In article ,
says...

Han wrote:
You may or may not agree, but my
opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.

It''s income inequality that has made this the most powerful engine of
economic development in the world.

Who would try harder for the same money? Who would take a risk?

Three things go into making a successful company: capital, labor, and,
usually, raw materials. In most businesses, labor is not only the greatest
cost, but it is sometimes the easiest to control.

A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is willing to
take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply spend it on drugs
or buy a motorcycle and adios.

Henry Ford was a prudent businessman. He paid his workforce enough that
they could buy the products his company made.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:09:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is full of
people like you who just spout bull**** because you think way too much of
yourself.

You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.

In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:09:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is
full of people like you who just spout bull**** because you think
way too much of yourself.

You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.


I didn't actually take it personally at all. I used myself as an example,
not because I took personal offense at Larry's comments.

In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.

Yes it is, and that is one segment of society - and it is not the only
segment of society affected by this economy. There is another segment of
our society that lived far more diligent lives (as I tried to point out by
using myself as the example), and who are suffering losses currently, as
they never have. We haven't experienced that, but plenty are.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
SNIP


Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
equality would benefit our society.



You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
"worth" what the market will bear.

So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible

That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
from being created.

And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.

On 16 Aug 2012 19:35:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
"worth" what the market will bear. If a job is offered at a price,
it is because the buyer (employer) values the work more than the money
they pay for it. If the seller (you) accepts the job, then you value
the money more highly than you do your time to do the work. Everyone
wins. You may not be making as much as you would LIKE or THINK you
should get, but that doesn't make you "worth" it. Again, this is
true as long as no one is pointing a gun at your head.

That is fine in a really free market. I was glad that my boss always
valued my work and could convince his bosses of it (I was indeed
convinced). On the other hand, I was taken into the office of the
division head once and told that it was better to take a 30% cut now that
portion of the grants had run out. I did, and within a year had managed
to get another grant. I am not sure whether I could have insisted that
my salary should remain the same, and that departmental funds should
cover the shortfall (I heard that might have been the "law"). I was too
afraid of not getting institutional support for my next grant
application, which would have been it for my career.

So a free market may exist for some professions. I am wondering how free
the market is in actual fact. It isn't for many "trades" that limit to
union members.

In backward "closed shop states", perhaps.

Obviously for people in sales of high-faluting medical
equipment there was a recent collapse as another poster indicated. The
really good salaries in the pharmaceutical industry are likely also a
thing of the past. We have had really big discussions, sometimes of
varying degrees of politeness, whether teachers are paid as deserved, too
little or grossly too much.

The fact that it's a public union settled that one. ;-)

Until there is at least a 5% surplus in each profession for an extended
period of time, it is unlikely that a truly free market develops. The 5%
figure is taken from what I heard was a healthy vacancy rate for rental
housing - neither too much nor too little. Obviously for "protected"
professions such as department heads at universities, unionized jobs and
others, the extended period of time might be very long.

What's a 5% surplus? Surplus of what?

Also, when
companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is amiss,
I think. Of course someone could make a case, perhaps ...

Utter nonsense. One has *NOTHING* to do with the other.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:56:09 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:49:26 -0400, "
Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for others,
even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the world without
breaking a sweat?

Maybe you wouldn't, but some people take satisfaction out of doing a
decent day's work, even if it doesn't pay a decent wage. To many, a
job as a Wallyworld greeter is boring and demeaning and underpaying.

Utter nonsense. Sure, I like my job but I'm not there because it's fun. Even
though I like my boss a lot, I'd certainly tell him where to stick it if he
offered me $10/hr. OTOH, I didn't bitch at this week's 58 hours, either.

On 16 Aug 2012 19:39:26 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:

My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion
is that more income equality would benefit our society.

I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.

There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?

Again, why would I bust my butt to do a difficult (impossible for
others, even) job when I can be the best Wallyworld greeter in the
world without breaking a sweat?

Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).

No, simply a dumb idea. Why do you want the government, or any third
party, to get between an employer and employee (both assumed to be
adults). Can't we just let employers and employees decide for
themselves? ...or is that too much like freedom?

I would like to reward effort and capabilities/knowledge. Not the tricks
used to get up to a certain level. The Peter Principle has been observed
... Now do we keep giving Peter "merit" increases (ie increases over the
change in cost of living)?

Start by passing "right to work laws". Then an outright ban on public
employees unions. You're now over half way there.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:

My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything
more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that
more income equality would benefit our society.

I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.


Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been the norm
in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where the opposite
prevails.

I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid the same
as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of poppycock.

There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are essential.
Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?

Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle. Surely
there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with your original
thought.

You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.

Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).

No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
employment.

Read what he wrote again.

On 16 Aug 2012 23:59:46 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
You may or may not agree, but my
opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.

It''s income inequality that has made this the most powerful engine of
economic development in the world.

Who would try harder for the same money? Who would take a risk?

Three things go into making a successful company: capital, labor, and,
usually, raw materials. In most businesses, labor is not only the
greatest cost, but it is sometimes the easiest to control.

A prudent businessman pays his labor force the minimum each is willing
to take. In many cases, if he pays them more, they'll simply spend it
on drugs or buy a motorcycle and adios.

Eventually, even the riobber barons didn't get away with all of it.

....and that's the way it's *supposed* to work. If they don't pay enough,
someone else will. It's no different than buying veggies. If they're too
expensive you buy fruit.

On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a thing
called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich Northern state
like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.

This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has taken
some jurisdiction over some school districts.

With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because they're
PAYING TOO MUCH?

In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did, as I
understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the "academies"
(maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the fired teachers (I
believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be rehired and get which
kind of kids for which subject. Of course all in the same old building,
with new signs, probably also more administrators.

That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the old school.
If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!

My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated by the
alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he teaches math,
manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of guy who can wear a
T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service we offer".

He probably has no business working in the public sector.

On 16 Aug 2012 19:57:22 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han wrote:

snip
I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise from
my Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was good
enough there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.

Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?

I was not offered that opportunity in Holland. Maybe I wasn't good
enough, maybe my buddy and I were the only ones who could get "tricked"
into going to Boston.

Maybe nothing grew there because they poisoned the soil? ...and you want to
do the same here.

My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for the
lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded professor
at the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we could live
in Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I took the
chance because it seemed the way to start a career. I was unemployed
for a 3 months (long story), but found a job in New York that I stayed
with for 34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some point, but was
lucky/capable enough to get going again. So, one thing led to another,
and as many, but not all in similar positions, I stayed in the US, not
too far from where my grandchildren live. My son-in-law and
daughter-in-law think we might the right choice, did and do the right
things. Now I got pertussis and have to overcome that cough ...

I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you can
come here because the opportunities are better and turn around and
want everything that crushed the opportunities where you're from.

It was an opportunity that I couldn't refuse, as I felt it. I am
relating my ideas and feelings, because they are different from some of
the feelings and ideas others here have, and because it is always good to
discuss those and perhaps open minds to different ways of doing things.

Socialism is *not* a new idea. It's tired; about ready for death.

No judgement to better or worse, just different. And yes, while Holland
is doing very well in the EU today and there are many opportunities
there, at the few times I could have made a switch from here to there,
the opportunities weren't there. So it was better to try in a country of
300 million than in a country of 15 million.

"The opportunities weren't there" says it all. Sorry, Han, but you're wishing
for the same here.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:08:05 -0400, Bill wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
start going down and down in my lifetime, please!

It would probably bother you to know that a school district in CA (I
think) that borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars, on a long term
load that they will not and cannot (as there are no prepay provisions)
make the FIRST payment on until 20 years from now! They "snuck it by"
the voters.

They didn't sneak anything by. Those taxpayers will never pay the note and
they don't care if their children do or not. The can can always be kicked.
Until it can't.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:


That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
at the same wage.

That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives can fail
us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or hear about
one-off situations, and then we try to apply them universally. We're all
probably somewhat guilty of that to a degree. I don't think that the Iowa
meat packing plant is all that representative of the unemployment situation
across the country though.

There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're pretty much
separate issues, except that in this case a working illegal is a non-working
citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be tolerated.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:26:11 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Jack wrote:

That's true only because illegals would not be around to take the
jobs. I could sell cars cheap if I could pay illegals $4.00 an hour
to build them.

Robots build cars today. At considerably less than $4/hr.

Not sure that's true after amortizing the costs.

In the case of agriculture, the difference is not between $5/hr and $7.25
(if you insist agricultural workers come under the minimum wage). The
difference is between $5/hr and nothing!

At some point in the wage scale, it is cheaper to do away with much of the
manual labor and emply a (admittedly expensive) machine. Obviously there are
harvesters for wheat and corn, but I've seen harvesters for nuts, tomatoes,
and oranges.

At $8/hr for labor, you will.

I've seen a machine that automatically washes, bags, and boxes lettuce. In
this instance, stoop workers cut the lettuce and pitch it into the machine,
which is covering 10-12 rows at a time, with the laborers following along
behind.

This lettuce gizmo has to have cut the work, and the amount of labor,
required by 80%.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:

My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.

I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.


Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been
the norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where
the opposite prevails.

I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
poppycock.

There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?

Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
your original thought.

You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.

Correct - I got twisted up. Your comment above is appropriate - poppycock!


--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
at the same wage.

That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
representative of the unemployment situation across the country
though.

There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
tolerated.

It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision. I'm not
convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily move in to take
over those jobs if the illegals were not here. Perhaps over time, but I
just can't see that happening at all quickly.

--

-Mike-

On 16 Aug 2012 15:26:30 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Jesus, Han. You really -are- a liberal. sigh OK, how long did

I said that the links you keep coming up with. Right out of the
Liberal Talking Points book, or whatever they use.


farmers (and others who employ illegals) have to comply with laws
which were already on the books? How long did they have between the
time the bill was introduced and passed? The time frame is likely
_years, not just months. Why hadn't they rehired _legal_ replacements
during those many months and years, hmm?

This was sprung on them fairly fast. Perhaps they had hoped that the law
would be overturned and gambled wrong.

Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011, 13
months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have any
sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted injury.

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

On 16 Aug 2012 15:32:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
many of them to lose their homes, etc.

Yes, and yes. They believed what were essentially slick second hand car
salesmen, both with their extravagant homes and mortgages. The
homeowners and construction workers got punished, but some other equally
guilty ones didn't. Did you read that the higher-ups in MFGlobal were
punished? Not criminally, they weren't. And they were in my opinion
criminally negligent as were many other banking execs, but as my buddy
the ex-New York banking inspector says, there was plausable denial (my
words). No provable offenses. As the Germans used to say "Das habe ich
nicht gewusst".

I also believe that many, if not most, middle management jobs
shouldn't have ever existed, so don't get me started there.

Aw, shucks, really? grin.

It'll hurt, with millions losing their jobs, but we need to shear off
all the unnecessary governmental divisions NOW. Duplication is really
rampant when as many as 30 agencies cover the same tasks. I don't
even want to hear about deficits when they can be immediately reversed
by cutting the minions who spend them. I want to see the US -debt-
start going down and down in my lifetime, please!

I'm with you there. But that is a job for Congress. And you know what?
I'm afraid it'll never happen.

It will, and it won't be pretty. The corrupt gov't is shoving the
American public toward their critical mass with their daily antics,
and some day soon, 300 million Americans are going to melt down and
do something drastic to change all that corruption. Gunner's Great
Cull is inevitable, don't you think? Perhaps not in his described
form, but a 2nd American Revolution is in the air.

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:51:24 -0400, Bill wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:


If people hadn't been living so _far_ above their means in the first
place, the reduction wouldn't hurt nearly as bad and wouldn't cause
many of them to lose their homes, etc.

Bull**** and this is where your arrogance really ****es me off Larry. We
have never lived above our means, paid our mortgage off early, sent 4 kids
through college, contributed to our community and our church - all of our
lives. Guess what - unemployment hit me. I don't mind doing whatever I
have to do to earn a buck but your bull**** above is nothing more than your
pride and arrogance speaking. That is just too damned insulting not to
respond to. Maybe you never had anything, so going backwards wasn't a big
step. More of America is represented by people like me than the Mcmansion
types that are over their heads in debt and those people are hurting from
this economy. The unemployment rate is hurting a lot of people who are very
willing to work and are accustomed to doing so. The internet is full of
people like you who just spout bull**** because you think way too much of
yourself.

He is not talking about you Mike.

Nope, I wasn't, but you can certainly understand now why I filtered
the obnoxious fella, eh? LOL!


There seem to be plenty of people who
choose to live their lives "in the red". Funny, when things get tougher
they still take expensive vacations, buy expensive toys, etc.

New cars every year or two, 84" teevees, $400 sneakers and $250 jeans
for the kids, etc.


The unemployment and shift in the standard of living is the result of a
leveling-out (rebalancing) of the standard of living between the 3rd
world countries, who now have many of our old jobs, and ours. It started
in the 80s (a friend gave me a sort of blow-by-blow account as it
happened, from his perspective as a Ford employee). Unfortunately I
don't think we've experienced all of the pain yet.

I don't, either. While the talking heads are saying the economy is
improving, my workload has halved since 2 years ago. People started
to use more of my handyman services a few years ago, when the economy
started the big slide. Now, it appears, they're doing without, waiting
for a better day.

I think next year is going to be worse than the past two, and I'm
shaking over it. The CNC router is another hope I have of additional
income production, hoping I can find the people with money who are
still spending it. Running only two businesses isn't cutting it today.
And at age 59, I'm pretty much -not- on the list of hireables.

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
SNIP


Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
equality would benefit our society.



You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
"worth" what the market will bear.

So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible

That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
from being created.

You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an economy
run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that provides a
little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you willing to
watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of
your religion (S & D)?


And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:06:39 -0400, "
Maybe you wouldn't, but some people take satisfaction out of doing a
decent day's work, even if it doesn't pay a decent wage. To many, a
job as a Wallyworld greeter is boring and demeaning and underpaying.

Utter nonsense. Sure, I like my job but I'm not there because it's fun. Even
though I like my boss a lot, I'd certainly tell him where to stick it if he
offered me $10/hr. OTOH, I didn't bitch at this week's 58 hours, either.

Not at all surprising at all that it's you posting this reply. You
whine and complain about everything. Just reinforces your status as an
asshole.

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:

My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.

I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.


Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been the
norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where the
opposite prevails.

I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
poppycock.

There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?

Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
your original thought.

You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.

Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).

No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
employment.

Read what he wrote again.

I'm not quite sure who "he" is here. I don't think I have ever called
for paying brain surgeons the same as dog catchers. I think effort,
ability and execution of the job are what count.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a
thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich
Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.

This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.

With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
they're PAYING TOO MUCH?

Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from being a
failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable population.

In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did, as
I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course all
in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
administrators.

That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the old
school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!

Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
surprising extent.

My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated by
the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he teaches
math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of guy who can
wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service we offer".

He probably has no business working in the public sector.

He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of email.
Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While his income
is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much greater. He
loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/16/2012 10:56 AM, Han wrote:
My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
expensive.

So, by artificially raising wages to a "sufficient wage" and making
everything more expensive, all you would do is increase the amount of
paper you carry around to buy stuff, or add some zeros to everyone's
income and outgo.

You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
equality would benefit our society.

Based on what you just said, I don't think you agree with your own
opinion, unless you think adding zeros to the dollar bill would somehow
help society.

--
Jack
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy
out of prosperity.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/16/2012 12:33 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

The consequences are all civil, not criminal. For example,
an illegal alien can be deported, but without more cannot be sentenced
to a prison term.

Yes, some crimes are civil, some are criminal, but are crimes by
definition.

Nonsense. There's no such thing as a civil, noncriminal crime. If you
disagree, you can prove me wrong by citing a statute as an example. But
you can't because there isn't one.

I cited the definition of "crime". If you choose to make up your own
definitions, have at it. I'll cite it again for your edification:

crime
noun
1.
an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the
public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is
legally prohibited.

Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.
--
Jack
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/16/2012 2:54 PM, Bill wrote:

So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be
close to negligible because they all want to eat (people who want to eat
are competing against one another)?

A persons value is based on what he can produce, not on what he can eat.

As a society, do we really wish to support this phenomenon of the free marketplace?

Yes! It worked so well the first couple of hundred years that the US
had to limit entry rather than egress. That has been changing the past
100 years, and rapidly under the communist Obummer regime.

Maybe that's why we have (and may need) "minimum wage" laws?

It's why minimum wage laws are asinine, unneeded and counter productive.
They, like corporate taxes, are a political hoax, perpetuated on a
dimwitted public.

I'll bet you actually believe your employer pays half your 15% SS tax,
right?

--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com

" wrote in
:

On 16 Aug 2012 19:57:22 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 16 Aug 2012 15:25:11 GMT, Han wrote:

snip
I moved to the US because upon finishing my masters in Holland I got
offered a job as a technician in a Harvard lab, with the promise
from my Dutch professor (Laurens van Deenen) that if my work was
good enough there, I would get a (Dutch) PhD.

Why couldn't you get the same opportunity in Holland?

I was not offered that opportunity in Holland. Maybe I wasn't good
enough, maybe my buddy and I were the only ones who could get
"tricked" into going to Boston.

Maybe nothing grew there because they poisoned the soil? ...and you
want to do the same here.

Or maybe I wasn't good enough for them. PhD slots were/are fewer there
than here.

My alternative was compulsory military service (in 1969, there was a
draft in Holland). I got a J-1 visa, later
converted to a green card by reason of me being indispensable for
the lab's work. My wife got an interview with a highly regarded
professor at the Mass General Hospital for a technician's job, so we
could live in Cambridge, Mass, not the cheapest place on earth. I
took the chance because it seemed the way to start a career. I was
unemployed for a 3 months (long story), but found a job in New York
that I stayed with for 34 years. So yes, I did "fail" at some
point, but was lucky/capable enough to get going again. So, one
thing led to another, and as many, but not all in similar positions,
I stayed in the US, not too far from where my grandchildren live.
My son-in-law and daughter-in-law think we might the right choice,
did and do the right things. Now I got pertussis and have to
overcome that cough ...

I don't need your life's story. OTOH, I don't understand how you
can come here because the opportunities are better and turn around
and want everything that crushed the opportunities where you're
from.

It was an opportunity that I couldn't refuse, as I felt it. I am
relating my ideas and feelings, because they are different from some
of the feelings and ideas others here have, and because it is always
good to discuss those and perhaps open minds to different ways of
doing things.

Socialism is *not* a new idea. It's tired; about ready for death.

You're misusing the term. Social-democratic ideas are fine. Especially
when combined with fiscal restraint. It's things like the waging of wars
without paying for them that gets us into what we are now, debt.

No judgement to better or worse, just different. And yes, while
Holland is doing very well in the EU today and there are many
opportunities there, at the few times I could have made a switch from
here to there, the opportunities weren't there. So it was better to
try in a country of 300 million than in a country of 15 million.

"The opportunities weren't there" says it all. Sorry, Han, but you're
wishing for the same here.

How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little of that. With
fiscal restraint.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Hmm, the original immigration bill, 535, was introduced in 2/2011, 13
months before. Gambling obviously didn't pay and I don't have any
sympathy whatsoever for the farmers for that self-inflicted injury.

I'm not in favor of illegal immigration, but I do have much more sympathy
for the workers that fled the state(s) where these laws were passed than
for the farmers. I also sympathize with whoever had to pay more for their
food as a consequence.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
at the same wage.

That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
representative of the unemployment situation across the country
though.

There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
tolerated.

It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all quickly.

I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take over
the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among the young
there is very high too ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:25 -0400, Jack wrote:
It's why minimum wage laws are asinine, unneeded and counter productive.
They, like corporate taxes, are a political hoax, perpetuated on a
dimwitted public.

As usual, you're the dimwit here. You don't have any idea you're
talking about. One reason why many unions proliferated in the first
place was because the average worker was being taken advantage of by
business owners. Admittedly, many unions these days take advantage of
businesses, but they're on the way out. The pendulum has swung in the
opposite direction.

History, especially US employee history, is absolutely rife with
examples of companies taking advantage of their workers. The fact is,
there's any number of people who will take advantage of others if the
option presents itself and businesses are no exception.

Those 'minimum wage laws' that you put down are in place to prevent
taking advantage of workers.

On 8/16/2012 3:35 PM, Han wrote:
Also, when
companies pay their CEOs more than they pay in taxes, something is amiss,
I think.

Companies don't pay taxes, people do.

--
Jack
A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in
a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
- Winston Churchill

On 8/16/2012 3:11 PM, Bill wrote:

Doensn't it seems like there is adequate room for a 3rd party--we could
call them the "Realists"?

We have two parties now, one communist/socialist, and one horrifically
liberal. A "realists" party, or libertarian party would simply make it
possible for the communist party to win without a majority. That would
eliminate the need for voter fraud, but I'd prefer to eliminate voter
fraud, hold my nose and vote for the liberal repuglican, and work to
purge Communism from our system.

I would support a third party system though, say a socialist party and a
communist party vs a conservative party. That would work but is not
needed. 70% of the US is conservative so simply eliminating voter fraud
should suffice to flush the socialist out of our lives for a while.

--
Jack
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have".
- Thomas Jefferson

On 8/16/2012 7:26 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack wrote:

That's true only because illegals would not be around to take the
jobs. I could sell cars cheap if I could pay illegals $4.00 an hour
to build them.

Robots build cars today. At considerably less than $4/hr.

Government Motors alone employees 70,000 just in the US, and not one
makes $4/hr. The average wage is far closer to $80/hr than $4/hr. What
GM employees make in China I have no clue.

At some point in the wage scale, it is cheaper to do away with much of the
manual labor and emply a (admittedly expensive) machine. Obviously there are
harvesters for wheat and corn, but I've seen harvesters for nuts, tomatoes,
and oranges.

Whatever is your point? There is less need for migrant workers at
minimum wage than before machinery or, who needs machinery if you can
illegally pay illegals 10 cents an hour to pick nuts?

--
Jack
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit
the target

On 8/16/2012 7:57 PM, Han wrote:

We disagree, I think. Minimum wage is not pillaging and thieving but
protecting people from abuse by exploiters.

That's what the politicians tell you.

We have a military to protect the country. We all pay for it, huge
amounts at that.

Yes, a primary purpose of government.

But you'd leave the little man to fight for himself, without the protection of a
minimum wage? I think that is icky, with all due respect for your
opinion.

How would you feel about the government mandating a Chevy Volt or Chevy
pickup cost no more than $2,000 so those getting paid minimum wage can
get to work? How about 20 cents a gal for gas, that would be great,
right? Personally, I don't think any teacher should make more than 10
cents above minimum wage. How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full protection,
so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?

I take it you don't like competition, or do you think it only works when
*you* like the results?

--
Jack
News Flash: Government Motors (GM) fines their top competitor $16 Mil.
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:36 -0400, Jack wrote:
How the hell can a minimum wage worker afford
to buy a $3000 saw stop. Don't you think he deserves full protection,
so lets mandate saw stop sell for no more than a Ryobi?

As usual, you take things to the extreme with flights into the
ridiculous. The average work needs the ability to get to his job. He
does NOT need a SawStop.

Dave writes:

You're taking this too personally Mike. Larry didn't attack people
like you who have been caught in the unemployment crunch. What he said
could easily apply to many other areas of consumerism.

In defense of Larry's statement about people living above their means,
it's evidenced in one respect by people who have outlandish credit
card debt. That segment of people living above their means is rampant.

Although, thanks to the new credit card rules instituted in the last
couple of years, the number of credit card bankruptcies has dropped
precipitously. CC issuers/banks profits have gone up. So, the
regulations that were so bemoaned by the banks and the right have been good for both
sides - the consumer wins (less debt) and the banks win (more profit).

" writes:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
SNIP


Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
equality would benefit our society.



You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
"worth" what the market will bear.

So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible

That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
from being created.

And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.

In what bizzare world are you living? Every first job is an "entry level job".

Your blanket statements are less than compelling.

On Aug 15, 5:06*pm, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/15/2012 12:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: Larry Jaques wrote:

'Course, I also believe that folks on unemployment should be given
only a limited time of being able to turn down jobs not in their
particular line of expertise.
Either you don't know a damned thing about unemployment, or things must run
very differently out there than they do here in NY.

After 6 months (or less?), they should
be required take any job they might qualify for (a couple days
training or less?) to get off the unemployment roles. Unlimited
unemployment checks breed worse things. *Get 'em off their asses!
Yeah - sounds good to spout that kind of **** when you are talking about
other people. *You are being an ass Larry.

What is your proposal? *Do you have some other means to induce those
folk to find productive work? *If so, how would you do it? *If not, do
you propose to force Larry and me through our taxes to support those
people indefinitely while they sit home and watch TV all day?


No one cares about the self-centered, moronic comments of an absolute
nobody who is a few beers short of a six pack. Just shy of 60 years
old, how come you are are already suffering from age-related dementia?

On 17 Aug 2012 12:51:01 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


That theory falls apart in places like Iowa, where after raiding a
meat packaging plant (Hormel?), they had *no* problem hiring locals
at the same wage.

That may be true - but that is where each of our own perspectives
can fail us. We see or know about things local to us, or we see or
hear about one-off situations, and then we try to apply them
universally. We're all probably somewhat guilty of that to a
degree. I don't think that the Iowa meat packing plant is all that
representative of the unemployment situation across the country
though.

There are two issues here. Illegals and unemployment. They're
pretty much separate issues, except that in this case a working
illegal is a non-working citizen. It's not unique and shouldn't be
tolerated.

It is easiest for me to come down in agreement on the aspect of being
intollerant of the illegal alien. For me that is an easy decision.
I'm not convinced though, that the non-working citizen would readily
move in to take over those jobs if the illegals were not here.
Perhaps over time, but I just can't see that happening at all quickly.

I agree. I just don't see a 50+ year-old out of work plumber take over
the job of a 25 yo tomatopicker. Although unemployment among the young
there is very high too ...

How many of you have been out of work and starving? Think about that
when you guess about what jobs you'd take to stop it. Although you
might not last long on the farm in the sun, you'd at least try it,
wouldn't you, to keep yourself and your family fed?

--
All of us want to do well. But if we do not do
good, too, then doing well will never be enough.
-- Anna Quindlen

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:51:55 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
SNIP


Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
equality would benefit our society.



You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
"worth" what the market will bear.

So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible

That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
from being created.

You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an economy
run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that provides a
little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you willing to
watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of
your religion (S & D)?

Strawman alert! You assume that people actually live on minimum wage jobs.
These are entry-level jobs, usually held by kids living at home. All minimum
wage laws do is make these jobs disappear. Do you really think it's a good
idea to eliminate entry-level jobs?

If they're capable of work, I have no problem seeing bums starve (they won't).
If not, charity works.

And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.

No answer noted.