Jack wrote in :

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.

Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/17/2012 7:25 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
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?

i think, unfortunately, you'd find that there is a significant
percentage of people who wouldn't.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:28:01 -0400, "
If they're capable of work, I have no problem seeing bums starve (they won't).
If not, charity works.

As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
overwhelming.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:39:15 -0400, Dave wrote:

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.

Good Lord, what an idiot!

Jack wrote in :

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?

I never said that, as Dave pointed out. I think a minimu wage is a good
idea to set a floor for wages. Perhaps that should be $7.50 in Alabama
(just an example - I have almost nothing against Alabama), perhaps $10 or
more in NY & NJ and thereabouts (currently $7.25 in NJ). And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 17 Aug 2012 12:16:56 GMT, Han wrote:

" 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.

Larry B.

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some work hard
as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create wonders with apparently
no effort. However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

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?

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.

That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?

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.

Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.

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.

He could work somewhere he's appreciated.

On 17 Aug 2012 12:29:26 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

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.

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

You've said nothing that refutes my assertion.

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.

Utter nonsense.

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.

How about not, with fiscal restraint?

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

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.

Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

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).

I have always thought of a credit card as a means of paying for something
the easy way. It never entered my mind to donate 15-20% or more to a bank.
So I pay in full, every month. And sometimes I dip a little into my
savings to do so, but that gets paid back soon. And I do harass the bank
for bad policies. Ask the nice lady mananger at the local Chase.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

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?

I'd probably think of moving to a cheaper area and home first. Nothing too
close to this happened to us except once. My wife had to go and find a
better paying job, while I waited on the returns of my resumes. At the
time we were living in a pretty cheap apartment (Cambridgeport, Cambridge,
MA).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:11 -0400, Jack wrote:

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.

AIUI, it's a civil offense the first time (not a misdemeanor). The reason
being that it doesn't require a trial (by jury) to deport an alien, only an
administrative action. The second offense, after deportation, can result in a
prison sentence, so would naturally require a trial.

On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...xes_excee.html

It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other way
around....

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

On 08/17/2012 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

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.

Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.



Fine. Then neither should unions, PACs, the AARP, or any other lobbying
group. Similarly, groups like MoveOn, AlterNet, and so forth should
not be permitted to raise funds in support of any political action.
'Sound good to you?

What you're not getting here is that one of our fundamental natural
rights is to "associate" as we wish. Why is OK for an individual
to do something, but not for a bunch of individuals with common
goals and interests to do the same thing? A corporation is not some
faceless entity. It has owners - owners that have a shared set of
economic ambitions and owners that often have to act politically to
support those ambitions. And, BTW, these owners are not typically the
hated eeeeeeeeevil rich people, but more usually they are investment
and retirement institutions working on behalf of millions of the average
folks.

So, the neverending attack on corporations is both morally malignant and
harms the middle and lower classes primarily....

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

On 08/16/2012 11:51 PM, Bill wrote:
Are you willing to watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of your religion (S & D)?

There is no example of starvation or famine on any scale in free, democratic,
capitalist nations. Starvation is almost always an artifact of either
political collectivism or personal malignancy (like substance abuse and so forth).

In point of fact, there was never starvation on any scale or people dying in
the streets prior to the inception of min wage laws. These laws are nothing
more than transparent vote buying and do nothing to help the plight of
the underclass. If anything, they make said plight worse.

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

On 08/17/2012 07:56 AM, Dave wrote:
History, especially US employee history, is absolutely rife with
examples of companies taking advantage of their workers.

This is absurd. Unless someone FORCES you to work for them, how
on earth are they "taking advantage" of you? You are the seller
(of labor), the employer is the buyer. Unless one of the two
parties is acting unethically - say the seller doesn't do the work
they're being paid for or the buyer doesn't pay them for work already
done - no one is getting screwed.

It is not taking advantage of anyone to pay them the minimum they
will accept to do the job. For instance, I have my own consulting
business. Rates today are less than half of what they were even
a decade ago. Why? Because the economy is in the tank and there is -
relatively speaking - a far greater supply of people like me than
there is demand. Am I getting screwed when I sell my time for half
of what I used to get? No. I am entering into a transaction of
trade voluntarily under the prevailing market conditions. When
The Worst President In 100 Years is finally kicked out of office,
the economy will start to heal and hourly rates will rise. Will I
then be screwing the buyer, according to your worldview?

You - and people that think like you - need to go start a business
and hire employees - enough employees to have the many lunatic labor
laws kick in. It's the only way you'll get how desperately wrong
you are.

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

" wrote in
:

On 17 Aug 2012 12:16:56 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

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.

Larry B.

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as
dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Thanks!!

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some
work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
wonders with apparently no effort. However, the real problem is third
parties deciding what others are "worth". It should be *entirely*
between the employer and the employee. It's none of anyone else's
damned business.

I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian, but
I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed better.
But that would have required even more stress and less family-life.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

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.

That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?

Northeast industrial city. Was called Silk City at some point. Water
power started it. There are still the Great Falls of Paterson (77 ft):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29

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.

Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.



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.

He could work somewhere he's appreciated.

He is apparently appreciated and he believes in giving back.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:17:28 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:28:01 -0400, "
If they're capable of work, I have no problem seeing bums starve (they won't).
If not, charity works.

As usual, your sweeping statements and incredible lack of humanity is
overwhelming.

As usual, content of your posts matches your IQ; zero.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:03:23 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

" 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".

What a stupid statement. I know engineers who's first job was as an engineer.

Your blanket statements are less than compelling.

You're a leftist kook, but I've always known that.

" wrote in
news
How about not, with fiscal restraint?

?? You mean - How about "not with fiscal restraint"?
Politics without fiscal restraint is only irresponsible. That's my
philosophy. And mind you, if I really want something, I find the means to
get it, or I just pine for it. I don't get it on credit without paying it
off at the end of the cycle.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

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.

Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.

Unions are tax exempt. They shouldn't be able to participate in elections,
either.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:39:15 -0400, Dave wrote:

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.

Good Lord, you're a moron.

Dave wrote:
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.

That's the kind of thinking that I have a problem with Dave. The statement
that the average worker does not need something is a presumptuous statement.
That presumes a level of living upon people. Can't agree with that.

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:
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?

Out of work - sure. Starving - no. That though, is a lot different from
the opinonated garbage you've posted in this thread. Remember them phrase
"Get off their asses" (or similar)? So Larry - you're the opinionated one
with all of the ideas for what others should do - how was your last day out
in the sun? Pretty easy to tell others that they should do that - isn't it?

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some
work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
wonders with apparently no effort. However, the real problem is
third parties deciding what others are "worth". It should be
*entirely* between the employer and the employee. It's none of anyone
else's damned business.

Thank God - a word of wisdom...

--

-Mike-

Bill wrote:

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)?


Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.

I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.

While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors passed
by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the flowers and I
asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow up?"

"President" she replied.

"Oh," said I, "why?"

"Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her heartfelt
answer.

"You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll give you
fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower beds. Then you
can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give it to somebody that's
hungry and homeless."

She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person work
for the fifty dollars himself?"

"Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."

Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
personally ever witnessed.

Han wrote:


I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian,
but I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed
better. But that would have required even more stress and less
family-life.

Ok - fair enough on the surface. But... who determines that thing you call
"earnest effort"? You - who may be completely uniformed of the requirements
of the job or the industry - or the employer? I would be afraid of the
former (and not because it's you).

--

-Mike-

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more,
au contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than
they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...axes_excee.htm
l

It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
way around....

I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!

Full disclosu I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
company stock through mutual funds.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:02:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:



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.

Except that it *DID* happen, and more than once.

In our worst of our worst past - that I would agree with. There is a point
where desparation overwhelms all other considerations. But - that's not
really what we are talking about - is it?

--

-Mike-

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/17/2012 10:12 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

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.

Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.

Fine. Then neither should unions, PACs, the AARP, or any other
lobbying group. Similarly, groups like MoveOn, AlterNet, and so
forth should not be permitted to raise funds in support of any
political action. 'Sound good to you?

Yes. It should be a level playing field. BUT, what I object to is the
fact that currently much of the election hoopla is via advertisements etc
that do NOT disclose the individuals and groups supporting them. I think
it should be disclosed whether the money for the ad came from Adelson or
from AFLCIO.

What you're not getting here is that one of our fundamental natural
rights is to "associate" as we wish. Why is OK for an individual
to do something, but not for a bunch of individuals with common
goals and interests to do the same thing? A corporation is not some
faceless entity. It has owners - owners that have a shared set of
economic ambitions and owners that often have to act politically to
support those ambitions. And, BTW, these owners are not typically
the hated eeeeeeeeevil rich people, but more usually they are
investment and retirement institutions working on behalf of millions
of the average folks.

I don't think that (much as I'd want to) we can overturn the SCOTUS
decision that corporations are people (which I disagree with, as
previously noted, but it is now the law of the land). But it isn't right
that people can freely associate in claok and dagger groups that don't
reveal their identity.

So, the neverending attack on corporations is both morally malignant
and harms the middle and lower classes primarily....

Let the corporations be good citizens, rather than enrichment vehicles
for greedy executives.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08/17/2012 10:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is*results*. Some work hard
as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create wonders with apparently
no effort.

That's not actually even quite right. Absent fraud, force, or threat (either
in the private sector - unions, thugs, criminals - or by government - laws,
regulations) the price of labor is set by the relative supply to the demand.

For example, pretty much any able bodied person can dig a ditch, so this
doesn't pay much ... well, it does now because of the distorting forceful
effects of unions.

OTOH, there is a very small supply of neurologists in the country and they
get paid many, many multiples of what ditch diggers do. (Expect this
supply to further decrease as the We-Know-What's-Good-For-You crowd tries
to implement their insane "social justice" perversions.)

All things (results) being the same, if the situation were suddenly reversed
and there was a shortage of able bodied ditch diggers and a surplus of
neurologists, their incomes would invert.

For anyone reading this thread that is interested in a good grounding
in economics written for the non-specialist, I highly, highly recommend
this book. It is a classic and flattens a lot of the social justice boobery
heard these days even though the book itself is apolitical:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-...ckduckgo-lm-20

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

Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more, au
contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than they
make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

You should actually _read_ your citations to make sure they support your
assertions before posting.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...xes_excee.html

The citation here points out that taxes paid by consumers (e.g. taxes
paid at the pump or when refilling a farm tank), when added to the minimal taxes
paid by the oil companies, exceeds oil company profits. That's adding
apples and oranges and comparing them to bananas.

It surely doesn't support your assertions. Fact is that the oil companies make
profits, very large ones. Please refer to the relevent 10K and 10Q reports for the
actual facts, not some silly blog.

s

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bill wrote:

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)?


Of course. Hunger is a great motivator.

I saw this scenario on a blog, which I'll condense and paraphrase.

While working in my front-lawn flower-bed, my very liberal neighbors
passed by with their 9-year old girl. They stopped to admire the
flowers and I asked the girl "What do you want to be when you grow
up?"

"President" she replied.

"Oh," said I, "why?"

"Then I could make sure everybody had food and a home," was her
heartfelt answer.

"You don't have to become president to do that. Tell you what: I'll
give you fifty dollars each week to mow my grass and weed the flower
beds. Then you can take the fifty dollars down to the store and give
it to somebody that's hungry and homeless."

She thought for a moment, then said: "Why doesn't the homeless person
work for the fifty dollars himself?"

"Congratulations," I said. "You've just become a conservative."

Her parents became as close to spontaneous human combustion as I've
personally ever witnessed.

Nice story, and perfectly suited to an able-bodied person of sound mind.
There are others, though. Some homeless are sick, one way or another,
some paid exorbitant rents in house that suddenly blew up. And don't
misunderstand me, I don't think that abovementioned able-bodied person
should be cuddled.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 17 Aug 2012 15:12:39 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

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.

Then companies should not be allowed to make political contributions.

Unions are tax exempt. They shouldn't be able to participate in
elections, either.

Not without full disclosure. And expres consent of their members.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mike Marlow wrote:
Dave wrote:
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.

That's the kind of thinking that I have a problem with Dave. The
statement that the average worker does not need something is a
presumptuous statement. That presumes a level of living upon people. Can't
agree with that.

Responding to my own reply - I see another aspect of your reply Dave. I do
agree (it this is what you meant) that sufficient work can be accomplished
with a lesser tool. Sometimes the way it comes across in usenet is not so
revealing of the original intent.

--

-Mike-

On 8/17/2012 6:28 AM, Jack wrote:

Entering the country w/o permission is a misdemeanor (crime) the first
offense, and a felony (crime) thereafter.

Please cite the federal statute that supports your claim.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian,
but I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed
better. But that would have required even more stress and less
family-life.

Ok - fair enough on the surface. But... who determines that thing you
call "earnest effort"? You - who may be completely uniformed of the
requirements of the job or the industry - or the employer? I would be
afraid of the former (and not because it's you).

Obviously that is part of the direct supervisor's job. And nowadays
often (always?) part of job performance review. While I may dislike the
tree company's people lounging about instead of trimming that tree,
unless it is affecting me, I'm not complaining.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/17/2012 10:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is*results*. Some
work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
wonders with apparently no effort.

That's not actually even quite right. Absent fraud, force, or threat
(either in the private sector - unions, thugs, criminals - or by
government - laws, regulations) the price of labor is set by the
relative supply to the demand.

For example, pretty much any able bodied person can dig a ditch, so
this doesn't pay much ... well, it does now because of the distorting
forceful effects of unions.

OTOH, there is a very small supply of neurologists in the country and
they get paid many, many multiples of what ditch diggers do. (Expect
this supply to further decrease as the We-Know-What's-Good-For-You
crowd tries to implement their insane "social justice" perversions.)

All things (results) being the same, if the situation were suddenly
reversed and there was a shortage of able bodied ditch diggers and a
surplus of neurologists, their incomes would invert.

For anyone reading this thread that is interested in a good grounding
in economics written for the non-specialist, I highly, highly
recommend this book. It is a classic and flattens a lot of the social
justice boobery heard these days even though the book itself is
apolitical:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-...nderstand/dp/0
517548232?tag=duckduckgo-lm-20

Not necessarily apolitical. It is (according to Amazon) written by a
disciple of Ron Paul-like philosophies. Since it is thus likely anti-
Keynesian, it is prejudiced in ways opposite my prejudice.



--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08/17/2012 11:33 AM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/17/2012 10:19 AM, Han wrote:
And no, the
oilcompanies get sufficient subsidy now - no need to give them more,
au contraire.

I think you have this wrong. The oil companies pay more in taxes than
they make in profit in a typical year. Here is just one analysis with
supporting citation:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...axes_excee.htm
l

It is the *government* that is subsidized by the oilcos not the other
way around....

I'm sure this takes into account the subsidies like oil depletion
allowance etc. Takes into account environmental costs, surely!

Full disclosu I own 130 shares of Exxon directly, probably more oil
company stock through mutual funds.



I too own a chunk of ExxonMobil and wish them many happy years of high
profits and low taxes.

The problem in the US is not the lack of taxation. It is the complete lack
of fiscal control among the height and breadth of government...

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