On 27 Jul 2005 03:29:29 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

There is probably no way to compare wages in service to manufacturing
as service runs the gamut from burger flippers to high end auto repair
shops with good pay whereas manufacturing was fairly narrow to mean
those who actually did the production on the lines.

Everyone likes to focus on the burger flippers. There are far more high
paying jobs available on the service side than in manufacturing.
Throughout the 80's and 90's manufacturing wages rose while employment
dropped. That tells me that the low skill jobs went away. In the last
eight years or so wages have stagnated. Probably too much competition for
too few jobs, or too much competitive pressure. Stagnent wages are the
same as a reduction in pay due to inflation. Fortunately inflation has
been very low. But when you couple frozen wages with higher contribution
to benefits, you end up with a pay cut.

You must have missed all of that "increase in productivity"
that the neocons were bragging about.
Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message

snip

Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...
--
Cliff

And why do the "workers" deserve pay raises as compared to return on
investment by the stock holders? Do you think that people should invest
their money out of the goodness of their hearts and abandon it and abandon
all hope of even recouping the money for their retirement? ...after all,
the "workers" do all the work and deserve every benefit of somebody else's
money.

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message

snip

Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...
--
Cliff


And why do the "workers" deserve pay raises as compared to return on
investment by the stock holders? Do you think that people should invest
their money out of the goodness of their hearts and abandon it and abandon
all hope of even recouping the money for their retirement? ...after all,
the "workers" do all the work and deserve every benefit of somebody else's
money.


Tom, good luck trying to reason with these liberals. They just can't
seem to understand that corporations are supposed to make a profit. They
seem to see corporations as just some sort of welfare agency that
provides jobs and benefits.

Cliff wrote in
:

On 27 Jul 2005 03:29:29 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

There is probably no way to compare wages in service to
manufacturing as service runs the gamut from burger flippers to high
end auto repair shops with good pay whereas manufacturing was fairly
narrow to mean those who actually did the production on the lines.

Everyone likes to focus on the burger flippers. There are far more
high paying jobs available on the service side than in manufacturing.
Throughout the 80's and 90's manufacturing wages rose while employment
dropped. That tells me that the low skill jobs went away. In the last
eight years or so wages have stagnated. Probably too much competition
for too few jobs, or too much competitive pressure. Stagnent wages are
the same as a reduction in pay due to inflation. Fortunately inflation
has been very low. But when you couple frozen wages with higher
contribution to benefits, you end up with a pay cut.

You must have missed all of that "increase in productivity"
that the neocons were bragging about.
Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...

That's not very smart Cliff. You don't suppose companies that didn't
improve their productivity went out of business? What makes you think that
there is additional profits? Mostly what I see are lower prices. Lets close
the border, right? No more imports from anywhere. Not very smart if you are
the worlds largest exporter. That's the side of the equation that everyone
forgets. The U.S. may be the worlds largest importer, but we are also the
largest exporter.


--

Dan

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:06:38 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message

snip

Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...
--
Cliff

And why do the "workers" deserve pay raises as compared to return on
investment by the stock holders? Do you think that people should invest
their money out of the goodness of their hearts and abandon it and abandon
all hope of even recouping the money for their retirement? ...after all,
the "workers" do all the work and deserve every benefit of somebody else's
money.

Nice to see you standing up for those that inherited their money,
stocks & bonds and paid no taxes and those that got lucky.
Someone needs to.
It's not like they had to pay taxes on their earned income,
after all.
--
Cliff

On 27 Jul 2005 20:48:59 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

On 27 Jul 2005 03:29:29 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

There is probably no way to compare wages in service to
manufacturing as service runs the gamut from burger flippers to high
end auto repair shops with good pay whereas manufacturing was fairly
narrow to mean those who actually did the production on the lines.

Everyone likes to focus on the burger flippers. There are far more
high paying jobs available on the service side than in manufacturing.
Throughout the 80's and 90's manufacturing wages rose while employment
dropped. That tells me that the low skill jobs went away. In the last
eight years or so wages have stagnated. Probably too much competition
for too few jobs, or too much competitive pressure. Stagnent wages are
the same as a reduction in pay due to inflation. Fortunately inflation
has been very low. But when you couple frozen wages with higher
contribution to benefits, you end up with a pay cut.

You must have missed all of that "increase in productivity"
that the neocons were bragging about.
Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...

That's not very smart Cliff.

No rewards for being more productive, right?
Better yet, cut their real after-tax wages.

You don't suppose companies that didn't
improve their productivity went out of business?

And who was managing them? The ones that actually
got the huge raises & bonuses & al lthe bennies?

What makes you think that
there is additional profits?

Seen the change in wealth lately?

Mostly what I see are lower prices.

Tell that one to the guy & working mom on the street.
--
Cliff

In article et, JayCee says...

Tom, good luck trying to reason with these liberals. They just can't
seem to understand that corporations are supposed to make a profit.

That's *all* they're supposed to make nowadays.

I can remember when companies made things, and not
just ROI.

What are all those poor companies gonna do when
they've offshored and outsourced every single job
to inprove their bottom line to the utmost?

Won't be anyone left to buy all the walmart crap
they need to sell to stay in business. Oh. I guess
those employees really *did* need to earn some money
after all.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

--Woohoo! Kewl stuff coming to a junkyard near you...

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Just another fart in
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : the Elevator of Life...
http://www.nmpproducts.com/intro.htm
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

snip
They just can't
seem to understand that corporations are supposed to make a profit.
snip
And therein lies the tale.

(1) Despite all their claims, based on the amount of income taxes
and other taxes they pay, it appears most American corporations
are generating little or no profits but lots of hot air, which
admittedly will make a balloon rise for a while. Either there
were no profits, or as a group, they pay income and other taxes
at rates far below those of a single mother working for minimum
wage.

(2) For the most part, American corporations pay no dividends,
so it is impossible to determine if they actually earned any
"coin of the realm," or stuffed their cash box with kited checks
and called that income.

(3) It appears in many cases that current corporate management
is running what is called a "bust-out scam" when you and I do it.
Basically, you get control of a going business with a good credit
rating, borrow to the max, liquidate any assets for cash, siphon
off all the assets by paying yourself a huge salary and bonus,
and then walk away when the business goes into receivership.
"Crazy Eddie," the New York City electronic discounter is doing
10 to 20 for this. Nothing but a 'bust-out scam" makes any sense
when a company sells their products for less than the cost of
production, i.e. General Motors and Ford.

(4) In 1960, President Kennedy observed, "A rising tide lifts
all boats." The underlying syllogism was (1) When American
corporations do well, America does well; and (2) When America
does well, Americans do well, with the implicit understanding
that "Americans" means the majority of the citizens.
Unfortunately, this is 2005. There are no more American
corporations, merely corporations domiciled in America, thus when
these corporations do well there is no assurance that America
will do well. Even if America does well, there is no assurance
the majority of citizens will do well, because the implicit
definition of "Americans" continues to become evermore limited to
a shrinking socio-economic elite.

(5) It is not clear why the people [should continue to] accept
Darwinian/Capone capitalism as their socio-economic system. No
modern countries allow diseases such as smallpox, plague, TB,
etc. to rage unchecked. On the macro level public health
measures are enforced and at the individual level immunization of
children is mandatory. Governmental development of
infrastructure such ports, canals, and irrigation systems is
accepted. Even the environment is controlled through central
heating and air conditioning at the individual level and the EPA
controls pollution at the macro level.

In article , steamer says...

--Woohoo! Kewl stuff coming to a junkyard near you...

Carly Fiorino?

:^)

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:06:38 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message

snip

Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...
--
Cliff

And why do the "workers" deserve pay raises as compared to return on
investment by the stock holders? Do you think that people should invest
their money out of the goodness of their hearts and abandon it and abandon
all hope of even recouping the money for their retirement? ...after all,
the "workers" do all the work and deserve every benefit of somebody else's
money.

Nice to see you standing up for those that inherited their money,
stocks & bonds and paid no taxes and those that got lucky.
Someone needs to.
It's not like they had to pay taxes on their earned income,
after all.
--
Cliff

So, should the system be "Fair" or "Just"? With current laws, you can't
have both.

I keep saying that the whole "Industrial Revolution" thing was a mistake!

"Strabo" wrote in message
...
In HP laying off 25,000 employes! on Wed, 27 Jul 2005
18:15:13 GMT, by JayCee, we read:

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message

snip

Clearly, with al that increased productivity there was much
more money to pay raises to the workers with ...
--
Cliff


And why do the "workers" deserve pay raises as compared to return on
investment by the stock holders? Do you think that people should invest
their money out of the goodness of their hearts and abandon it and
abandon
all hope of even recouping the money for their retirement? ...after
all,
the "workers" do all the work and deserve every benefit of somebody
else's
money.


Tom, good luck trying to reason with these liberals. They just can't
seem to understand that corporations are supposed to make a profit. They
seem to see corporations as just some sort of welfare agency that
provides jobs and benefits.

Once civilization left the independence and self-sufficiency of
the farm and entered into the corporate state, the importance
of government control of business increased as did the financial
glue that holds together the state and society.

Politics today is a dichotomy of special interests. On the one
side are the megacorps and on the other are the people that make
them go. With no alternative for most but a paycheck for 50 years
of grinding work and social security to see them to their graves,
people in the west find themselves dependent on the corporation.

To then see their jobs flee to outsourcing or done in by
foreign slave competition, induces anger, fear and trepidation.
Yes, the corporation and it's government partner, have created
a welfare state which the majority of people expect to provide
jobs and benefits.

Jim, Name one company that didn't go into business for the sole intention of
making profit.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article et, JayCee
says...

Tom, good luck trying to reason with these liberals. They just can't
seem to understand that corporations are supposed to make a profit.

That's *all* they're supposed to make nowadays.

I can remember when companies made things, and not
just ROI.

What are all those poor companies gonna do when
they've offshored and outsourced every single job
to inprove their bottom line to the utmost?

Won't be anyone left to buy all the walmart crap
they need to sell to stay in business. Oh. I guess
those employees really *did* need to earn some money
after all.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , nospam says...

Jim, Name one company that didn't go into business for the sole intention of
making profit.

You are absolutely correct sir. This is why it happens.

Now there are some companies who decide that they had better
invest their capital wisely so that the profit may continue
to stream in for many many years. While doing this they
encourage their workers to become educated by paying for
continuing education, and encourage them to be healthy by
paying for health insurance.

Contrast that to the company that simply decides they can make
a *huge* profit by simply firing all their workers (wages are
by far the largest outlay that any company makes) and then
selling off all their equipment, land, and buildings to the
highest bidder.

Now, which of those companies would you rather have in your
home town?

The second one posts a profit that is probably TEN times the
firsts. It's got to be ten times better, right?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Tom Gardner wrote:

Jim, Name one company that didn't go into business for the sole intention of
making profit.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

In article et, JayCee
says...


Tom, good luck trying to reason with these liberals. They just can't
seem to understand that corporations are supposed to make a profit.

That's *all* they're supposed to make nowadays.

I can remember when companies made things, and not
just ROI.

What are all those poor companies gonna do when
they've offshored and outsourced every single job
to inprove their bottom line to the utmost?

Won't be anyone left to buy all the walmart crap
they need to sell to stay in business. Oh. I guess
those employees really *did* need to earn some money
after all.

Jim


--
================================================ ==
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================ ==




define "profit"

wws

snip
The second one posts a profit that is probably TEN times the
firsts. It's got to be ten times better, right?
----------
And this is the crux of the problem because it all depends on
your "investment" [or speculation] strategy, and the influence
you have with the directors of the company.

If I am a graduate of the Attila-the-Hun School of Business and
Management, working for the Engulf & Devour Corporation [AKA Gulf
& Western] the second option is by far the most attractive. It
provides immediate profits with minimal to non-existent risks and
no future liabilities (at least those arising from the specific
transaction) if it is structured correctly.

While the first option is the socially responsible one, it does
not maximize ROI [return on investment], requires continual
investment to maintain plant, equipment, and product, and
requires a long-term commitment of capital. Additionally,
governmental policy may be changed at anytime so that continued
operation is no longer financially viable (e.g. environmental
controls], or competitors may be subsidized in foreign countries
with the taxes paid by the going business [e.g. an entire series
of foreign investment and foreign aid programs ranging from the
USAID to the World Bank]

The real puzzle is not which alternative is "better," [a value
judgment and subject to endless debate] but how/why there are
*any* businesses left in the United States, other than
convenience stores such as the ubiquitous 7-11. Apparently, any
businesses remaining are not worth "rolling up" and liquidating.

In article , F. George McDuffee
says...

The real puzzle is not which alternative is "better," [a value
judgment and subject to endless debate] but how/why there are
*any* businesses left in the United States, other than
convenience stores such as the ubiquitous 7-11.

Yep. In this context 'profit' means any money you can
rape out of a business inside of a year or so. This is
what organized crime used to call 'breaking out' a shop
or resturant.

We can 'make' stuff cheaper by purchasing it from china
now. So businesses don't 'make stuff' in the us any more.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================