Debbi Eley wrote:
I agree with everything you said Debbi. Just wanted to make one point.
> I thinks that's exactly what happened with Pro Solo. Too many people paid
>the higher entry which left the
> worker base very slim. Those of us who elected to work instead of pay the
>much higher entry fees were ask
> to work an excessive amount of time.
This may be solved by adjusting the costs accordingly. Too many people
using that option only shows how popular it was, and that means it could
have stood up to being more expensive. That could have offset the
increased savings for those that worked, and that would have created
more workers.
When it comes down to it, almost all of us are willing to help out if
there are not enough workers at a ProSolo...at least I think so. For a
lot of us, the Pro entry fees were a very small part of the overall
budget...so that may have skewed the number of people willing to pay $20
more to not work. How many would have paid $40 more? $50? At some point,
there would be equilibrium.
Requiring all drivers to work at a Pro, you may end up with more workers
than you need...at least it seemed to me this year, since I was in a
group of 3-4 workers at San Berdoo...taking turns shagging cones.
Randy Chase (would have paid more once it started to rain at Atwater
Pro..) 8)
|