On 10 Nov 2005 10:59:09 -0800, wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than politicians buying votes. Any
minimum wage increase results in a year or so of phony bubble in the
apparent standard of living while the market forces via inflation
re-balance the economy so that the net result is exactly the same work
to standard of living balance as before. The numbers go up in both the
wage and then cost of living, but the ratio remains the same.

It sounds like what you are really pointing out, without realizing it,
is that our economy can only function by exploiting some fraction of
the workforce: ie, paying them less than the cost of living.


A hint...some jobs are NOT worth the cost of living. They are entry
level jobs. They are perfect for part timers, those with other
incomes or only wishing to make a few bucks on the side. There is no
intent to "exploit the masses", but its a fact of life..that working
at a drive up window is not a career you can raise a family on. And
you are a moron if you try. Nor will the wage of that particular job
ever be enough to raise a family on.

Door greeter at Walmart..oh yes indeed..now there is a career you can
depend on to allow you to send your kids to college. Not even tips.

If that's true, we'll have a problem as soon as the various games we
play to deny it catch up with us.

The only game being played, is that of the Socialists who
think/trumpet that all jobs should provide a living wage.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 10 Nov 2005 10:59:09 -0800, wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than politicians buying votes. Any
minimum wage increase results in a year or so of phony bubble in the
apparent standard of living while the market forces via inflation
re-balance the economy so that the net result is exactly the same work
to standard of living balance as before. The numbers go up in both the
wage and then cost of living, but the ratio remains the same.

It sounds like what you are really pointing out, without realizing it,
is that our economy can only function by exploiting some fraction of
the workforce: ie, paying them less than the cost of living.


A hint...some jobs are NOT worth the cost of living. They are entry
level jobs. They are perfect for part timers, those with other
incomes or only wishing to make a few bucks on the side. There is no
intent to "exploit the masses", but its a fact of life..that working
at a drive up window is not a career you can raise a family on. And
you are a moron if you try. Nor will the wage of that particular job
ever be enough to raise a family on.

Door greeter at Walmart..oh yes indeed..now there is a career you can
depend on to allow you to send your kids to college. Not even tips.

If that's true, we'll have a problem as soon as the various games we
play to deny it catch up with us.

The only game being played, is that of the Socialists who
think/trumpet that all jobs should provide a living wage.

Gunner

What Gunner said!

It's absurd to assume that just because you're willing to work that you
deserve respectable pay. What message is that sending society? Show up with
no qualifications and the world will take care of you? You want respectable
pay, get an education, or learn a trade. Pull yourself up off the bottom,
so you have value.

How about sending this message instead: Don't prepare yourself to make a
living, and you'll end up living under a bridge somewhere, and no one gives
a damn if you do. Unearned money should never be made available to those
that *won't* do for themselves----never.

Harold

This is the number commonly quoted. It's very much
in line with my experiences.

That must be related to overhead involved in dealing with unions, I
don't know because I've never had to deal with unions. I know my own
experience, including owning my own network engineering and software
dev firm for 12+ years, our burden rates were about 30% and that
included a full benefits package (vac, sick leave, insurance), 401K
match, employers share of FICA, unemployment cost and loss of
productivity for the few slackers we occasionally ended up with.

I suppose if I divided all of my other overhead per employee it would
be closer to 60%.

The consulting firms and supply chain/distribution firms I've worked
for in the past 8 years all ran with about a 30% burden rate as well.

It's interesting that your experience is so different.

Tillman

In article ,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

Harold, please inform me about exactly which jobs are providing
that elusive "unearned money." I've been searching for those
for years. All the stories I hear along these lines seem to indicate
that shortly after the trainee thinks he has one, he gets fired
out the door.

Jim

Not referring to just machinists, Jim. Workpeople in general. Do you
feel a kid in high school, lacking skills of any kind, is worth over $7 hr
to serve burgers? I don't.

Do you think a UPS driver is worth $28 hr? I don't.

These, amongst many others, are the people that are making it more expensive
for all of us to live. They generally have no credentials that make them
worth their pay-----and can easily be replaced with anyone off the street.

You want more pay----get an education, so you have something to sell.
You don't want to go to school, or maybe you can't? Then learn a trade and
get good at it. Make yourself into something that can't be replaced by
anyone off the street. Only then are you worth more than minimum wage,
which, in this state (Washington) is totally unreasonably high.

Harold

This reminds me of an article I read about Walmart vs. Costco.
Walmart pays low wages. Period. As a result employees have low loyalty
and a high turnover rate and Walmart spends a ton of money replacing
them. OTOH, Costco will give their employees raises over time, so thier
turnover rate is far lower. In the end it works out about even and per
employee both spend roughly the same amount--just in different areas.
But Walmart gets stuck with a bunch of rookies all the time.
Could be that UPS has chosen the Costco model with their drivers.
The drivers certainly have some valuable skills, such as knowledge of
the area's roads, which would take time to replace. Beyond that, IIRC
UPS drivers are hired internally, so an employee that becomes a driver
has already demonstrated the ability to show up to work reliably.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:19:42 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

In article ,
Eric R Snow wrote:
She worked
for me as a temp a couple years ago. She was a hard worker, always on
time, and not afraid to use her intelligence.

Sounds like _she_ might make a good machinist trainee...
Yeah, I already asked her.
ERS

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:01:15 GMT, the renowned "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message I
hear outsourcing to China and India is popular.


I don't have a market for foreign stuff other than chip brushes and the
Stainless Steel toothbrushes, neither of which is made in the US anymore.
75% of my stuff goes into the food service trade now.

Stainless toothbrushes, eh?

Well, what you can do is change the packaging. First you need a nice
big waving US flag for the background, then in BIG letters OHIO BRUSH,
perhaps with an outline of the Buckeye state. Then you need a photo of
a satisfied-looking white guy holding the product. The markings "made
in China" should be on the back and in the legal minimum point size. I
know some guys in Ukraine who can put the graphics together (probably
using pirated Adobe software). If you bristle (hahah) at the idea,
just think you'll probably be getting the finished product at the same
price as the raw materials, no more hassles with production workers,
and you'll be able to buy a shiny new Lexus with the improved bottom
line.

You could also try to change the system, but you know d*** well we'll
both be long dead before that happens.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article .com, tillius
says...

This is the number commonly quoted. It's very much
in line with my experiences.

That must be related to overhead involved in dealing with unions,

Ah, no.

Let's just say that my experience is derived from a lifetime
working in R&D, and the rule that employee's cost is about twice
what they get paid is based on decidedly NON-union companies.

One of them being one of the most famous non-union companies.
They have a 'one breath' rule. If you are a manager, you are
allowed to take ONE breath before picking up the phone and
calling your manager, if you ever hear anyone you manage talking
about unionizing.

Jim


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

jim rozen wrote:
In article .com, tillius
says...

This is the number commonly quoted. It's very much
in line with my experiences.

That must be related to overhead involved in dealing with unions,


Ah, no.

Let's just say that my experience is derived from a lifetime
working in R&D, and the rule that employee's cost is about twice
what they get paid is based on decidedly NON-union companies.

One of them being one of the most famous non-union companies.
They have a 'one breath' rule. If you are a manager, you are
allowed to take ONE breath before picking up the phone and
calling your manager, if you ever hear anyone you manage talking
about unionizing.

I'd also wonder where with that lifetime we're
talking about. Employee overhead in the 70's
and 80's might have been considerably lower than
present, given the increases in health care
and OSHA compliance. Assuming, of course, that
the employer pays most of the increases and is
diligent about following OSHA regulations.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:06:14 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 10 Nov 2005 10:59:09 -0800, wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than politicians buying votes. Any
minimum wage increase results in a year or so of phony bubble in the
apparent standard of living while the market forces via inflation
re-balance the economy so that the net result is exactly the same work
to standard of living balance as before. The numbers go up in both the
wage and then cost of living, but the ratio remains the same.

It sounds like what you are really pointing out, without realizing it,
is that our economy can only function by exploiting some fraction of
the workforce: ie, paying them less than the cost of living.


A hint...some jobs are NOT worth the cost of living. They are entry
level jobs. They are perfect for part timers, those with other
incomes or only wishing to make a few bucks on the side. There is no
intent to "exploit the masses", but its a fact of life..that working
at a drive up window is not a career you can raise a family on. And
you are a moron if you try. Nor will the wage of that particular job
ever be enough to raise a family on.

Door greeter at Walmart..oh yes indeed..now there is a career you can
depend on to allow you to send your kids to college. Not even tips.

Yes, but you have the opportunity to gather with the rest of the staff
a half hour before opening time for a little inspirational pep talk,
then participate in the awe inspiring WALLMART YELL!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

I'd also wonder where with that lifetime we're
talking about. Employee overhead in the 70's
and 80's might have been considerably lower than
present, given the increases in health care
and OSHA compliance.

My experience is much more recent, mostly from the mid-90's through the
present. The company I'm with now has a burden rate of 30%, and they
have very good benefits (after 6 mos. of employment, the employee's
health insurance cost is $30/month single, $60/month family).

This company is in the warehouse/distribution logistics industry. Prior
to here I was with a major technology and professional services
consulting firm and the cost models I built for managed service
practices used a 31% burden rate. In the Pharmaceutical sector, where I
built a lot of managed resource models for companies like J&J, Wyeth
Ayerst, and Aventis (late 90's), the burden rates ranged between 29%
and 34%.

Tillman

Andy Asberry wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:29:59 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Andy Asberry wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:39:56 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


I feel for you Eric! In the Cleveland inner city, my track record is a
dismal 1 in 10 for keeping employees. The work ethic today has forced me to
close my entire wood shop, except for one shaper, and outsource all my other
blocks. The more I paid in wages, the sooner their "comfort level" was
reached and the more time they missed. I'm just too old to fight it anymore
I admire your whole philosophy to clone some knowledge. If you learn some
more tricks to handle tardy and absent employees...PLEASE let me know!

My method to reduce Monday sickness. Pay day is Friday for the
previous week. Checks are cut on Monday. If you work Monday, you can
pick up your check. If not, it goes in the afternoon mail to be
delivered Thursday or Friday.

At first, I thought it might only move the absences to Friday but it
hasn't worked out that way.

Checks? Geez, I've been on direct deposit for the past decade. Even my
expense "checks" are direct deposit.

Pete C.

Not all banks accept direct deposits from other banks. I would love it
but you can't expect an employee to change banks as a condition of
employment.

Really? I work for a large bank for a long time had my pay direct
deposited to my account at a different bank. When I setup the direct
deposit I don't recall any limitations as to the institutions it could
be direct deposited to, even credit unions.

Pete C.

tillius wrote:

If they were to treat their machines like they want to treat their
employees (like garbage), then as soon as their $75,000 machine breaks
down a.k.a. is late to work, they will have to throw it out and get a
new one. Can't tolerate any late to works, regardless of the excuse, no
working on repairing the machine, just throw it out and get a new one...

Well, I guess if that $75,000 machine was continually breaking down and
causing missed deadlines on a regular basis, the negative impact it
would have on the bottom line, in repair costs, lost production, and
lost jobs because of missed deadlines would soon make it a liability
deserving to be dumped (or sold at a loss, which is more akin to what
happens when an employee is let go. Since most employers don't fire the
chronically tardy, they just lay them off. It costs that company to do
that, in increased unemployment insurance taxes, and in the investment
to find and train a replacement.

Tillman

The post I replied to referenced an employer with a two strikes and
you're out rule, which is a far cry from firing the chronically tardy.

Pete C.

The post I replied to referenced an employer with a two strikes and
you're out rule, which is a far cry from firing the chronically tardy.

Acknowledged and agreed that 2 strikes and your out probably cost the
employer more in loss production from disgruntled employees with issues
they NEEDED to take care of and couldn't for fear of losing their job.!

Tillman

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:15:33 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 10 Nov 2005 10:59:09 -0800, wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than politicians buying votes. Any
minimum wage increase results in a year or so of phony bubble in the
apparent standard of living while the market forces via inflation
re-balance the economy so that the net result is exactly the same work
to standard of living balance as before. The numbers go up in both the
wage and then cost of living, but the ratio remains the same.

It sounds like what you are really pointing out, without realizing it,
is that our economy can only function by exploiting some fraction of
the workforce: ie, paying them less than the cost of living.


A hint...some jobs are NOT worth the cost of living. They are entry
level jobs. They are perfect for part timers, those with other
incomes or only wishing to make a few bucks on the side. There is no
intent to "exploit the masses", but its a fact of life..that working
at a drive up window is not a career you can raise a family on. And
you are a moron if you try. Nor will the wage of that particular job
ever be enough to raise a family on.

Door greeter at Walmart..oh yes indeed..now there is a career you can
depend on to allow you to send your kids to college. Not even tips.

If that's true, we'll have a problem as soon as the various games we
play to deny it catch up with us.

The only game being played, is that of the Socialists who
think/trumpet that all jobs should provide a living wage.

Gunner

What Gunner said!

It's absurd to assume that just because you're willing to work that you
deserve respectable pay. What message is that sending society? Show up with
no qualifications and the world will take care of you? You want respectable
pay, get an education, or learn a trade. Pull yourself up off the bottom,
so you have value.

How about sending this message instead: Don't prepare yourself to make a
living, and you'll end up living under a bridge somewhere, and no one gives
a damn if you do. Unearned money should never be made available to those
that *won't* do for themselves----never.

Harold

But Harold...it might hurt their self esteem if they actually have to
know something or to work hard at becoming skilled at some trade that
does pay a living wage.

Personally..I think if anyone wants to be a brain surgeon, and can
afford that nifty set of scrubs...they should go for the gusto.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:15:33 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 10 Nov 2005 10:59:09 -0800, wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than politicians buying votes.
Any
minimum wage increase results in a year or so of phony bubble in the
apparent standard of living while the market forces via inflation
re-balance the economy so that the net result is exactly the same
work
to standard of living balance as before. The numbers go up in both
the
wage and then cost of living, but the ratio remains the same.

It sounds like what you are really pointing out, without realizing it,
is that our economy can only function by exploiting some fraction of
the workforce: ie, paying them less than the cost of living.


A hint...some jobs are NOT worth the cost of living. They are entry
level jobs. They are perfect for part timers, those with other
incomes or only wishing to make a few bucks on the side. There is no
intent to "exploit the masses", but its a fact of life..that working
at a drive up window is not a career you can raise a family on. And
you are a moron if you try. Nor will the wage of that particular job
ever be enough to raise a family on.

Door greeter at Walmart..oh yes indeed..now there is a career you can
depend on to allow you to send your kids to college. Not even tips.

If that's true, we'll have a problem as soon as the various games we
play to deny it catch up with us.

The only game being played, is that of the Socialists who
think/trumpet that all jobs should provide a living wage.

Gunner

What Gunner said!

It's absurd to assume that just because you're willing to work that you
deserve respectable pay. What message is that sending society? Show up
with
no qualifications and the world will take care of you? You want
respectable
pay, get an education, or learn a trade. Pull yourself up off the
bottom,
so you have value.

How about sending this message instead: Don't prepare yourself to make
a
living, and you'll end up living under a bridge somewhere, and no one
gives
a damn if you do. Unearned money should never be made available to
those
that *won't* do for themselves----never.

Harold

But Harold...it might hurt their self esteem if they actually have to
know something or to work hard at becoming skilled at some trade that
does pay a living wage.

Chuckle! Yeah, that would be stretching things, wouldn't it. And we
wonder what's wrong with society!

What the hell became of personal pride?

H

What the hell became of personal pride?

Severely injurred by enslavement through socialist entitlement
programs, injurred, but not dead.

Tillman

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:


It's absurd to assume that just because you're willing to work that you
deserve respectable pay. What message is that sending society?

Ahhhh... work hard, live well? Just a thought ;-)

No offense, but I think it's time to come off of your condescending
high horse.

Hope this helps.

Electron



Harold

"mr electron" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:


It's absurd to assume that just because you're willing to work that you
deserve respectable pay. What message is that sending society?

Ahhhh... work hard, live well? Just a thought ;-)

No offense, but I think it's time to come off of your condescending
high horse.

Hope this helps.

Electron



Harold


Most folks that think they are worth unearned money feel the same way. You
one of them?

There's nothing condescending about my attitude ----- in fact, it's one that
more should assume. We're living in a society that hasn't a clue about
*value*. You don't think so? Explain to me in terms that I can
understand why it is that virtually all of our industries have left for
greener pastures. You can debate all day long the concept that they are
greedy, but the truth is if we want to have jobs in this country, we must
compete in a world market. Demanding more pay when your employer is giving
serious consideration to sending his orders for widgets to a different
country, where he can obtain them without putting up with whining employees
that see themselves as hard put upon because the boss expects them to
actually show up and be productive is a good way to accelerate the process,
and who can blame them?

I can't speak for you, but when I was employed (I worked for myself for
years, because I wasn't pleased with the inequities of employers) I worked
my ass off for the boss. He got everything from me that he bargained for.
I showed up, did my day's work, and there was no concern about anything else
but that. Expecting that today appears to be unreasonable. I don't like
people that think they can ride free on society. Maybe you haven't
figured it out yet-------but it's true----there is no free lunch.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

There's nothing condescending about my attitude ----- in fact, it's one that
more should assume. We're living in a society that hasn't a clue about
*value*. You don't think so? Explain to me in terms that I can
understand why it is that virtually all of our industries have left for
greener pastures.

Ah, I think Ed has already done that. The reason is that
the labor costs in china are 1/20th that of the US. Basically
it's a free market, and companies want to take advantage of that
1/20th number. This is why GM is now building all of its
engines in china.

The only way that american workers are going to learn a lesson
about "value" is by having all their wages divided by 20.
What this means is that your retirement and SS benefits are now
likewise divided by 20. Once that happens, then you too will
appreciate "value."

Harold, you keep insisting that something needs to be done to
teach workers a lesson - or at least that's what it sounds like.
Vindictive or not, I cannot seem exactly what kind of even
or law will do this. Short of writing letters to all the US
companies, the gist of which would be "you're paying folks
too much," what else could you do?

Jim


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

jim rozen wrote:
This is why GM is now building all of its
engines in china.


I beg your pardon?


Kevin Gallimore

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:29:39 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Andy Asberry wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:29:59 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Andy Asberry wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:39:56 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


I feel for you Eric! In the Cleveland inner city, my track record is a
dismal 1 in 10 for keeping employees. The work ethic today has forced me to
close my entire wood shop, except for one shaper, and outsource all my other
blocks. The more I paid in wages, the sooner their "comfort level" was
reached and the more time they missed. I'm just too old to fight it anymore
I admire your whole philosophy to clone some knowledge. If you learn some
more tricks to handle tardy and absent employees...PLEASE let me know!

My method to reduce Monday sickness. Pay day is Friday for the
previous week. Checks are cut on Monday. If you work Monday, you can
pick up your check. If not, it goes in the afternoon mail to be
delivered Thursday or Friday.

At first, I thought it might only move the absences to Friday but it
hasn't worked out that way.

Checks? Geez, I've been on direct deposit for the past decade. Even my
expense "checks" are direct deposit.

Pete C.

Not all banks accept direct deposits from other banks. I would love it
but you can't expect an employee to change banks as a condition of
employment.

Really? I work for a large bank for a long time had my pay direct
deposited to my account at a different bank. When I setup the direct
deposit I don't recall any limitations as to the institutions it could
be direct deposited to, even credit unions.

Pete C.

IIRC, Wells Fargo won't transfer to any other bank.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:22:17 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:15:33 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 10 Nov 2005 10:59:09 -0800, wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than politicians buying votes.
Any
minimum wage increase results in a year or so of phony bubble in the
apparent standard of living while the market forces via inflation
re-balance the economy so that the net result is exactly the same
work
to standard of living balance as before. The numbers go up in both
the
wage and then cost of living, but the ratio remains the same.

It sounds like what you are really pointing out, without realizing it,
is that our economy can only function by exploiting some fraction of
the workforce: ie, paying them less than the cost of living.


A hint...some jobs are NOT worth the cost of living. They are entry
level jobs. They are perfect for part timers, those with other
incomes or only wishing to make a few bucks on the side. There is no
intent to "exploit the masses", but its a fact of life..that working
at a drive up window is not a career you can raise a family on. And
you are a moron if you try. Nor will the wage of that particular job
ever be enough to raise a family on.

Door greeter at Walmart..oh yes indeed..now there is a career you can
depend on to allow you to send your kids to college. Not even tips.

If that's true, we'll have a problem as soon as the various games we
play to deny it catch up with us.

The only game being played, is that of the Socialists who
think/trumpet that all jobs should provide a living wage.

Gunner

What Gunner said!

It's absurd to assume that just because you're willing to work that you
deserve respectable pay. What message is that sending society? Show up
with
no qualifications and the world will take care of you? You want
respectable
pay, get an education, or learn a trade. Pull yourself up off the
bottom,
so you have value.

How about sending this message instead: Don't prepare yourself to make
a
living, and you'll end up living under a bridge somewhere, and no one
gives
a damn if you do. Unearned money should never be made available to
those
that *won't* do for themselves----never.

Harold

But Harold...it might hurt their self esteem if they actually have to
know something or to work hard at becoming skilled at some trade that
does pay a living wage.

Chuckle! Yeah, that would be stretching things, wouldn't it. And we
wonder what's wrong with society!

What the hell became of personal pride?

H

Personal pride...hummm doesnt that mean wearing the jersey of their
favorite sports team? Or having the latest greatest SUV eating a hole
in their income? Or a new pair of Nike's?

All external things you can buy...none of which has anything to do
with their internal worth...which..all to often..isnt much.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:57:07 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:


"mr electron" wrote in message
roups.com...

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
It's absurd to assume that just because you're willing to work that you
deserve respectable pay. What message is that sending society?

Ahhhh... work hard, live well? Just a thought ;-)

No offense, but I think it's time to come off of your condescending
high horse.

Most folks that think they are worth unearned money feel the same way. You
one of them?

There's nothing condescending about my attitude ----- in fact, it's one that
more should assume. We're living in a society that hasn't a clue about
*value*. You don't think so? Explain to me in terms that I can
understand why it is that virtually all of our industries have left for
greener pastures. You can debate all day long the concept that they are
greedy, but the truth is if we want to have jobs in this country, we must
compete in a world market. Demanding more pay when your employer is giving
serious consideration to sending his orders for widgets to a different
country, where he can obtain them without putting up with whining employees
that see themselves as hard put upon because the boss expects them to
actually show up and be productive is a good way to accelerate the process,
and who can blame them?

Hear, hear! But the demands are actually more pay, fewer hours, free
health care to abuse, and a better working environment than the gods
themselves have. I just love Union thinking, don't you?

Where this leads are top-paid stevedore jobs with the Maf^H^H^HUnions
since all the industry has gone offshore and beaucoup megatons of
imports have to be handled.


I can't speak for you, but when I was employed (I worked for myself for
years, because I wasn't pleased with the inequities of employers) I worked
my ass off for the boss. He got everything from me that he bargained for.
I showed up, did my day's work, and there was no concern about anything else
but that. Expecting that today appears to be unreasonable.

Yeah, I don't understand the lack of work ethic that I see today.
Why do so many people have NO pride whatsoever in their work? Has
the pursuit of a greenback become the sole drive now? What a way to
live. Feh!


I don't like
people that think they can ride free on society. Maybe you haven't
figured it out yet-------but it's true----there is no free lunch.

Hence Heinlein's famous acronym, TANSTAAFL
(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)


--

From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has
become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by
an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.
But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who
among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the
burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one
group singled out to pay a higher price.

-President Ronald Reagan
First Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 1981

But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who
among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Why, the Democrats, of course. They've not been happy since the radical
Republicans took their slaves away, and have worked ever since to
restore slavery. They're succeeding too, through the socialist
entitlement programs that breed dependancy on the socialist elitists,
in enslaving a large portion of our population.

Tillman

In article . com,
"tillius" wrote:

But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who
among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Why, the Democrats, of course. They've not been happy since the radical
Republicans took their slaves away, and have worked ever since to
restore slavery. They're succeeding too, through the socialist
entitlement programs that breed dependancy on the socialist elitists,
in enslaving a large portion of our population.

Tillman

Until that post you were almost not crazy.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Until that post you were almost not crazy

You don't think the socialist entitlement programs create a dependancy
by destroying personal initiative?

Take a tour of any of the socialist countries in Europe and ask the
taxi driver why he doesn't do something else. (this is the job the
government says I have to do). Why he doesn't go and get his own taxi.
(the government owns the all the taxis).

Look at those countries and see who has the freedoms we enjoy in this
country.

It's the elitists who run the government.

You don't think people like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Ted
Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are the same as those elitists?

They have one goal. One purpose. To gain and/or maintain their power.

How do they do that?

By keeping their constituents dependent upon the entitlements THEY can
hand out.

If that wasn't so, surely they would have designed these programs to
really HELP those in need. The fact is, they're not designed that way
and they don't work that way.

Turn a blind eye to the slavery that these people in need have been
sold into is you wish. Unless you're one of the elistists, if you just
sit by, buy their lies, and let them get away with it, you'll end up
one of the slaves as well.

Tillman

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:17:23 -0600, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article . com,
"tillius" wrote:

But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who
among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Why, the Democrats, of course. They've not been happy since the radical
Republicans took their slaves away, and have worked ever since to
restore slavery. They're succeeding too, through the socialist
entitlement programs that breed dependancy on the socialist elitists,
in enslaving a large portion of our population.

Tillman

Until that post you were almost not crazy.

Actually..if you look at the numbers of people who are dependant on
Massa for their every bit of food, shelter and drink...Tillman is
quite right.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

tillius wrote:
Until that post you were almost not crazy

You don't think the socialist entitlement programs create a dependancy
by destroying personal initiative?

Take a tour of any of the socialist countries in Europe and ask the
taxi driver why he doesn't do something else. (this is the job the
government says I have to do). Why he doesn't go and get his own taxi.
(the government owns the all the taxis).

Look at those countries and see who has the freedoms we enjoy in this
country.

It's the elitists who run the government.

You don't think people like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Ted
Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are the same as those elitists?

They have one goal. One purpose. To gain and/or maintain their power.

How do they do that?

By keeping their constituents dependent upon the entitlements THEY can
hand out.

If that wasn't so, surely they would have designed these programs to
really HELP those in need. The fact is, they're not designed that way
and they don't work that way.

Turn a blind eye to the slavery that these people in need have been
sold into is you wish. Unless you're one of the elistists, if you just
sit by, buy their lies, and let them get away with it, you'll end up
one of the slaves as well.

Tillman

What a total crock of ****!
I am not on the public dole.
I have been - when the need was there.
Otherwise I have pulled my weight and have paid my taxes so that others in
need could be helped!
Close to me are several people who are not able to cope with life without
social assistance.
Their needs are varied - from physical disabibities stemimng from work
related injuries to physical and mental disabilities from birth.
I would rather live in a society that takes care of these people than the
dollar-first uncaring system that the USA exemplifies.
In fact - taking care costs less in the long run than ignoring the problem!
Any minor exploitation of this sort of system is just that - minor.
Scammers sometimes get caught. So what?
The good outdoes the possible bad.
It is just a matter of administration - cheap at half the price.
Anyone saying different is scamming for their own interests.
The least of our society must have hope.
Without that we do not have a society!
We have a jungle.

Regards.
Ken.

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:17:23 -0600, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article . com,
"tillius" wrote:

But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who
among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Why, the Democrats, of course. They've not been happy since the
radical Republicans took their slaves away, and have worked ever
since to restore slavery. They're succeeding too, through the
socialist entitlement programs that breed dependancy on the
socialist elitists, in enslaving a large portion of our population.

Tillman

Until that post you were almost not crazy.

Actually..if you look at the numbers of people who are dependant on
Massa for their every bit of food, shelter and drink...Tillman is
quite right.

Gunner

No - He is not!!

I am not on the public dole.
I have been - when the need was there.
Otherwise I have pulled my weight and have paid my taxes so that others in
need could be helped!
Close to me are several people who are not able to cope with life without
social assistance.
Their needs are varied - from physical disabibities stemimng from work
related injuries to physical and mental disabilities from birth.
I would rather live in a society that takes care of these people

A safety net is far different from the expoitive welfare state that
keeps people on the dole for life.
I'm not talking about the physically or mentally disabled. I'm talking
about those who have been injured by an education system that has been
destroyed by the *feel good* educational policies of the democrat
elitists. I'm talking about those who have been trapped in a system
that penalizes them for attempting to climb out of the pit the
socialists have trapped them in.

Any minor exploitation of this sort of system is just that - minor.

The exploitation is far from minor. The biggest exploitation, however,
is the system exploiting those it makes dependent upon it for their
very existence.

The least of our society must have hope.
Without that we do not have a society!

What hope is there in waiting for the check to come in the mail so you
can pay rent on the rathole you live in, getting foodstamps so you can
buy less than nutritional junk?

Hope is someone there to give you a helping hand, not to continue to
pass the dependency on to the next generation, but to claim your
independence and enjoy the freedom our founding fathers envisioned.

Tillman

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:57:34 -0800, "Ken Davey"
wrote:

tillius wrote:
Until that post you were almost not crazy

You don't think the socialist entitlement programs create a dependancy
by destroying personal initiative?

Take a tour of any of the socialist countries in Europe and ask the
taxi driver why he doesn't do something else. (this is the job the
government says I have to do). Why he doesn't go and get his own taxi.
(the government owns the all the taxis).

Look at those countries and see who has the freedoms we enjoy in this
country.

It's the elitists who run the government.

You don't think people like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Ted
Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are the same as those elitists?

They have one goal. One purpose. To gain and/or maintain their power.

How do they do that?

By keeping their constituents dependent upon the entitlements THEY can
hand out.

If that wasn't so, surely they would have designed these programs to
really HELP those in need. The fact is, they're not designed that way
and they don't work that way.

Turn a blind eye to the slavery that these people in need have been
sold into is you wish. Unless you're one of the elistists, if you just
sit by, buy their lies, and let them get away with it, you'll end up
one of the slaves as well.

Tillman

What a total crock of ****!
I am not on the public dole.
I have been - when the need was there.
Otherwise I have pulled my weight and have paid my taxes so that others in
need could be helped!
Close to me are several people who are not able to cope with life without
social assistance.
Their needs are varied - from physical disabibities stemimng from work
related injuries to physical and mental disabilities from birth.
I would rather live in a society that takes care of these people than the
dollar-first uncaring system that the USA exemplifies.
In fact - taking care costs less in the long run than ignoring the problem!
Any minor exploitation of this sort of system is just that - minor.
Scammers sometimes get caught. So what?
The good outdoes the possible bad.
It is just a matter of administration - cheap at half the price.
Anyone saying different is scamming for their own interests.
The least of our society must have hope.
Without that we do not have a society!
We have a jungle.

Regards.
Ken.

New Orleans


Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:58:13 -0800, "Ken Davey"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:17:23 -0600, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article . com,
"tillius" wrote:

But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who
among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Why, the Democrats, of course. They've not been happy since the
radical Republicans took their slaves away, and have worked ever
since to restore slavery. They're succeeding too, through the
socialist entitlement programs that breed dependancy on the
socialist elitists, in enslaving a large portion of our population.

Tillman

Until that post you were almost not crazy.

Actually..if you look at the numbers of people who are dependant on
Massa for their every bit of food, shelter and drink...Tillman is
quite right.

Gunner

No - He is not!!

Yes - He is. Unfortunately.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

For it to be a compelling defense you'll have to direct
me towards a more practical way to followup. Where's some information I
can access from within the US (without spending a ton of money or
requiring anything equally ludicrous) that shows me that Europe is run
by elitists?

France.

I already know not to trust your assumptions because you guessed
(incorrectly) several times that 100% employee overhead mentioned
elsewhere is due to unions.

I did clearly state, in those posts, that I was guessing it was due to
unions, not that it was a fact. I based that on my own extensive
experience over the past 20 years, and more specifically over the past
10 years.
In addition, when the responses were provided that stated they were not
union related overhead, I simply stated that I found that interesting.

And you are certainly welcome to your opinion.

Tillman

snip
I did clearly state, in those posts, that I was guessing it was due to
unions, not that it was a fact. I based that on my own extensive
experience over the past 20 years, and more specifically over the past
10 years.
In addition, when the responses were provided that stated they were not
union related overhead, I simply stated that I found that interesting.
snip
A small troll ---

Which leads to an interesting observation. Unions exist to
improve the wages and working conditions of their members.
Corporations exist to usefully employ and increase the capital
entrusted to them by the stockholders.

While neither group has been particularly successful when
objectively assessed in the aggregate over the last 20 years, it
appears the leaders of the Unions are doing a far better job for
their stakeholder than corporate management is doing for theirs.
The rate of increase in compensation for corporate management
seems to have far outpaced that of the union leadership.

Uncle George

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:11:22 -0600, "B.B."
u wrote:

anyone who hates Democrats (that would be Gunner)

Actually...I dont hate Democrats.

I have nothing but deep contempt for Liberals. Liberal Democrats.

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. But hardly a Liberal one. Id vote for him
I think. Zell Miller as well.

Chucky Schumer is a Liberal Democrat. Id bring new rope to his
hanging, paying out of my own pocket. Id take out a loan for rope for
KKKennedy and Pelosi.


Big difference

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article .com,
"tillius" wrote:

For it to be a compelling defense you'll have to direct
me towards a more practical way to followup. Where's some information I
can access from within the US (without spending a ton of money or
requiring anything equally ludicrous) that shows me that Europe is run
by elitists?

France.

That's what I was getting at. A comment like that just stirs up a
lot of emotions both with and against you, but doesn't contain any
information. How does "France," prove that Europe is run by elitists?

I already know not to trust your assumptions because you guessed
(incorrectly) several times that 100% employee overhead mentioned
elsewhere is due to unions.

I did clearly state, in those posts, that I was guessing it was due to
unions, not that it was a fact. I based that on my own extensive
experience over the past 20 years, and more specifically over the past
10 years.
In addition, when the responses were provided that stated they were not
union related overhead, I simply stated that I found that interesting.

Obviously your own experience is not a suitable guide for making such
assumptions, regardless of how many disclaimers you add to your
comments. Did you base the above "France," response on your own
extensive experience? If you were wrong once, how do you know you won't
be wrong again? What will you change to prevent the mistake next time?

And you are certainly welcome to your opinion.

Tillman

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

zzzzz

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

There's nothing condescending about my attitude ----- in fact, it's one
that
more should assume. We're living in a society that hasn't a clue about
*value*. You don't think so? Explain to me in terms that I can
understand why it is that virtually all of our industries have left for
greener pastures.

Ah, I think Ed has already done that. The reason is that
the labor costs in china are 1/20th that of the US. Basically
it's a free market, and companies want to take advantage of that
1/20th number. This is why GM is now building all of its
engines in china.

Are you sure about the GM engines, Jim? I've never heard that, but if
it's true, it's all the more appalling.


The only way that american workers are going to learn a lesson
about "value" is by having all their wages divided by 20.
What this means is that your retirement and SS benefits are now
likewise divided by 20. Once that happens, then you too will
appreciate "value."

Harold, you keep insisting that something needs to be done to
teach workers a lesson - or at least that's what it sounds like.
Vindictive or not, I cannot seem exactly what kind of even
or law will do this. Short of writing letters to all the US
companies, the gist of which would be "you're paying folks
too much," what else could you do?

Jim

I guess it's evident this issue bothers me a great deal.

I realize it's a stretch, Jim, but something that we're going to face
eventually---we're in a world economy. While I realize that Ed has
explained it to his satisfaction, and don't challenge his credentials in any
way, the harsh reality is we're losing the work--which likely would slow
down if workers here paid more attention to their responsibilities and
accepted reasonable wages, maybe in keeping with their production. We
simply expect too much for our time---an example of which are the assembly
people at Boeing that went on strike a couple months ago for more when they
were already earning right at $60,000/yr. Where does it end?

Yeah, I realize working for less doesn't set well with you---but is there
another solution? We've been lead down the path that we're a "service
society", so folks abandoned the skilled trades in droves, moving towards
becoming service people, only to have that industry follow on the heels of
manufacturing. Hell, the only service we're going to have left is jobs
that can't be exported----delivery people, brick front store clerks, and
other like people. That balance of us won't have employment and won't be
able to afford the services offered by those that remain employed.
Wouldn't it be better to have a lesser paying job than no job? It looks to
me that's the way it's headed, although I sure hope not.

I think you realize I don't feel I have a solution to the problem, but
demanding more money for less effort is only adding fuel to the fire.

I realize you're not fond of SS-----who in hell is? I didn't want to pay
it, and --------remember-------I was self employed, so my cut was the whole
magilla-----it was the largest tax I paid for years. It was taken from
me without my permission---on the promise that I'd get it back when I was
old. I am. Hope you can still find it in your heart to consider me a
worthy person in spite of the fact I now draw the money. I've done my
best to not be a drag on society----paid taxes, worked all my life without
drawing any subsidies of any kind. I'm entitled to this one.

Be well,

Harold

In article ,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

\ I realize you're not fond of SS-----who in hell is? I didn't want
to pay
it, and --------remember-------I was self employed, so my cut was the whole
magilla-----it was the largest tax I paid for years. It was taken from
me without my permission---on the promise that I'd get it back when I was
old. I am. Hope you can still find it in your heart to consider me a
worthy person in spite of the fact I now draw the money. I've done my
best to not be a drag on society----paid taxes, worked all my life without
drawing any subsidies of any kind. I'm entitled to this one.

I think you are doing a public service to drain money from the govt by
any means posible. We need reform and that only comes in a crisis.
When the system is so bankrupy that the president's paycheck bounces
then and only then will we get reform.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:46:21 -0800, Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:


"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

This is why GM is now building all of its
engines in china.

Are you sure about the GM engines, Jim? I've never heard that, but if
it's true, it's all the more appalling.


Hi Harold, the reason you haven't heard that is because it isn't true.