"Leon" wrote in message
That could happen, the same could be said if he knew that he would not be
executed regardless of how many people he murdered.

Possibly, but then one might argue that's an opening for executions under
some, but not all circumstances, which is essentially what is happening
right now. ~ At least, with those states that have the death penalty.

On Dec 15, 9:56*am, Morris Dovey wrote:
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
.. .
Upscale wrote:

There's been times in my life where I'd have happily given up 10% of
my wages to save my job.

On the local news this past weekend: About 80% of Iowans surveyed said
they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to save the job of the
person sitting /next/ to them...

That's my problem with the (modern) unions. *It's no longer about
supporting the workers, it's about maintaining the union... *sometimes
at the expense of the workers!

Too often true. One possible remedy in this case might be to also
require reorganization of the UAW chapters into independent
(unaffiliated) plant unions, so that workers could retain the
protections and benefits of collective bargaining without a single union
having a strangle hold on such a large portion of the economy...

...just a thought.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris, etal,
Don't get me started on unions, but: Time: late '60s-early '70s,
Jamestown, NY. Anyone remember an outfit called Art Metal? They were a
good sized, well known manufacturer of metal office furniture(desks,
filing cab's, etc) Sunk everything they could beg or borrow into a new
plant to replace the outmoded brick factory dating back to very early
1900's. New plant all on one floor, designed for better work flow,
etc. etc. When the plant was built and ready for them to move in, the
"union" decided that if the company had the money to build this new
facility, they should share it with the union. So, they went on
strike, and the company didn't have the cash flow to survive the
almost year long strike, they folded. I don't know how many jobs went
down the tubes, or how long the building sat empty before the Chamber
of Commerce, etc. finally enticed Cummins Engine to make it a new
production facility. Dam fools couldn't see past the end of their
noses far enough to realize they could be in a new higher production
facility that could return more profits that the union could then
profit from.
Nahmie

Larry Blanchard wrote:

snipped


So I learned early on that unions vary considerably. Of course, I can't
say if that still applies or not.


It still applies. When I go out on a job in Niagara Falls, NY often the
first thing I'm asked is to see my union card. The leaders of one of
the contractor's unions are still being prosecuted for various crimes
including bombings, extortion, racketeering, beatings, etc.. For a few
news articles over the past six or so years see:

http://www.nlpc.org/olap/UCU3/05_11_04.htm
http://www.nrtwc.org/exposed/exposed20.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/nyregion/02union.html
http://www.articlearchives.com/gover...1561468-1.html

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:32:33 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
A bullet in the
head is cheap, quick, humane, and rids us of the problem.

Maybe, but what does it currently cost to get to that point? With all the
automatic appeals made when someone is sentenced to death, it's no wonder
that the death penalty costs the tax payers so much more. Shoot all the
lawyers first then then do your quick, humane criminal executions.

....I wonder if there's a study out there regarding gradations of
murder. What percentage of inmates on death row are there because
they, *without a doubt* murdered another human being; THEY are the
ones who don't deserve to breathe our air for even 5 minutes after
conviction.

I would choose to live.

....yup! Me too. Lots of good books, I'd be happy...

As would most. You can get used to almost every situation if it goes on long
enough. If not used to it, then at least able to put up with it.

Of course, I'm not sure that applies to being married to a nagging,
harassing wife. You're probably right Doug, I'm sure I have myself to blame
for not being married. But, I like it that way.

....yup! Me too...

cg

Leon wrote:
"Rusty" wrote in message
...
Tim where do you get 80$ an hour out your ass like FUX news get real with
the facts.We are all losing our jobs to China or other 3rd world

I don't know the exact dollar amount, but it's in that range. UAW
unskilled labor is arount $28/hr or so. Skilled labor is up to $40/hr
or so from what I've been able to find. Now, add to that another 20%
or so for the employer's portion of the taxes (medicare, unemployment
premiums, and so forth). BUT, that does not include their *benefits*.
Things like healthcare drive this number way, way up - *especially*
for a UAW shop because they are funding the "legacy" benefits for the
unrighteous deals the union cut in the past - like paying people full
salary and benefits who are not working at all. Is the real number
$80/hr? I don't know, maybe it's only $70/hr all in. But $70/hr full
burdened cost for an employee works out to be about $140K/yr per
employee - that's more than a lot of experienced engineers,
scientists, and even some doctors make - people who have years
invested in acquiring rare and specialized skills. It is insane that
an essentially unskilled labor pool (for the most part - there are
skilled trades in the UAW as well) should command this kind of money
in the face of their company failing. They now want us - the taxpayers
- to bail *them* out. I do not feel like subsidizing Joe The Bolt
Turner. His family is not more important than mine. Joe needs to
get real about just what salary his job realistically can command.


countries.The only reason auto works jobs have lasted this long is the
unions and I see these jobs as gone now to. Instead of bitching about the

And that's the same reason these jobs are about to disappear - they
are priced irrationally.

guy with the good job why don't you fight for good jobs and wages.Nah you
want cheap china goods .Maybe we will meet on day fighting for that
greeter job at Wal-Mart.

I fight for good jobs and wages by fighting to keep the government small,
taxes smaller, and everyone accountable for their own actions.


Rusty, Rusty, Rusty. The presence of unions have make it possible for
foreign car manufacturers to be able to afford to come "here" and build cars
more profitably. And yes a majority of that money stays here and helps to

Exactly.

fuel our economy. If the Big 3 could be more competitive they would not be
in the situation that they are in. Because of the unions, foreign car
manufacturers have come here, built manufacturing plants, and are kicking
the Big 3's butts.

The reason that some are loosing jobs to China is because the cost to
manufacture here is too high. The expense does not justify the quality
being produced.

That, and there are not Cheap Plastic Dog Vomit factories left in
the US


Instead of bitching about loosing your job, accept what your work is really
worth or do something to better your self with out relying on the government
or union to make up for your inability to compete.

I agree, but accountability for one's self is doomed - the last election
proved this. The mooching masses elected someone to give them "free"
stuff that other people have to pay for.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Rusty wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Rusty wrote:
Destroy the unions so we can all do worse. The only thing wrong with
union
jobs is I don't have one.




Right, because unions are a magic potion that create wealth out of
thin air. The laws of economics are superseded by the demands of
the unions. As long as the union is there, there will always be
lots of wealth and productivity. Right.

Well Management has created nothing from a huge company.Still they got paid
well,my fingers hurt to much when I type all the zeros



You are being silly. Management has certainly made many mistakes -
the biggest being their capitulation to the UAW. But - judging from
my 2008 Chevy truck - they still know how to build a very nice
product.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote:

The that added expense would be short lived.

I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts of
money.

If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not break
the law. Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
dirrection.

The old execution question.

Does it or does it not prevent crime?

Some known facts.

Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.

People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to afford
adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.

Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive the
death penalty.

There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just facts.

Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.

Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic mix
of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.

They do have a basic difference.

Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.

These states have been studied for years.

What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after year.

The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate below
that of Michigan.

Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.

There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a deterrent.

OTOH, there is the "feel good" factor, "By god, that's one SOB we don't
have to worry about anymore."

In this day and age, there has to be a better way of dealing with man's
inhumanity to man other than state sanctioned murder.

Lew

A quick Lobotomy and back on the street!

On Dec 16, 7:49*pm, "LD" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

...



"Leon" wrote:

The that added expense would be short lived.

I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts of
money.

If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not break
the law. *Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
dirrection.

The old execution question.

Does it or does it not prevent crime?

Some known facts.

Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.

People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to afford
adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.

Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive the
death penalty.

There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just facts.

Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.

Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic mix
of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.

They do have a basic difference.

Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.

These states have been studied for years.

What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after year..

The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate below
that of Michigan.

Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.

There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a deterrent.

Robatoy wrote:

People flocked to Audis and Subarus for all-wheel drive in a good
looking comfortable safe car with good economy for decades. The big 3
sat on their hands.


Actually, they bought part of Subie and Saab, and sold Subarus and
Trailblazers as Saabs. The Saab 9-7... Appalling...

There is some evidence that Ford got some value from Volvo, as Ford has
done well in recent crash tests. Ford does make some good cars, like
the Mondeo, they just need to bring more of them to the US. Europe
always got the Cosworth Escort, we got the other one. Last year, I
drove a Fusion and really liked the car.

I don't think GM learned very much from Subaru.

I think Chrysler should be allowed to die. My Jeeps have been absolute
garbage. My wife likes them, but the only saving grace for us once the
warranty ends is that I'm mechanically inclined.

I'm a big Toyota / Honda / Subaru fan, but back in October, I rented a
Pontiac G6. I thought it drove rather nicely. This car had 28k RENTAL
MILES on the clock, a LOT for a rental, but didn't have a single rattle!
It accelerated nicely with no torque steer, and handled much better
than I would have expected. It did have a low rent interior, but the
car definitely showed a far better build quality than past GM cars I've
driven.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 7:49 pm, "LD" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

...



"Leon" wrote:

The that added expense would be short lived.

I don't understand. What is short lived about spending large amounts of
money.

If you know you are going to die, you would be more likely to not break
the law. Right now the system is absolutely going in the wrong
dirrection.

The old execution question.

Does it or does it not prevent crime?

Some known facts.

Murder is by and large a crime of passion between people who know each
other so a legal deterrent doesn't apply in those situations.

People who are sentenced to death are usually poor and not able to
afford
adequate representation to avoid the death penalty.

Blacks and others of color are by and large, most likely to receive the
death penalty.

There is nothing "bleeding heart" about the above, they are just facts.

Ohio and Michigan are very similar in many respects.

Both Midwestern, similar size, similar size population, similar ethnic
mix
of people, similar industrial and/or agricultural mix of business.

They do have a basic difference.

Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.

These states have been studied for years.

What sticks out is that the capital murder rate, as a percentage of
population, in Michigan is about equal to that in Ohio, year after year.

The death penalty in Ohio does not reduce the capital murder rate below
that of Michigan.

Texas, Georgia, and Florida have the highest execution rates in the
country, but it doesn't seem to affect their capital murder rates.

There is conclusive evidence that execution doesn't serve as a
deterrent.

OTOH, there is the "feel good" factor, "By god, that's one SOB we don't
have to worry about anymore."

In this day and age, there has to be a better way of dealing with man's
inhumanity to man other than state sanctioned murder.

Lew

A quick Lobotomy and back on the street!

NOT a good idea. There enough French Canadians on this planet already.

================================================== =============

LOL!

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:59:41 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

For the record, I watched a large ($6 billion) company I once worked for -
and that I really loved as an employer and place to work - get completely
sabotaged by their unions. These unions then took the company over
themselves and howled like stuck pigs when they ran the company into
the ground and the pensions they'd pledged to buy the company were
then worthless. I think this is not atypical of very large company
union behavior.

I haven't paid attention enough to generalize - but I watched RCA
self-destruct with considerable union help...

It wasn't that the union set out to destroy the company (which had a
truly putrid low- and mid-level management culture), but that the
significantly more competent rank and file employees (mostly electrical
engineers) who had been carrying the burden of not only their own work,
but that of less competent (and sometimes more highly-paid) peers,
slipped into the "Not My Job" attitude.

Strictly speaking, they were right - but from a practical viewpoint, the
effect was that teamwork went out the window - and it didn't take long
before the primary concern became keeping one's backside covered.

My last project with the company (for a government client whose name we
were told never to even speak aloud) came about because RCA was so
paralyzed that they'd felt the need to replace all RCA employees,
including the project managers, with consultants. The RCA folks were
sent to work on the smaller, less critical, and less sensitive Aegis
project (where they built the gee-whiz command and control system that
later erroneously targeted and killed an Iranian airliner).

Every time I've heard one of these tales of corporate demise and been
able to ask questions, I've learned of an unhealthy management culture
/and/ a worker attitude sickness that seemed traceable to a
union-encouraged breakdown in teamwork and an alienation of management
and worker people - and in every such instance I've seen no way to lay
all of the responsibility on just one of the parties.


If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now there is
enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no need
for union protection. Unions now only serve themselves and create high
wages and benefits that most companies cannot afford, but what choice does
the company have in today's society. Union's still project the image that
they are their to protect the worker, when it is now no longer necessary
because of the current laws.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked

B A R R Y wrote:

There is some evidence that Ford got some value from Volvo, as Ford has
done well in recent crash tests. Ford does make some good cars, like
the Mondeo, they just need to bring more of them to the US. Europe
always got the Cosworth Escort, we got the other one. Last year, I
drove a Fusion and really liked the car.

Note that Ford is the company that is saying they might just
weather this whole mess without any help from the government.
They would like a nice little line-of-credit as a fallback, but
apparently they are in better shape than the others.

I don't think GM learned very much from Subaru.

You've got to be willing to learn. GM has always wanted to
be a rule and law unto itself. 50 years ago they could.

I think Chrysler should be allowed to die. My Jeeps have been absolute
garbage. My wife likes them, but the only saving grace for us once the
warranty ends is that I'm mechanically inclined.

But, what about my buddy who bought one of those "lifetime warranty"
Jeeps a couple years ago . . . ?? Personally, I like Chrysler's
willingness to design and build distinctive stuff. They're at
least trying to do interesting things, but their marketing or
something just isn't keeping up with the effort. Also, their
best stuff seems to be from 10 years ago, though they do have
some new designs nothing as daring as the Viper or PT Cruiser
or Prowler.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

PHT wrote:

If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now there is
enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no need
for union protection.

On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.

You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
kids/your grandchildren?

Unions now only serve themselves and create high
wages and benefits that most companies cannot afford, but what choice does
the company have in today's society. Union's still project the image that
they are their to protect the worker, when it is now no longer necessary
because of the current laws.

Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a problem.

I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
doing that.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
PHT wrote:

If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now
there is
enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no
need
for union protection.

On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.

You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
kids/your grandchildren?

No. That's why I took the time to become educated and develop skills
that could command higher wages. The essential fraud of the union
movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
value. But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
distort this process. One example is government intrusion in the form
of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
said they will *support*.


Unions now only serve themselves and create high
wages and benefits that most companies cannot afford, but what choice
does
the company have in today's society. Union's still project the image that
they are their to protect the worker, when it is now no longer necessary
because of the current laws.

Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a problem.

I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
doing that.


I don't think "achieving balance" is even necessary. Let all the parties
to this discussion (the unions, the employers) alone. Pass no laws that
particularly favor either party. Require civil and legal behavior
on both parts and make them *negotiate*. If there is a shortage of
labor, the unions will get better terms. If there are plenty of
candidates for the work, then the contract will favor the employer.
Markets work when we let them. Employment markets are no different.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

I am not debating your position here, I am just curious. I know that
many
of the work rules are ridiculous and inflexible. Are there really rules
that prevent the company from designing new and different products and
then
shifting its production over to that new product?

I'd guess not. But the issue isn't the design phase. The issue is
just how fast can you train and deploy the workforce to actually
*build* the new model. Can you use your workforce in multiple roles,
or do the union contracts insist on very stratified work assignments?
Can you move work from plant to plant easily to get efficiencies of
scale? Can you install automation to replace manual labor for
improved productivity and quality without also having to payoff the
union for years afterwards?

You are correct in that there is a need to be flexible, and I have not doubt
that the labor contracts do nothing to help with flexibility. I would also
agree with you that labor agreements (or portions thereof) that prevent
that needed flexibility do need to be tossed and better agreements drawn up.


I don't know the answers to these questions, and I'm sure not excusing
the leadership of the Big Three. But, we're going to hold the CEOs
accountable here, then let's hold the UAW accountable in equal parts.

100%, absolutley correct. Now if Leon will agree that the Union must share
in the blame, (which he may have already, I would need to go back and read),
I would (if I ran the world) turn the two of you loose on Detroit to work
through the solutions to this problem. Only I would put you with the
management to solve their issues and I would put Leon on the Unions.





As far as the use of taxpayer money is concerned, I have great
reservations
about our money being used for all of these bailouts. I definitely agree
with the principles against bailouts, bad companies that cannot compete
should go out of business. However, there are two facts that sway me
towards going along with bailouts. #1. The track record of government
loans
and 'bailouts' to private industry is one of success in terms of the loan
itself. I recently heard a list of the 5 major bailouts in the past 50
years(?) (I think that was the time frame). The two that I can remember
off
the top of my head are the Chrysler loan and the S&L debacle. All 5 have
been paid back, with interest and on time or early. (The fact that
Chrysler
is back on the hill, hat in hand, however, causes me to question the long
term wisdom of bailouts.) #2. The failure of all three companies in
quick
succession would be disastrous for this country for quite a while. I
believe that there would be a great deal of hardship for many people for
a
long time. That being said, for one of them to go away I think might be
a
healthy thinning of the herd. If there is going to be a bailout, I
firmly,
unwaveringly believe that it needs to be handled as a business matter,
not
as corporate welfare. The American taxpayers need to view this and
conduct
themselves as one very large investor. To that end, it is unconscionable
that the Big 3 even asked for help with out having a plan prepared to
right
their ships and convince the potential investors that their money would
be
well spent. There is no way I will ever support money turned over
without a
significant address of the problems that a bunch of simple wood butchers
like us can identify.

All that is well and good, but here's my fear: The government -
especially these days - is like an infestation of termites. Once they
get in, they never go away. A government "managed" car industry will
be rife with corruption, ridiculous regulation, politically correct
policy decisions, and so forth. This isn't like Chrysler's loan
guarantees of the past. This is a full on trade of Capitalism for
Socialism - many of the politicians are just drooling at that
opportunity. The truth of this bailout is that it is not a bailout of
the auto companies. It is a bailout of the unions because bailing
out the unions buys votes, and votes are all that the political
types care about.

I also have those concerns that once the government is in the door, they
never leave. I also agree that the major problem in even asking the Big 3
for a business plan is deciding who will evaluate it. There is no one in
Washington in whom I have the confidence in their qualifications, nor the
faith in their integrity to make that evaluation. The issue of further
management and representation of the investors is even harder. One thing
that I firmly believe about 'bailouts' in general is, that if the American
people are going to be investors, they should then be owners, and as such
they should have a seat on the boards of whatever companies are invested in.
I do believe that there are individuals in our society, that if they were
called to serve, and they were to accept, they would have the competency and
the integrity to represent the American investors on the boards of these
companies. The obviously difficult step is to identify those individuals,
and to keep the selection process as non-political as possible.

The right answer here is to let the car companies go bankrupt. Then,
under the supervision of a court they could retool their abusive union
contracts, set rational compensation models for their management team,
and - most importantly - make everyone involved from the floor
sweepers to the CEO, stock participants in the company with an
incentive to grow it and make it better. This would work better and
faster than having the professional politicians - most of whom have
never run anything other than their mouths - "manage" a huge, high
complexity industry.

I am open to the idea of a managed bankruptcy. The only issue in that which
gives me pause is the concern that consumers may not be willing to purchase
automobiles from a company that is in bankruptcy. The consumer may have
profound concerns that the company may go under and be unable to support
their product. The end result being that bankruptcy would only be a path to
failure. I am not convinced that this would be the case but it is a concern
that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Steve P.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Even if you want to debate the issue of the environmental impacts of the
vehicles we drive, you are still left with the fact that we are spending
billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil that we are using and
need

No question. The most compelling argument for alternative fuel is to
starve the tin pot dictators around the world that happen to be
sitting on oil supplies.

to use less of. You cannot debate the fact that it takes billions of
years
to make oil and we are using it a hell of a lot faster then that. Simple
logic says that if you use it faster then you can make it, you will run
out
of it. But beyond all of that, and I think far more germain to the issue
of

The history here has been that humans have both found new ways to
extract oil AND to use it more efficiently. There has been a
"we're running out of oil" cry for decades and its been consistently
wrong. Eventually, of course, we will run out, but we have plenty of
time to bring other tech on line. It's not the end of the world
the eco types keep keening about.

I think that you make the solid case for alternatives in your first
sentence. We have always found a way to use oil more efficiently. Now is
the time to do that. Now is the time to take significant steps to end the
one car, one driver commute, now is the time to make better choices about
the cars that we do drive, now is the time to develop alternative energy
sources. If we agree that there is a finite amount of time before the oil
runs out, and merely disagree on how much time there is, doesn't prudence
dictate that we begin taking all possible steps towards bringing "other tech
on line", and of equal importance, start changing the habits that will
impact this problem.


product strategy by the car companies, people buy fuel efficient cars
because they would rather spend their money on something other then gas.

Perhaps, but I question the validity of that approach. Go look at
the price difference between a hybrid and conventional vehicle.
Then figure out how many years you have to own the thing to
break even. At $4/gal it barely makes sense. Below that, it
doesn't - at least in economic terms. Moreover, $4/gal happened
when oil it $130+/bbl. Most folks in the oil biz seem to think that
the natural price of oil is more like half that. Add to that the
disposal and recycling issues for the batteries, and to me at least,
hybrids are bad deal. They're simply a salve for eco-guilt.

I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect. There is
the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a greater sell to
many consumers. There are also ecological concerns involved with them. The
mining and processing of the cadmium used in the batteries is an ecological
problem, not to mention the disposal problem. I would like to hear about
the viability of Lithium- Ion batteries as an alternative. I have heard
some compelling arguments for it. That being said, I do not believe that
our backs should simply be turned on the concept of hybrid vehicles. They
need to continue to be developed and made more viable. I have heard them
referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydrogen fuel cell
technology and that is one reason why some are not investing in hybrid
development. My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is 10 years out.
That means that hybrid technology would be with us for at least 15-20 years.
That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell hits the street and then a
potential 5 - 10 year transition among the car buying public. Making an
investment in a technology that most likely has a 15-20 year life does not
seem foolhardy to me.


SteveP.



Some other people simply see the logic of how wasteful it is to drive a
vehicle that is larger then they need.

You can argue the principles and the reasons why people make the vehicle
choices that they do all you want, but if you are in the business of
selling
vehicles (or any product) you had better be able to anticipate, correctly
identify and then meet the actual market demand.

SteveP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
PHT wrote:

If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now
there is
enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no
need
for union protection.
On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.

You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
kids/your grandchildren?

No. That's why I took the time to become educated and develop skills
that could command higher wages.

Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch
/today/ with only minimum wages available...

....and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.

The essential fraud of the union
movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
value.

In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
completely.

Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
more than their peers.

My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.

But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
distort this process.

It has - because it is also driven by market forces.

One example is government intrusion in the form
of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
said they will *support*.

No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
dealing with them.

Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a problem.

I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
doing that.

I don't think "achieving balance" is even necessary. Let all the parties
to this discussion (the unions, the employers) alone. Pass no laws that
particularly favor either party. Require civil and legal behavior
on both parts and make them *negotiate*. If there is a shortage of
labor, the unions will get better terms. If there are plenty of
candidates for the work, then the contract will favor the employer.
Markets work when we let them. Employment markets are no different.

Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
are necessary.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Highland Pairos" wrote in message
...

I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect. There is
the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a greater sell to
many consumers. There are also ecological concerns involved with them.
The mining and processing of the cadmium used in the batteries is an
ecological problem, not to mention the disposal problem. I would like to
hear about the viability of Lithium- Ion batteries as an alternative. I
have heard some compelling arguments for it. That being said, I do not
believe that our backs should simply be turned on the concept of hybrid
vehicles. They need to continue to be developed and made more viable. I
have heard them referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydrogen
fuel cell technology and that is one reason why some are not investing in
hybrid development. My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is 10
years out. That means that hybrid technology would be with us for at least
15-20 years. That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell hits the
street and then a potential 5 - 10 year transition among the car buying
public. Making an investment in a technology that most likely has a 15-20
year life does not seem foolhardy to me.


SteveP.


Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
whole life span.

"Leon" wrote

Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
whole life span.

But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!

And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 17, 11:55 am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Leon" wrote

Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
whole life span.
But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!

And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.

Hummer owners have an identity problem. An off-road vehicle it is not.
(With the exception of the original HumVee). Many Hummer owners also
are said to have a small penis.

Not to mention that many have none at all.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 17, 11:55*am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Leon" *wrote

Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
whole life span.

But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!

And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.

Hummer owners have an identity problem. An off-road vehicle it is not.
(With the exception of the original HumVee). Many Hummer owners also
are said to have a small penis.

On Dec 17, 11:43*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Highland Pairos" wrote in message

...





I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect. *There is
the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a greater sell to
many consumers. *There are also ecological concerns involved with them.
The mining and processing of the cadmium used in the batteries is an
ecological problem, not to mention the disposal problem. *I would like to
hear about the viability of Lithium- Ion batteries as an alternative. *I
have heard some compelling arguments for it. *That being said, I do not
believe that our backs should simply be turned on the concept of hybrid
vehicles. *They need to continue to be developed and made more viable.. *I
have heard them referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydrogen
fuel cell technology and that is one reason why some are not investing in
hybrid development. *My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is 10
years out. That means that hybrid technology would be with us for at least
15-20 years. That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell hits the
street and then a potential 5 - 10 year transition among the car buying
public. *Making an investment in a technology that most likely has a 15-20
year life does not seem foolhardy to me.

SteveP.

Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
whole life span.

There are arguments to the contrary.

On Dec 16, 8:07*pm, B A R R Y wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

People flocked to Audis and Subarus for all-wheel drive in a good
looking comfortable safe car with good economy for decades. The big 3
sat on their hands.

Actually, they bought part of Subie and Saab, and sold Subarus and
Trailblazers as Saabs. *The Saab 9-7... *Appalling...

There is some evidence that Ford got some value from Volvo, as Ford has
done well in recent crash tests. *Ford does make some good cars, like
the Mondeo, they just need to bring more of them to the US. *Europe
always got the Cosworth Escort, we got the other one. *Last year, I
drove a Fusion and really liked the car.

I don't think GM learned very much from Subaru.

I think Chrysler should be allowed to die. *My Jeeps have been absolute
garbage. *My wife likes them, but the only saving grace for us once the
warranty ends is that I'm mechanically inclined.

I'm a big Toyota / Honda / Subaru fan, but back in October, I rented a
Pontiac G6. *I thought it drove rather nicely. *This car had 28k RENTAL
MILES on the clock, a LOT for a rental, but didn't have a single rattle!
* It accelerated nicely with no torque steer, and handled much better
than I would have expected. *It did have a low rent interior, but the
car definitely showed a far better build quality than past GM cars I've
driven.

If we let them die, will all their patents suddenly become available?

A friend of ours has a G6 and she is tickled pink. 4 of us went to
dinner in it a while back and we had plenty room, it all looked pretty
well finished for an American car. It ain't no Audi. nor is it trying
to be one. Quality is relative, I guess.
I drove a Ford 500 a while back (now called the Taurus again) and it
is a nice car. Handled well, solid.

On Dec 17, 12:29*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 17, 11:55 am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Leon" *wrote

Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out its
whole life span.
But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!

And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.

Hummer owners have an identity problem. An off-road vehicle it is not.
(With the exception of the original HumVee). Many Hummer owners also
are said to have a small penis.

Not to mention that many have none at all.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

I have a lady friend/client who has a pink one. Hummer that is.

Highland Pairos wrote:
Even if you want to debate the issue of the environmental impacts
of the vehicles we drive, you are still left with the fact that we
are spending billions of dollars overseas to pay for the oil that
we are using and need

No question. The most compelling argument for alternative fuel is
to
starve the tin pot dictators around the world that happen to be
sitting on oil supplies.

to use less of. You cannot debate the fact that it takes billions
of years
to make oil and we are using it a hell of a lot faster then that.
Simple logic says that if you use it faster then you can make it,
you will run out
of it. But beyond all of that, and I think far more germain to
the
issue of

The history here has been that humans have both found new ways to
extract oil AND to use it more efficiently. There has been a
"we're running out of oil" cry for decades and its been
consistently
wrong. Eventually, of course, we will run out, but we have plenty
of
time to bring other tech on line. It's not the end of the world
the eco types keep keening about.

I think that you make the solid case for alternatives in your first
sentence. We have always found a way to use oil more efficiently.
Now is the time to do that. Now is the time to take significant
steps to end the one car, one driver commute,

Preach preach preach preach preach. Give people a reason to do it
that doesn't involve taxing them or putting them in jail.

now is the time to make
better choices about the cars that we do drive,

Give people a reason to do it that doesn't involve taxing them,
putting them in jail, or forcing automobile manufacturers to make cars
that nobody wants on the basis of a quota system.

now is the time to
develop alternative energy sources.

Don't need to. "Alternative energy sources" are highly developed.
What we need to do is stop listening to the environmental activists
who prevent us from using them.

If we agree that there is a
finite amount of time before the oil runs out, and merely disagree
on
how much time there is, doesn't prudence dictate that we begin
taking
all possible steps towards bringing "other tech on line", and of
equal importance, start changing the habits that will impact this
problem.

No need to "change the habits" if "other tech" is going to be "on
line" unless by "other tech" you mean some POS econut thing that
doesn't work as well as what we have now.

product strategy by the car companies, people buy fuel efficient
cars because they would rather spend their money on something
other
then gas.

Perhaps, but I question the validity of that approach. Go look at
the price difference between a hybrid and conventional vehicle.
Then figure out how many years you have to own the thing to
break even. At $4/gal it barely makes sense. Below that, it
doesn't - at least in economic terms. Moreover, $4/gal happened
when oil it $130+/bbl. Most folks in the oil biz seem to think
that
the natural price of oil is more like half that. Add to that the
disposal and recycling issues for the batteries, and to me at
least,
hybrids are bad deal. They're simply a salve for eco-guilt.

I also agree that the current hybrid technology is not perfect.

It's really rather pointless. Its main reason for existence is that
under the California quota system hybrids are "green" and they are
actually usable cars, albeit horribly expensive and not terribly
efficient.

There is the economic payoff issue that prevents them from being a
greater sell to many consumers. There are also ecological concerns
involved with them. The mining and processing of the cadmium used
in
the batteries is an ecological problem, not to mention the disposal
problem.

So tell the Congress to pull the plug on California's quota system and
keep it pulled.

I would like to hear about the viability of Lithium- Ion
batteries as an alternative. I have heard some compelling arguments
for it. That being said, I do not believe that our backs should
simply be turned on the concept of hybrid vehicles. They need to
continue to be developed and made more viable. I have heard them
referred to as being a bridge technology toward hydrogen fuel cell
technology and that is one reason why some are not investing in
hybrid development. My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cell is
10 years out.

You have heard wrong. You can lease fuel cell Hondas now, today, that
work fine. Most existing cars can be converted to run on hydrogen as
well. The only real obstacles are ramping up hydrogen production and
the building of enough hydrogen filling stations make them useable
over most of the country. But this doesn't automatically solve any
problems--the hydrogen currently comes mostly from natural gas via a
cracking process--we'll need to build a large number of
nuclear-electric plants before electrolytic hydrogen becomes viable
without the use of petrochemicals.

That means that hybrid technology would be with us for
at least 15-20 years.

Why bother with it at all?

That is the 10 years before hydrogen fuel cell
hits the street and then a potential 5 - 10 year transition among
the
car buying public.

Hydrogen fuel cell is on the streets now.

Making an investment in a technology that most
likely has a 15-20 year life does not seem foolhardy to me.

It does when all it gains you is the privilege of selling cars in
California.

SteveP.



Some other people simply see the logic of how wasteful it is to
drive a vehicle that is larger then they need.

You can argue the principles and the reasons why people make the
vehicle choices that they do all you want, but if you are in the
business of selling
vehicles (or any product) you had better be able to anticipate,
correctly identify and then meet the actual market demand.

SteveP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:37:43 -0500, "Highland Pairos"
wrote:



I am not debating your position here, I am just curious. I know that
many
of the work rules are ridiculous and inflexible. Are there really rules
that prevent the company from designing new and different products and
then
shifting its production over to that new product?

I'd guess not. But the issue isn't the design phase. The issue is
just how fast can you train and deploy the workforce to actually
*build* the new model. Can you use your workforce in multiple roles,
or do the union contracts insist on very stratified work assignments?
Can you move work from plant to plant easily to get efficiencies of
scale? Can you install automation to replace manual labor for
improved productivity and quality without also having to payoff the
union for years afterwards?

You are correct in that there is a need to be flexible, and I have not doubt
that the labor contracts do nothing to help with flexibility. I would also
agree with you that labor agreements (or portions thereof) that prevent
that needed flexibility do need to be tossed and better agreements drawn up.


I don't know the answers to these questions, and I'm sure not excusing
the leadership of the Big Three. But, we're going to hold the CEOs
accountable here, then let's hold the UAW accountable in equal parts.

100%, absolutley correct. Now if Leon will agree that the Union must share
in the blame, (which he may have already, I would need to go back and read),
I would (if I ran the world) turn the two of you loose on Detroit to work
through the solutions to this problem. Only I would put you with the
management to solve their issues and I would put Leon on the Unions.





As far as the use of taxpayer money is concerned, I have great
reservations
about our money being used for all of these bailouts. I definitely agree
with the principles against bailouts, bad companies that cannot compete
should go out of business. However, there are two facts that sway me
towards going along with bailouts. #1. The track record of government
loans
and 'bailouts' to private industry is one of success in terms of the loan
itself. I recently heard a list of the 5 major bailouts in the past 50
years(?) (I think that was the time frame). The two that I can remember
off
the top of my head are the Chrysler loan and the S&L debacle. All 5 have
been paid back, with interest and on time or early. (The fact that
Chrysler
is back on the hill, hat in hand, however, causes me to question the long
term wisdom of bailouts.) #2. The failure of all three companies in
quick
succession would be disastrous for this country for quite a while. I
believe that there would be a great deal of hardship for many people for
a
long time. That being said, for one of them to go away I think might be
a
healthy thinning of the herd. If there is going to be a bailout, I
firmly,
unwaveringly believe that it needs to be handled as a business matter,
not
as corporate welfare. The American taxpayers need to view this and
conduct
themselves as one very large investor. To that end, it is unconscionable
that the Big 3 even asked for help with out having a plan prepared to
right
their ships and convince the potential investors that their money would
be
well spent. There is no way I will ever support money turned over
without a
significant address of the problems that a bunch of simple wood butchers
like us can identify.

All that is well and good, but here's my fear: The government -
especially these days - is like an infestation of termites. Once they
get in, they never go away. A government "managed" car industry will
be rife with corruption, ridiculous regulation, politically correct
policy decisions, and so forth. This isn't like Chrysler's loan
guarantees of the past. This is a full on trade of Capitalism for
Socialism - many of the politicians are just drooling at that
opportunity. The truth of this bailout is that it is not a bailout of
the auto companies. It is a bailout of the unions because bailing
out the unions buys votes, and votes are all that the political
types care about.

I also have those concerns that once the government is in the door, they
never leave. I also agree that the major problem in even asking the Big 3
for a business plan is deciding who will evaluate it. There is no one in
Washington in whom I have the confidence in their qualifications, nor the
faith in their integrity to make that evaluation. The issue of further
management and representation of the investors is even harder. One thing
that I firmly believe about 'bailouts' in general is, that if the American
people are going to be investors, they should then be owners, and as such
they should have a seat on the boards of whatever companies are invested in.
I do believe that there are individuals in our society, that if they were
called to serve, and they were to accept, they would have the competency and
the integrity to represent the American investors on the boards of these
companies. The obviously difficult step is to identify those individuals,
and to keep the selection process as non-political as possible.

The right answer here is to let the car companies go bankrupt. Then,
under the supervision of a court they could retool their abusive union
contracts, set rational compensation models for their management team,
and - most importantly - make everyone involved from the floor
sweepers to the CEO, stock participants in the company with an
incentive to grow it and make it better. This would work better and
faster than having the professional politicians - most of whom have
never run anything other than their mouths - "manage" a huge, high
complexity industry.

I am open to the idea of a managed bankruptcy. The only issue in that which
gives me pause is the concern that consumers may not be willing to purchase
automobiles from a company that is in bankruptcy. The consumer may have
profound concerns that the company may go under and be unable to support
their product. The end result being that bankruptcy would only be a path to
failure. I am not convinced that this would be the case but it is a concern
that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Steve P.

....this is an interesting point: what of the customers who already own
vehicles under warranty? SOL, baby...

cg




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
PHT wrote:

If you stop and think about the reason unions was created in the first
place, to protect the workers, there was a need at that time. Now
there is
enough laws on the books that protect the workers, there is really no
need
for union protection.
On the surface, it would seem so - but I worry that there are too many
enterprises would pay only the mandated minimum wage. I'm not
hypothesizing here - and historically single-enterprise communities were
virtually enslaved before the advent of the American labor movement.

You might find it an interesting exercise to extend that minimum wage to
an annual gross income (multiply by 40 hours/week and again by 52
weeks/year) and divide by 12 for a monthly gross income. Then consider
the quality of life afforded by the resulting /net/ (after deductions)
income. To make it real, would you choose that for yourself/your
kids/your grandchildren?

No. That's why I took the time to become educated and develop skills
that could command higher wages.

Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch

That was not my point - I was merely commenting that minimum wage is
not an inevitable endgame for people.

/today/ with only minimum wages available...

I started with far, far less that today's situation. Single parent
poor family, etc. Went to two private universities (under- and grad
school) w/o a dime of debt or govt grant money and NO debt at the
end ... by working, sometimes multiple cruddy jobs.


...and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.

Then I'll have to do something different for a living. I've already
switched career gears multiple times in my life, and am prepared to
do so again as needed.


The essential fraud of the union
movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
value.

In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
completely.

Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
more than their peers.

My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.

No, I advocate that government stay out of the way other than to
ensure there is no fraud, force, or threat by any of the players.
Buying and selling labor resources should be no different than
buying and selling TVs - you find the best price, best vendor,
etc. and do business with them. Labor is absolutely the same thing.


But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
distort this process.

It has - because it is also driven by market forces.

But ... it has the legitimate legal use of force at its disposal
and THAT makes it very dangerous and THAT is why its scope must
be consciously very narrow.


One example is government intrusion in the form
of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
said they will *support*.

No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
dealing with them.


The "market forces" that produced them are an ignorant public and
pandering politicians. They have created an environment deadly to
liberty but apparently in both their self-interest. In the short
term it may well be so, but not in the long term. Given the current
trajectory, the US is headed for 3rd rate economic and geopolitical
status in probably only a couple generations.


Almost. I'm not a fan of trade unions, but there are situations in which
there is no way an individual can negotiate a just solution to a
problem.

I think the best we can do is try to achieve some reasonable measure of
balance - and it would seem that unions may be one of the tools for
doing that.

I don't think "achieving balance" is even necessary. Let all the parties
to this discussion (the unions, the employers) alone. Pass no laws that
particularly favor either party. Require civil and legal behavior
on both parts and make them *negotiate*. If there is a shortage of
labor, the unions will get better terms. If there are plenty of
candidates for the work, then the contract will favor the employer.
Markets work when we let them. Employment markets are no different.

Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
are necessary.


I do too. So does anyone whose been successful at what they do.
You cannot durably succeed by lying, cheating, and stealing - it is
a self-limiting set of behaviors. But being fair and just does not
mean overpaying for underskilled or unskilled labor. It does not
mean extending benefits beyond that which is earned, and so on.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote

Not to mention the electric eco cars cost more to build, operate, and
dispose of during their whole life span than a Hummer does through out
its whole life span.

But, but Leon....., electic cars are just SOOOOOOO...., trendy and in!!!!

And Hummers are just so icky masculine and retro.


That is probably the real issue. Or eco drivers are have Hummer envy. ;~)

I would love to tour the Southland
In a travelling minstrel show
Yes I'd love to tour the Southland
In a traveling minstrel show
Yes I'm dying to be a star and make them laugh
Sound just like a record on the phonograph
Those days are gone forever
Over a long time ago, oh yeah
I have never met Napoleon
But I plan to find the time
I have never met Napoleon
But I plan to find the time
'Cause he looks so fine upon that hill
They tell me he was lonely, he's lonely still
Those days are gone forever
Over a long time ago, oh yeah

I stepped up on the platform
The man gave me the news
He said, You must be joking son
Where did you get those shoes?
Where did you get those shoes?

Well, I've seen 'em on the TV, the movie show
They say the times are changing but I just don't know
These things are gone forever

Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch

That was not my point - I was merely commenting that minimum wage is
not an inevitable endgame for people.

Nor was I arguing that it /is/ inevitable - only pointing out that it's
a possible outcome. There hasn't always /been/ a minimum wage, and it
didn't come into being because of any love for socialism - but to ensure
that the folks at the low end of the scale didn't starve.

/today/ with only minimum wages available...

I started with far, far less that today's situation. Single parent
poor family, etc. Went to two private universities (under- and grad
school) w/o a dime of debt or govt grant money and NO debt at the
end ... by working, sometimes multiple cruddy jobs.

...and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.

Then I'll have to do something different for a living. I've already
switched career gears multiple times in my life, and am prepared to
do so again as needed.

Good. I suspect there probably won't be another round of H1B visas - and
that next time around, the projects will do the traveling.

The essential fraud of the union
movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
value.

In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
completely.

Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
more than their peers.

My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.

No, I advocate that government stay out of the way other than to
ensure there is no fraud, force, or threat by any of the players.
Buying and selling labor resources should be no different than
buying and selling TVs - you find the best price, best vendor,
etc. and do business with them. Labor is absolutely the same thing.

Exactly how does what you said differ from my perception? At present,
government is (for all practical purposes) inextricably enmeshed with
"the way things work".

But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
distort this process.

It has - because it is also driven by market forces.

But ... it has the legitimate legal use of force at its disposal
and THAT makes it very dangerous and THAT is why its scope must
be consciously very narrow.

I think you use up too much of your energy worrying about being coerced
and compelled. Force need not be legal to be dangerous - but it is
/most/ dangerous when one lives in fear of it. Courage, mon ami -
/toujours/ courage.

One example is government intrusion in the form
of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
said they will *support*.

No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
dealing with them.

The "market forces" that produced them are an ignorant public and
pandering politicians. They have created an environment deadly to
liberty but apparently in both their self-interest. In the short
term it may well be so, but not in the long term. Given the current
trajectory, the US is headed for 3rd rate economic and geopolitical
status in probably only a couple generations.

Aha! You got a "tufer" - a remedy for the first should, in consequence,
provide remedy for the second. My personal question for you is: "Are you
(can you be) patient enough to educate the peoples' discretion?"

And the greater question is: "How do we go about (re)bootstrapping an
apparently failing education system?"

Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
are necessary.

I do too. So does anyone whose been successful at what they do.
You cannot durably succeed by lying, cheating, and stealing - it is
a self-limiting set of behaviors. But being fair and just does not
mean overpaying for underskilled or unskilled labor. It does not
mean extending benefits beyond that which is earned, and so on.

Ok - then I misunderstood what you said and we're in fundamental
agreement on some of the key principles.

Got a plan?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Good for you. I'd pat you on the back except that you're already doing
it. I can't help wondering how well you'd do starting from scratch

That was not my point - I was merely commenting that minimum wage is
not an inevitable endgame for people.

Nor was I arguing that it /is/ inevitable - only pointing out that it's
a possible outcome. There hasn't always /been/ a minimum wage, and it
didn't come into being because of any love for socialism - but to ensure
that the folks at the low end of the scale didn't starve.

They didn't starve prior to a minimum wage - they worked hard.
I come from several generations of no-minimum wage folk, and
believe me, they did not starve (you should see the family album).

/today/ with only minimum wages available...

I started with far, far less that today's situation. Single parent
poor family, etc. Went to two private universities (under- and grad
school) w/o a dime of debt or govt grant money and NO debt at the
end ... by working, sometimes multiple cruddy jobs.

...and I wonder how you'll respond when (not if!) everything you have to
offer your employers is available for one-fifth the cost from
Abd'AlShugal via internet from Islamabad.

Then I'll have to do something different for a living. I've already
switched career gears multiple times in my life, and am prepared to
do so again as needed.

Good. I suspect there probably won't be another round of H1B visas - and
that next time around, the projects will do the traveling.

I work in the IT world. First it was outsourcing, then it was insourcing,
and you know what ... some stuff can be done offshore, some cannot.
As the world moves to global markets we are seeing a slow but inevitable
transition to currency-adjusted wage equilibrium. Them furrin' workers
just don't worry me all that much. The world will divide, specialize,
and pay more-or-less equivalent wages over time.



The essential fraud of the union
movement is that people are somehow innately "worth" whatever the
union says. Ordinarily, I don't care - let the unions and employers
work things out and let the marketplace dictate an employee's economic
value.

In a marketplace where employers compete for the best employees and
where prospective employees compete for the best jobs, I agree with you
completely.

Unfortunately, that description does not apply to all marketplaces - or
even uniformly through /most/ marketplaces. To insist that it does is to
deny reality. In an ideal world, all forces would be in balance - but in
the real world, people struggle to achieve imbalances that benefit them
more than their peers.

My perception is that even as you say: "Let the system achieve
equilibrium," you're advocating a particular definition of the system
that would be of benefit to (especially) yourself.

No, I advocate that government stay out of the way other than to
ensure there is no fraud, force, or threat by any of the players.
Buying and selling labor resources should be no different than
buying and selling TVs - you find the best price, best vendor,
etc. and do business with them. Labor is absolutely the same thing.

Exactly how does what you said differ from my perception? At present,
government is (for all practical purposes) inextricably enmeshed with
"the way things work".

You are sadly correct.


But government has shown a repeated willingness to step in and
distort this process.

It has - because it is also driven by market forces.

But ... it has the legitimate legal use of force at its disposal
and THAT makes it very dangerous and THAT is why its scope must
be consciously very narrow.

I think you use up too much of your energy worrying about being coerced
and compelled. Force need not be legal to be dangerous - but it is
/most/ dangerous when one lives in fear of it. Courage, mon ami -
/toujours/ courage.

My courage is exhausted. I don't worry about theoretical coercion.
I worry about the real coercion I've experienced as a business person,
as an individual, and as a citizen. The objective level of freedom
today in the US at least, if diminishing substantially compared to even
a decade ago. Witness the many cameras that watch our every move.


One example is government intrusion in the form
of binding arbitration - surely not an enumerated power of the
government. Most recently, we see the "UAW Bailout Of 2008" begged for
before Congress. Both of these kinds of things distort the
price/feedback mechanism that should be setting the salary points for
union employees (and everyone else, for that matter). A similar
example is the insistence of the unions that they need a law
that forces votes to unionize to be public - a complete breach
of personal privacy and trust that the Obama bunch has already
said they will *support*.

No argument with what you've said. Examples abound. What you haven't
addressed are the market forces that produced these examples. Until
you've done that, you have no basis (other than wishful thinking) for
dealing with them.

The "market forces" that produced them are an ignorant public and
pandering politicians. They have created an environment deadly to
liberty but apparently in both their self-interest. In the short
term it may well be so, but not in the long term. Given the current
trajectory, the US is headed for 3rd rate economic and geopolitical
status in probably only a couple generations.

Aha! You got a "tufer" - a remedy for the first should, in consequence,
provide remedy for the second. My personal question for you is: "Are you
(can you be) patient enough to educate the peoples' discretion?"

No. There is insufficient time in my lifetime to remediate the knuckleheaded
thinking in the larger society. I am largely reduced to complaining, hiding,
and just living my life in obstinate contradiction to the status quo.
You cannot fix in a couple of years what the quasi-Marxists like FDR,
Johnson, Carter, and now, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have or want to install
as the norm.


And the greater question is: "How do we go about (re)bootstrapping an
apparently failing education system?"

Privatize it. Make the teachers earn the respect and compensation of the
parents. Make parents accountable for the education of their children
under threat of felony charges. None of this will actually happen.


Let's agree to disagree. I value "fairness" and "justice" in my dealings
with others and between others and I'm convinced that neither is
possible without balance. All of my life experience informs me that both
are necessary.

I do too. So does anyone whose been successful at what they do.
You cannot durably succeed by lying, cheating, and stealing - it is
a self-limiting set of behaviors. But being fair and just does not
mean overpaying for underskilled or unskilled labor. It does not
mean extending benefits beyond that which is earned, and so on.

Ok - then I misunderstood what you said and we're in fundamental
agreement on some of the key principles.

Got a plan?


No. I've mostly given up. The larger society has decided that a
"right" is anything they wish for: education, healthcare, safety,
peace of mind, a "living" wage, and all of the rest of the drool that
spews forth on a regular basis. We live - in the US and most of the
rest of the West - in societies driven by the moochers and the
looters. The few producers are worn out, overworked, overtaxed, and
underappreciated. When 5% of the working population pay the
overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
there is no resolution. The next great superpower will be China, with
India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
external attack. It has committed suicide...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I work in the IT world. First it was outsourcing, then it was insourcing,
and you know what ... some stuff can be done offshore, some cannot.
As the world moves to global markets we are seeing a slow but inevitable
transition to currency-adjusted wage equilibrium. Them furrin' workers
just don't worry me all that much. The world will divide, specialize,
and pay more-or-less equivalent wages over time.

We have the IT in work common. Over time, yes - but work which does not
require a security clearance will always chase the low price. The
question is, of course, how much time?

My courage is exhausted. I don't worry about theoretical coercion.
I worry about the real coercion I've experienced as a business person,
as an individual, and as a citizen. The objective level of freedom
today in the US at least, if diminishing substantially compared to even
a decade ago. Witness the many cameras that watch our every move.

I dislike the intrusive nature of surveilance cameras as well but, of
themselves, they don't present any more danger than a traffic signal. My
take is that any nut case who wants to watch /my/ every move is going to
suffer cruel and inhuman punishment in the form of extreme boredom.

There is insufficient time in my lifetime to remediate the knuckleheaded
thinking in the larger society. I am largely reduced to complaining, hiding,
and just living my life in obstinate contradiction to the status quo.

Of course there's insufficient time. By it's very nature democracy can
never be a fait accompli - and while it survives it'll be a work in
progress with a high maintenance requirement. It's not the length of a
person's life, it's what they do with the time they have that makes all
the difference - and it makes a difference what they pass on to those
who follow.

And the greater question is: "How do we go about (re)bootstrapping an
apparently failing education system?"

Privatize it. Make the teachers earn the respect and compensation of the
parents. Make parents accountable for the education of their children
under threat of felony charges. None of this will actually happen.

Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
can't have it both ways.

You're right - it won't happen because coersion isn't a viable solution.

Got a plan?

No. I've mostly given up. The larger society has decided that a
"right" is anything they wish for: education, healthcare, safety,
peace of mind, a "living" wage, and all of the rest of the drool that
spews forth on a regular basis. We live - in the US and most of the
rest of the West - in societies driven by the moochers and the
looters. The few producers are worn out, overworked, overtaxed, and
underappreciated.

I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
/desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
don't consider them /undesirable/.

Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
of participants.

As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
"lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.

When 5% of the working population pay the
overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
there is no resolution.

So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
and further taxation prohibited.

The next great superpower will be China, with
India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
external attack. It has committed suicide...

I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
ourselves.

Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 18, 8:01*am, Morris Dovey wrote:


I dislike the intrusive nature of surveilance *cameras as well but, of
themselves, they don't present any more danger than a traffic signal. My
take is that any nut case who wants to watch /my/ every move is going to
suffer cruel and inhuman punishment in the form of extreme boredom.


Let us hope that surveillance as a theft deterrent works /just this
one time/ at the Postal Service.
If you catch my drift.

=0)

r

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP


Privatize it. Make the teachers earn the respect and compensation of the
parents. Make parents accountable for the education of their children
under threat of felony charges. None of this will actually happen.

Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
can't have it both ways.

Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
to break into your house.


As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
child.



You're right - it won't happen because coersion isn't a viable solution.

Got a plan?

No. I've mostly given up. The larger society has decided that a
"right" is anything they wish for: education, healthcare, safety,
peace of mind, a "living" wage, and all of the rest of the drool that
spews forth on a regular basis. We live - in the US and most of the
rest of the West - in societies driven by the moochers and the
looters. The few producers are worn out, overworked, overtaxed, and
underappreciated.

I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
/desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
don't consider them /undesirable/.

They are desireable. They are not political rights. They are things
each individual and/or family ought to achieve or earn in their own
right. The sole exception is safety. The state has some role to
play in defending the borders, interdicting in matters of fraud, force,
and threat, and generally maintaining the *framework* of a civil
society. This does not, however, include using the coercion of the state
to inflict its versions of healthcare, education, et al.


Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
of participants.

My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Franklin

These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
as chits to buy votes.


As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
"lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.

You or I or anyone else that still values freedom are in a declining
minority. The demographics here are overwhelming. The last election
alone demonstrates that people will buy almost anything at face value
from a politician promising them "free" stuff, "change", and all the
rest of goo that came from our soon-to-be communist-in-chief. The
system cannot be redesigned when a majority of the participants
are happy to watch it fail - fiddling on the deck of the Titanic
as it were.


When 5% of the working population pay the
overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
there is no resolution.

So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
and further taxation prohibited.

Me too. It will never happen.


The next great superpower will be China, with
India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
external attack. It has committed suicide...

I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
ourselves.

But that latter thing is exactly what is missing. The citizenry
hardly wants to "re-invent" the culture or the nation. It is too
busy abdicating itself to the leviathan of the state.


Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:45 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
"lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.


snip

Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions.

Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to think
about possible future requirements due to external changes. I've had
customers comment years later that they went to modify something and found
the hooks for the modification were already there. Nothing like a delayed
pat on the back :-).

I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:45 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
"lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.


snip

Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions.

Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to think
about possible future requirements due to external changes. I've had
customers comment years later that they went to modify something and found
the hooks for the modification were already there. Nothing like a delayed
pat on the back :-).

I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).


http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HelloWorldInM...mmingLanguages

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to think
about possible future requirements due to external changes. I've had
customers comment years later that they went to modify something and found
the hooks for the modification were already there. Nothing like a delayed
pat on the back :-).

grin

I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).

Probably not...

#include stdio.h
int main(void)
{ puts("Hello, world");
return 0;
}

The rust comes off fairly quickly.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:01:45 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat.
If
you don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible
to re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always
come from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name
for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort)
was "lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.


snip

Change is the only constant, and predictions are only predictions.


Back when I was designing/writing SCADA software, I always tried to
think about possible future requirements due to external changes.
I've had customers comment years later that they went to modify
something and found the hooks for the modification were already
there. Nothing like a delayed pat on the back :-).

I'm so obsolete now I'd have trouble programming "Hello, world" :-).

Just drag a text box off the list and type "Hello, world" in it :-)

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP

Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
can't have it both ways.

Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
to break into your house.

As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
child.

I don't think you'll achieve much traction pushing this issue - not
because I have anything against private education, but because I don't
see any practical means of implementation due to cost.

In a most fortunate twist of fate (I lived in a country with /no/ high
schools, and my stepfather's employer paid for dependents' education at
any accredited boarding school), I got to make my own choice of private
schools (subject to parental veto for cause) high school. My first two
choices (ACS in Beirut and a boarding school in England) were vetoed for
what seemed good reasons, and my third choice was where I went.

I dug around to find a web page with some cost info and came up with:

http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/.../school_id/201

and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!

[ I think it's worth every penny for kids whose parents can afford it -
and if you watch the video (at the top of the page) you can see a bit of
why I hold that opinion - what they present is real and true. ]

I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
/desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
don't consider them /undesirable/.

They are desireable. They are not political rights. They are things
each individual and/or family ought to achieve or earn in their own
right. The sole exception is safety. The state has some role to
play in defending the borders, interdicting in matters of fraud, force,
and threat, and generally maintaining the *framework* of a civil
society. This does not, however, include using the coercion of the state
to inflict its versions of healthcare, education, et al.

Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
majority so elects.

You /can/ effect the changes you want, but first you'll need to build
the necessary consensus...

Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
of participants.

My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Franklin

These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
as chits to buy votes.

Since you've referenced one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes, let's
also quote from the document under discussion when he said those words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,..."

I welcome you to the land of the unwashed masses (est. July 4, 1776)

As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
"lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.

You or I or anyone else that still values freedom are in a declining
minority. The demographics here are overwhelming. The last election
alone demonstrates that people will buy almost anything at face value
from a politician promising them "free" stuff, "change", and all the
rest of goo that came from our soon-to-be communist-in-chief. The
system cannot be redesigned when a majority of the participants
are happy to watch it fail - fiddling on the deck of the Titanic
as it were.

As you already know, our opinions differ on all of the above except that
I can agree that "free stuff" always carries a price tag.

When 5% of the working population pay the
overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
there is no resolution.

So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
and further taxation prohibited.

Me too. It will never happen.

Never is a /very/ long time...

The next great superpower will be China, with
India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
external attack. It has committed suicide...

I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
ourselves.

But that latter thing is exactly what is missing. The citizenry
hardly wants to "re-invent" the culture or the nation. It is too
busy abdicating itself to the leviathan of the state.

Methinks it's too early to tell - let's see how it plays out. One or the
other of us (or possibly both) may be surprised.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP

Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
can't have it both ways.

Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
to break into your house.

As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
child.

I don't think you'll achieve much traction pushing this issue - not
because I have anything against private education, but because I don't
see any practical means of implementation due to cost.

In a most fortunate twist of fate (I lived in a country with /no/ high
schools, and my stepfather's employer paid for dependents' education at
any accredited boarding school), I got to make my own choice of private
schools (subject to parental veto for cause) high school. My first two
choices (ACS in Beirut and a boarding school in England) were vetoed for
what seemed good reasons, and my third choice was where I went.

I dug around to find a web page with some cost info and came up with:

http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/.../school_id/201

and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!

Hang on a second here. Yes, education is expensive. Just how is
it cheaper if it is public? I'd argue that public education - if the
real and complete costs are tallied - is *more* expensive than
private because there is no market feedback to make it efficient.
By some estimates, the US now spends more per student, inflation
adjusted, than at any time since education went public, and the results
are declining on average. This is not a money problem.


[ I think it's worth every penny for kids whose parents can afford it -
and if you watch the video (at the top of the page) you can see a bit of
why I hold that opinion - what they present is real and true. ]

I had to go drink a cup of coffee and pause to unload the emotional
baggage. Back at the keyboard, I see all of the things you've listed as
/desirable/ - and from what you've told about yourself, I infer that you
don't consider them /undesirable/.

They are desireable. They are not political rights. They are things
each individual and/or family ought to achieve or earn in their own
right. The sole exception is safety. The state has some role to
play in defending the borders, interdicting in matters of fraud, force,
and threat, and generally maintaining the *framework* of a civil
society. This does not, however, include using the coercion of the state
to inflict its versions of healthcare, education, et al.

Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
majority so elects.

Well again, hang on:

1) The "rights" everyone is trying to vote themselves are not
under the purview of the Federal government because it has
no enumerated power to grant such gifts. To legally elect
themselves these freebies, the Sheeple ought to change the
Constitution. They won't, moochers are never that honest.

2) Some rights - the ones explicated in our Constitution - are
innate and freely distributed to all. My right to free speech
does not diminish your similar right. But the "rights" people
are inventing for themselves are not equally distributed.
They are "rights" granted to some citizens at the expense
of others. This is not a honest theory of rights, its just
stealing under mob rule masquerading as a "right".


You /can/ effect the changes you want, but first you'll need to build
the necessary consensus...

Today's consensus is mooching. This is why I say we are in an
inexorable slide to the loss of liberty and preeminence in the world.


Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
of participants.

My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Franklin

These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
as chits to buy votes.

Since you've referenced one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes, let's
also quote from the document under discussion when he said those words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,..."

I welcome you to the land of the unwashed masses (est. July 4, 1776)

All men are *created* equal, but none of the Framers held that they
actually *were* equal. They merely articulated a baseline set of
inherent rights all citizens ought to enjoy and wrote a legal framework
so that all citizens would be "equal" before the law, under the law,
and from the law. The "equality" in question was not about the
citizen, it was that the government ought to be "equal" in its
behavior.


As with software, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. If you
don't like the way the system runs, it's nearly always possible to
re-design for improvements - and that improvements almost always come
from disaffected users who /haven't/ given up. The old name for
disaffected users who /have/ given up (or never made a real effort) was
"lusers". I encourage you to not join that community.

You or I or anyone else that still values freedom are in a declining
minority. The demographics here are overwhelming. The last election
alone demonstrates that people will buy almost anything at face value
from a politician promising them "free" stuff, "change", and all the
rest of goo that came from our soon-to-be communist-in-chief. The
system cannot be redesigned when a majority of the participants
are happy to watch it fail - fiddling on the deck of the Titanic
as it were.

As you already know, our opinions differ on all of the above except that
I can agree that "free stuff" always carries a price tag.

When 5% of the working population pay the
overwhelming proportion of Federal taxes in the US, but some 40% pay
little- or no taxes but can vote (and thus appoint the next President)
there is no resolution.

So? How about making a serious proposal for tax reform you consider more
reasonable? Personally, I'd prefer a flat rate without exemptions
coupled with hard limits on government spending, structured so that
after a period of a century or two, government could be fully endowed
and further taxation prohibited.

Me too. It will never happen.

Never is a /very/ long time...

Never in time to make a difference to you or me, or likely our children.
Our grandchildren will probably have to learn Mandarin.


The next great superpower will be China, with
India as an arguable close second. They will not be liberal
democracies as we understand the term. The virtues of Western
civilization - a civilization that did more to free mankind in less
time than any other institution in recorded human history - are nearly
dead or on their deathbed. These are not just the rambling of someone
of "a certain age". They are the observations of someone who has lived
in 3 countries and traveled to many more over 5 decades and has seen
the difference. The US - once a light for freedom and opportunity -
has become a ghetto for political correctness, government overreach,
and whining demands for imaginary "rights." The US is not dying from
external attack. It has committed suicide...

I've only lived in two countries, although I've traveled to a reasonable
number of others over /six/ decades. Interestingly, I've always found
much to admire wherever I traveled. Americans do indeed have much to be
proud of, but we're not done learning from others - and it's been said
that our greatest strengths are our ability and willingness to re-invent
ourselves.

But that latter thing is exactly what is missing. The citizenry
hardly wants to "re-invent" the culture or the nation. It is too
busy abdicating itself to the leviathan of the state.

Methinks it's too early to tell - let's see how it plays out. One or the
other of us (or possibly both) may be surprised.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/