/litre and around $93/barrel. That's a 17.7% increase in oil prices, but a 40.7% increase in gas. (Thanks to my friend D for point out the egregious percentage, hits home a lot better that way than eyeballing it, eh?)
http://www.torontogasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
And that was after a summer of gas prices jumping WAY higher that oil prices hitting over $1/litre for the first time. Check out the trend over 18 month or 2 years.
Now some of the big oil apologists will point out that the gas prices didn't jump as high as oil did this summer. Granted, good point. But it also works against them. For years whenever the subject of price gouging came up the oil companies standard excuse was something along the lines of the profit margin being so low that when oil cost went up they had to immediately raise gas prices to reflect it. (And of course when oil prices dropped " well it takes up to six months for that type of cost reduction to be reflected in our prices.) Does that mean big oil was so concerned with our well-being this summer that in all their well known magnanimous benevolence they decided not to pass on the costs THIS time? They must have been losing millions a day. Yeah, right.
Look I don't have any problem with anyone making a profit, that is why you run a business instead of a charity, and I include oil companies in anyone. But this is pretty blatant collusion on gouging. When costs where going up they put up their prices as high as they dared, but now that cost are plummeting the prices are staying relatively stable. As the saying goes, don't shine a flashlight up my ass and call in sunshine, (or something like that). Make your money, but don't cry poverty and look for sympathy when every quarter I hear about record profits for the oil companies.
Don't even get me started on European prices being higher, or suggesting a boycott. Look The European prices are way higher because of taxes. Taxes they use to try and find better energy solutions. We don't. Hell, the combined North American governments would rather bury their head in the (oil)sand that address any other alternative energies. The boycotts are so ridiculous I can't even discuss it rationally. (MANY People NEED gas. Buying it is the ONLY option.)
So what's my point? There really isn't a lot we can do without government intervention. Our elected officials are the only ones with the power to stop the gouging, but lack the political will/chutzpah to really dig into it and doing anything to big oil. Sure they'll make noise and form inquiries, etc etc. But from what I have seen the extent of these investigations starts and ends with going to big oil and asking:
Gov't: "Are you price gouging?"
Bog Oil: "No. Of course not."
Gov't: "Okay, good enough for me!"
Is there a solution? Short term, maybe gov't regulation. A good time to talk about with the upcoming elections. But the better solution is to rid ourselves of our dependence on oil. I don't trust the politicians either but at least we have some sort of influence on them every 4-5 years.
Long term, if we can come up with a viable, renewable, clean alternative, perhaps then the bullshit will stop. Well, at least they won't be able to claim the cost of the wind or sun is going up. There's lots of promising stuff out there that once developed and becomes affordable to the average person, might just do it.
Until then, if you hear someone defending the greedy bastards in the oil industry, feel free to punch them right in the face.*
Until next time.
*NOTE: When you get arrested for assault, tell the police that the future King Ian told you it was okay. Yeah, that'll work. At least you'll get a nice padded cell.
Now, before any one tries to defend the oil companies, let me say this to you in as calm and even way I can muster:
SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Listen, I know that there was some damage to the refineries, I understand that. I know there may be some lost production from those refineries around the area Ike hit. It's not rocket science. But the constant stream of excuses for the greed of oil companies is tiresome, to say the least.
I read last week someone in a on-line forum try to justify a 13 cent per litre hike because of supply and demand. I'm sorry it doesn't apply. This was a pure anticipatory price hike on the hypothetical damage that could happen to affect supply over the coming days/weeks. These are not the only refineries in North America, the supply was not sufficiently effected, yet prices did not return to pre-Ike levels. A token effort was made to put the price down so people with a memory retention of shorter that a weekend will buy. The rest of us can see what you are doing oil companies.
It takes less than five minutes to look at the oil/gas prices over the last year and see there is something not right with the old lines and b-s they like to feed the public. Using Toronto prices, not because I'm biased, but because that is were I am, last year at this time gas was roughly 92c/litre, crude oil was roughly $80 barrel. Today current prices are 129.4c/litre and around $93/barrel. That's a 17.7% increase in oil prices, but a 40.7% increase in gas. (Thanks to my friend D for point out the egregious percentage, hits home a lot better that way than eyeballing it, eh?)
http://www.torontogasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
And that was after a summer of gas prices jumping WAY higher that oil prices hitting over $1/litre for the first time. Check out the trend over 18 month or 2 years.
Now some of the big oil apologists will point out that the gas prices didn't jump as high as oil did this summer. Granted, good point. But it also works against them. For years whenever the subject of price gouging came up the oil companies standard excuse was something along the lines of the profit margin being so low that when oil cost went up they had to immediately raise gas prices to reflect it. (And of course when oil prices dropped " well it takes up to six months for that type of cost reduction to be reflected in our prices.) Does that mean big oil was so concerned with our well-being this summer that in all their well known magnanimous benevolence they decided not to pass on the costs THIS time? They must have been losing millions a day. Yeah, right.
Look I don't have any problem with anyone making a profit, that is why you run a business instead of a charity, and I include oil companies in anyone. But this is pretty blatant collusion on gouging. When costs where going up they put up their prices as high as they dared, but now that cost are plummeting the prices are staying relatively stable. As the saying goes, don't shine a flashlight up my ass and call in sunshine, (or something like that). Make your money, but don't cry poverty and look for sympathy when every quarter I hear about record profits for the oil companies.
Don't even get me started on European prices being higher, or suggesting a boycott. Look The European prices are way higher because of taxes. Taxes they use to try and find better energy solutions. We don't. Hell, the combined North American governments would rather bury their head in the (oil)sand that address any other alternative energies. The boycotts are so ridiculous I can't even discuss it rationally. (MANY People NEED gas. Buying it is the ONLY option.)
So what's my point? There really isn't a lot we can do without government intervention. Our elected officials are the only ones with the power to stop the gouging, but lack the political will/chutzpah to really dig into it and doing anything to big oil. Sure they'll make noise and form inquiries, etc etc. But from what I have seen the extent of these investigations starts and ends with going to big oil and asking:
Gov't: "Are you price gouging?"
Bog Oil: "No. Of course not."
Gov't: "Okay, good enough for me!"
Is there a solution? Short term, maybe gov't regulation. A good time to talk about with the upcoming elections. But the better solution is to rid ourselves of our dependence on oil. I don't trust the politicians either but at least we have some sort of influence on them every 4-5 years.
Long term, if we can come up with a viable, renewable, clean alternative, perhaps then the bullshit will stop. Well, at least they won't be able to claim the cost of the wind or sun is going up. There's lots of promising stuff out there that once developed and becomes affordable to the average person, might just do it.
Until then, if you hear someone defending the greedy bastards in the oil industry, feel free to punch them right in the face.*
Until next time.
*NOTE: When you get arrested for assault, tell the police that the future King Ian told you it was okay. Yeah, that'll work. At least you'll get a nice padded cell.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The State of Politics
Haven't been around much over the last few months, really didn't feel all that inspired to post. That changed a bit in the last few days.
First, as a proud Canadian, I'm dreading that we are heading for an election in the next month or so. Of course the fact that it is not official yet has not kept all the parties from starting the campaign. The dread doesn't come from that of course. I love elections! The bad part is we have to pick from a bunch of losers once again. The lack of a viable choice for leader of our country depresses me. I think, Harper is an egomaniacal douche, Dion is a wimp who can't even inspire his own party to follow him, and Layton and the NDP are too far left, even for me. There are some real lunatics in that party.(Plus his 'stache makes him look like an aging porn star, I just can't take him seriously.)
So as far as I see, no viable choice, (and no, the Green Party is not a choice, until they have official party status, they don't enter the conversation, sorry.) and we'll probably end up with the same minority government we have now.
What is the point? "Let's waste millions on an election no one wants, so we can re-affirm that we don't like any of our douchey politicians, and be right back where we started in a couple of months." How does that make even a lick of sense?
Which brings me to my second point, why can't we have just one politician that can inspire and seems to have some leadership qualities? I have been following the American races, and regardless of what I feel about their policies, Obama, Clinton and McCain seem to be those types of politicians. Since Clinton's out of the race, I'd like to ask our cousins to the south, would you accept a trade of Layton, Dion, some hockey sticks and tape, and heck, I'll throw in a life time supply of maple syrup, for Hillary? What do you say?
Speaking of the American presidential races, wow, just wow. I really like Obama, one of the greatest political speeches I've ever seen last week. Really looking forward to the debates. Gimme some of that kool-aid, I'm in.
Now, that being said, I was actually impressed by McCain's pick of Palin for his running mate. Much more so than Obama's pick of Biden, I thought Palin was a good, bold, choice that showed some guts from the Republicans. But then the media's vetting started. Look, I couldn't give a damn whether her kid is knocked up at 17 or not. Really neither here nor there. I do have a problem with her speech a few years ago saying that the Iraq war was essentially God's will. That's great. Let's call for another crusade, I think it's just what we need right now.
Shit, that is some scary fucking talk, even if it came out of a religious leader's mouth, but oh no, it was from a politician in a political setting.
All that aside, I mean it's just my views, and hers are counter to mine and that is fine. One of the greatest things in western society is that we're allowed to have differing opinions and speak out on them. But that brings me to the last point.
Where do the Republicans get off calling out the media for making these things known? Reporting on actual facts is now a biased attack? The media is against them and in love with Obama? Umm, okay, sure, righteous indignation on letting us know more about the person who could be 'a heartbeat away' from running your country. Just because you don't like what is coming out, doesn't mean the news is biased.
I'm not saying the media isn't biased, but if you are going to get all righteous about it, how about the 'Obama is a sercret muslim' thing from earlier this year? Here was a news story that wouldn't die for weeks, and it wasn't even true! Where was the 'how dare the media' talk then?
Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, surely this 'woe is us' and 'everyone is against us' talk is transparent as the New England Patriots, 'No one respects us' line from a few years ago. Sure it's galvanizing to say us against the world, and I understand what they are doing. I just hate this type of political maneuvering that is masqueraded as a real issue.
'Til next time.
First, as a proud Canadian, I'm dreading that we are heading for an election in the next month or so. Of course the fact that it is not official yet has not kept all the parties from starting the campaign. The dread doesn't come from that of course. I love elections! The bad part is we have to pick from a bunch of losers once again. The lack of a viable choice for leader of our country depresses me. I think, Harper is an egomaniacal douche, Dion is a wimp who can't even inspire his own party to follow him, and Layton and the NDP are too far left, even for me. There are some real lunatics in that party.(Plus his 'stache makes him look like an aging porn star, I just can't take him seriously.)
So as far as I see, no viable choice, (and no, the Green Party is not a choice, until they have official party status, they don't enter the conversation, sorry.) and we'll probably end up with the same minority government we have now.
What is the point? "Let's waste millions on an election no one wants, so we can re-affirm that we don't like any of our douchey politicians, and be right back where we started in a couple of months." How does that make even a lick of sense?
Which brings me to my second point, why can't we have just one politician that can inspire and seems to have some leadership qualities? I have been following the American races, and regardless of what I feel about their policies, Obama, Clinton and McCain seem to be those types of politicians. Since Clinton's out of the race, I'd like to ask our cousins to the south, would you accept a trade of Layton, Dion, some hockey sticks and tape, and heck, I'll throw in a life time supply of maple syrup, for Hillary? What do you say?
Speaking of the American presidential races, wow, just wow. I really like Obama, one of the greatest political speeches I've ever seen last week. Really looking forward to the debates. Gimme some of that kool-aid, I'm in.
Now, that being said, I was actually impressed by McCain's pick of Palin for his running mate. Much more so than Obama's pick of Biden, I thought Palin was a good, bold, choice that showed some guts from the Republicans. But then the media's vetting started. Look, I couldn't give a damn whether her kid is knocked up at 17 or not. Really neither here nor there. I do have a problem with her speech a few years ago saying that the Iraq war was essentially God's will. That's great. Let's call for another crusade, I think it's just what we need right now.
Shit, that is some scary fucking talk, even if it came out of a religious leader's mouth, but oh no, it was from a politician in a political setting.
All that aside, I mean it's just my views, and hers are counter to mine and that is fine. One of the greatest things in western society is that we're allowed to have differing opinions and speak out on them. But that brings me to the last point.
Where do the Republicans get off calling out the media for making these things known? Reporting on actual facts is now a biased attack? The media is against them and in love with Obama? Umm, okay, sure, righteous indignation on letting us know more about the person who could be 'a heartbeat away' from running your country. Just because you don't like what is coming out, doesn't mean the news is biased.
I'm not saying the media isn't biased, but if you are going to get all righteous about it, how about the 'Obama is a sercret muslim' thing from earlier this year? Here was a news story that wouldn't die for weeks, and it wasn't even true! Where was the 'how dare the media' talk then?
Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, surely this 'woe is us' and 'everyone is against us' talk is transparent as the New England Patriots, 'No one respects us' line from a few years ago. Sure it's galvanizing to say us against the world, and I understand what they are doing. I just hate this type of political maneuvering that is masqueraded as a real issue.
'Til next time.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Hoping For History
Well, it's that time of year again. The Grey Cup has just passed, and the NFL regular season gets good.
As far as the Grey Cup goes, let me give you this one piece of advice dear reader (and I mean this for all of the ones of readers out there. That's right, I have a friend or two that happens to look at this occasionally, if they are busy washing their hair or have a headache.). If you ever get a chance to go to Canada's Superbowl, the Grey Cup...do not hesitate to jump at the chance and trample anyone who tries to get in your way. I had the opportunity to go this year, and yes, there were problems, like long lines for beer and lack of roving beer guys in the stand, at least in the upper deck, but I still had a blast. And I had no rooting interest, except for a grudge against the eventual winner Saskatchewan. I can't stand a name stealer. But that is a story for another time.
In the NFL there are two intriguing stories out there, which if you have glanced at a sports page or website in the last few weeks, I'm sure you have heard about. The New England Patriots and Miami Dolphins are both 'pursuing' history. The Pats to go undefeated, and the 'Fins to go perfectly defeated. Okay Miami's not trying, but they do really freaking suck. New England meantime is trying, and so far at 12-0 finding ways to get it done.
Now, I am not a fan of either team, so normally I couldn't care less. But for some reason this time the 'perfect season' has caught my interest. Maybe it's because I have loved watching Randy Moss since he debuted with my Vikings, but I am pulled in by this possibility. I'd love to see the perfect season from the Pats. It certainly seems that I won't see something like this again in my lifetime, the last time it happened was in '72, the year I was born. I'd like to see and remember this one.
As far as the Dolphins go, that '72 team has been gloating over the last undefeated team going down every year since. Well, popping champagne to celebrate your own greatness and someone else's defeat, over and over again for 35 years seems a bit much, and I dare say probably bad karma. I am hoping the current incarnation does go winless and tieless. Screw it, they celebrate everyone else's failure for that long, let their former team be the biggest failure in the history of the league. Sounds fair to me.
So let's see 19-0 for the Pats, you know we probably won't see it again. And Let's replace the 76 Bucs (0-14) with the 07 Dolphins as the worst team ever fielded.
Make some history for us boys!
Until next time, see you in the funny pages.
As far as the Grey Cup goes, let me give you this one piece of advice dear reader (and I mean this for all of the ones of readers out there. That's right, I have a friend or two that happens to look at this occasionally, if they are busy washing their hair or have a headache.). If you ever get a chance to go to Canada's Superbowl, the Grey Cup...do not hesitate to jump at the chance and trample anyone who tries to get in your way. I had the opportunity to go this year, and yes, there were problems, like long lines for beer and lack of roving beer guys in the stand, at least in the upper deck, but I still had a blast. And I had no rooting interest, except for a grudge against the eventual winner Saskatchewan. I can't stand a name stealer. But that is a story for another time.
In the NFL there are two intriguing stories out there, which if you have glanced at a sports page or website in the last few weeks, I'm sure you have heard about. The New England Patriots and Miami Dolphins are both 'pursuing' history. The Pats to go undefeated, and the 'Fins to go perfectly defeated. Okay Miami's not trying, but they do really freaking suck. New England meantime is trying, and so far at 12-0 finding ways to get it done.
Now, I am not a fan of either team, so normally I couldn't care less. But for some reason this time the 'perfect season' has caught my interest. Maybe it's because I have loved watching Randy Moss since he debuted with my Vikings, but I am pulled in by this possibility. I'd love to see the perfect season from the Pats. It certainly seems that I won't see something like this again in my lifetime, the last time it happened was in '72, the year I was born. I'd like to see and remember this one.
As far as the Dolphins go, that '72 team has been gloating over the last undefeated team going down every year since. Well, popping champagne to celebrate your own greatness and someone else's defeat, over and over again for 35 years seems a bit much, and I dare say probably bad karma. I am hoping the current incarnation does go winless and tieless. Screw it, they celebrate everyone else's failure for that long, let their former team be the biggest failure in the history of the league. Sounds fair to me.
So let's see 19-0 for the Pats, you know we probably won't see it again. And Let's replace the 76 Bucs (0-14) with the 07 Dolphins as the worst team ever fielded.
Make some history for us boys!
Until next time, see you in the funny pages.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A Holiday Theme
In honor of me taking the American Thanksgiving off, I thought I would post some interesting links I read today.
Here's a great one about blowing the myth of the first Thanksgiving all to hell:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071121/ts_alt_afp/lifestyleusthanksgivinghistoryfood
Imagine! 400 years later the story has been slightly corrupted! Never would have guessed that could happen. Especially love the quote from the man named Fortunate Eagle near the end. Priceless!
And here's one that explains that sleepy feeling you get after the big Turkey feeds, not what you might think!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071121/sc_livescience/thankgivingmythturkeymakesyousleepy
Let's here it for gluttonly! Pass the turkey!
Here's a great one about blowing the myth of the first Thanksgiving all to hell:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071121/ts_alt_afp/lifestyleusthanksgivinghistoryfood
Imagine! 400 years later the story has been slightly corrupted! Never would have guessed that could happen. Especially love the quote from the man named Fortunate Eagle near the end. Priceless!
And here's one that explains that sleepy feeling you get after the big Turkey feeds, not what you might think!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071121/sc_livescience/thankgivingmythturkeymakesyousleepy
Let's here it for gluttonly! Pass the turkey!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Some quick links for Nov.
Pretty sure this wouldn't raise an eyebrow up hereis Canada, but I could be wrong:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_fe_st/odd_cheerleading_stunt;_ylt=Auoyp8RVhsswiinNceraU1Cs0NUE
If you read this as a sarcastic POV it is much better, I hope that was the intention, because it might make me kind of stabby otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-medium-t.html
Do we really need to deconstruct and retcon Sesame Street? Was anyone REALLY influenced by the gluttony of the Cookie Monster? I remember it being funny, and funny to do the impression, but noone I knew actually looked at it as a good idea to eat nothing but cookies in copious amounts. Perhaps that's because we were raised in a simpler time where the TV wasn't a babysitter and the sole purveyor of knowlege to kids.
Or perhaps I read too much into it. It's been know to happen.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_fe_st/odd_cheerleading_stunt;_ylt=Auoyp8RVhsswiinNceraU1Cs0NUE
If you read this as a sarcastic POV it is much better, I hope that was the intention, because it might make me kind of stabby otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-medium-t.html
Do we really need to deconstruct and retcon Sesame Street? Was anyone REALLY influenced by the gluttony of the Cookie Monster? I remember it being funny, and funny to do the impression, but noone I knew actually looked at it as a good idea to eat nothing but cookies in copious amounts. Perhaps that's because we were raised in a simpler time where the TV wasn't a babysitter and the sole purveyor of knowlege to kids.
Or perhaps I read too much into it. It's been know to happen.
Monday, October 15, 2007
What Ever Happened to Common Courtesy?
Now when I read/heard about e-mail free Fridays last week, I thought to myself 'Sh!t, what a ridiculous idea." But then thinking about the reasons that employers were thinking of implementing it, I found myself in an unusual situation for me, actually agreeing with the establishment. I started to see the correlation between the increasing use of e-mail and to a lesser extent faxes and the decline I have noticed for years in phone manners.
I'm by no means some sort of crusader for manners or against electronic communications, and perhaps there is no link whatsoever. But in the too many years I have had to use the phone as a large portion of my job, I have notice a drastic drop off in simple etiquette. When did it become acceptable to reply to a greeting with "Who is this?" or the slightly less rude, "So and so please"? Or simply launch into a diatribe without introducing yourself?
I do realize that in my position in a support department that people aren't always going to be in the best of moods when they call. Hey, they wouldn't be calling me if they didn't have something they needed. I get that, I do. But why does that give people the license to be as rude as possible? Is is so hard to say " Hi I'm blah-blah and I'm calling from such and such, I was wondering if you could help me." or something like that?
Perhaps there is something to the theory that e-mail is contributing to loosing some of the social skills developed in the 20th century. I wouldn't go so far as to blame it completely, I think the 'I'm so special' attitude is much more to blame. (You know the attitude I'm talking about, it is the one that allows people to talk no responsibility for anything they do, anything that goes wrong is obviously someone else's fault because someone so special couldn't possibly be in the wrong.) But that's an argument for another time. I have notice that as e-mail has become more prevalent phone manners have declined almost in step.
People say things in ways on e-mails that they would rarely have done via phone or face to face in years past. That freedom of not having to have personal contact while you insult someone seems to be flowing through to the phone. Why people feel that rudeness and insults is acceptable in an e-mail is another matter, but what is triggering the disappearance of just basic courtesy on the phone or to a lesser extent in person.
I know I'm just one man, with little or no influence on where society is going, but ask yourself this. How would I like to be spoken to? With respect or contempt? Respect or at least politeness right? That's what I thought. So, next time you need to call a business, no matter what is happening on your end, remember, a little decency goes along away. The person at the other end of the line may be someone who only answers the phone, or someone that can help you, but either way, they are just doing their job. There is never a good excuse for belittling them or being rude to start a conversation. And who knows, you may find that you people are more willing to be helpful and polite back when you don't start a conversation with rudeness.
Or maybe it's just me.
I'm by no means some sort of crusader for manners or against electronic communications, and perhaps there is no link whatsoever. But in the too many years I have had to use the phone as a large portion of my job, I have notice a drastic drop off in simple etiquette. When did it become acceptable to reply to a greeting with "Who is this?" or the slightly less rude, "So and so please"? Or simply launch into a diatribe without introducing yourself?
I do realize that in my position in a support department that people aren't always going to be in the best of moods when they call. Hey, they wouldn't be calling me if they didn't have something they needed. I get that, I do. But why does that give people the license to be as rude as possible? Is is so hard to say " Hi I'm blah-blah and I'm calling from such and such, I was wondering if you could help me." or something like that?
Perhaps there is something to the theory that e-mail is contributing to loosing some of the social skills developed in the 20th century. I wouldn't go so far as to blame it completely, I think the 'I'm so special' attitude is much more to blame. (You know the attitude I'm talking about, it is the one that allows people to talk no responsibility for anything they do, anything that goes wrong is obviously someone else's fault because someone so special couldn't possibly be in the wrong.) But that's an argument for another time. I have notice that as e-mail has become more prevalent phone manners have declined almost in step.
People say things in ways on e-mails that they would rarely have done via phone or face to face in years past. That freedom of not having to have personal contact while you insult someone seems to be flowing through to the phone. Why people feel that rudeness and insults is acceptable in an e-mail is another matter, but what is triggering the disappearance of just basic courtesy on the phone or to a lesser extent in person.
I know I'm just one man, with little or no influence on where society is going, but ask yourself this. How would I like to be spoken to? With respect or contempt? Respect or at least politeness right? That's what I thought. So, next time you need to call a business, no matter what is happening on your end, remember, a little decency goes along away. The person at the other end of the line may be someone who only answers the phone, or someone that can help you, but either way, they are just doing their job. There is never a good excuse for belittling them or being rude to start a conversation. And who knows, you may find that you people are more willing to be helpful and polite back when you don't start a conversation with rudeness.
Or maybe it's just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)