Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: current labor force
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 6, 2012, 11:58:29 AM5/6/12
to
The other night I was chatting with a friend who is the manager our a
local Beal's store. For those of you not familiar with Beal's it is a
national (I think) department store.
We were discussing the economy and her opinion on whether it was
improving or not. She could not see a big jump but things were
improving.
What she complained about was employees. It seems she was having a
difficult time hiring employees that wanted to work 5-days a week. I
guess they are on a 5-day a week cycle. Anyway, she was complaining
that new employees would call in with a "problem" within the first few
days and not be able to make it to work that day. It was happening so
much that they had come to expect new employees to call in with a
problem during their first week.
And that my friend is why we have an illegal immigrant problem in this
country. Americans just do not want to work.
Of course Americans will work when the government stops paying them
not to.
mike
--
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
Technobarbarian
May 6, 2012, 12:18:24 PM5/6/12
to
"Mike Hendrix" <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote in message
news:ve7dq7lghamrge86p...@4ax.com...
>
> The other night I was chatting with a friend who is the manager our a
> local Beal's store. For those of you not familiar with Beal's it is a
> national (I think) department store.
>
> We were discussing the economy and her opinion on whether it was
> improving or not. She could not see a big jump but things were
> improving.
>
> What she complained about was employees. It seems she was having a
> difficult time hiring employees that wanted to work 5-days a week. I
> guess they are on a 5-day a week cycle. Anyway, she was complaining
> that new employees would call in with a "problem" within the first few
> days and not be able to make it to work that day. It was happening so
> much that they had come to expect new employees to call in with a
> problem during their first week.
>
> And that my friend is why we have an illegal immigrant problem in this
> country. Americans just do not want to work.
Bullshit. Some Americans do not want to work. Many do. At the wages
> The other night I was chatting with a friend who is the manager our a
> local Beal's store. For those of you not familiar with Beal's it is a
> national (I think) department store.
>
> We were discussing the economy and her opinion on whether it was
> improving or not. She could not see a big jump but things were
> improving.
>
> What she complained about was employees. It seems she was having a
> difficult time hiring employees that wanted to work 5-days a week. I
> guess they are on a 5-day a week cycle. Anyway, she was complaining
> that new employees would call in with a "problem" within the first few
> days and not be able to make it to work that day. It was happening so
> much that they had come to expect new employees to call in with a
> problem during their first week.
>
> And that my friend is why we have an illegal immigrant problem in this
> country. Americans just do not want to work.
department stores pay they're hiring from the bottom of the labor pool. I
knew a woman who worked for a major chain for over 20 years. At the end of
that time she was still making just slightly more than minimum wage.
My wife has been hiring people all over the country for weeks now.
For a little more money than what department stores pay you get a much
better quality employee.
TB
Hank
May 6, 2012, 12:28:03 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 12:18 pm, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
job than Mikes friend can supply (and many other reasons), But then
again, Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
one catagory.
Hank
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bullshit. Some Americans do not want to work. Many do. At the wages
> department stores pay they're hiring from the bottom of the labor pool. I
> knew a woman who worked for a major chain for over 20 years. At the end of
> that time she was still making just slightly more than minimum wage.
>
> My wife has been hiring people all over the country for weeks now.
> For a little more money than what department stores pay you get a much
> better quality employee.
>
> TB
I agree. Some may be taking a day off to look and apply for a better
>
> Bullshit. Some Americans do not want to work. Many do. At the wages
> department stores pay they're hiring from the bottom of the labor pool. I
> knew a woman who worked for a major chain for over 20 years. At the end of
> that time she was still making just slightly more than minimum wage.
>
> My wife has been hiring people all over the country for weeks now.
> For a little more money than what department stores pay you get a much
> better quality employee.
>
> TB
job than Mikes friend can supply (and many other reasons), But then
again, Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
one catagory.
Hank
LonVanOstran
May 6, 2012, 2:56:00 PM5/6/12
to
Hank wrote:
> Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
> one catagory.
Mike couldn't BE any farther than he is from being a Conservative.
> Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
> one catagory.
He doesn't have a Conservative bone in his body.
Lon
Technobarbarian
May 6, 2012, 5:29:53 PM5/6/12
to
"Technobarbarian" <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jo688h$kti$1...@dont-email.me...
use to claim everyone *wants* to work.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/48-philadelphia-transit-workers-all-still-working-after-winning-172-million-jackpot/2012/05/04/gIQAnMjZ1T_story.html>
"PHILADELPHIA - Four dozen Philadelphia transit agency workers who won a
$172 million Powerball drawing are all still working and don't intend to
change much about their lives despite becoming millionaires.
A pool of workers at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's
headquarters scored the winning ticket in the April 25 multi-state lottery.
They purchased the ticket at a newsstand across the street.
Though the annuity payout of 30 annual installments was $172 million, the
group decided to take a one-time cash payout, reducing their windfall to a
mere $107.5 million. Split 48 ways, it amounts to a little more than $2.2
million each before taxes.
Most of the "SEPTA 48," as they call themselves, attended a news conference
Friday at the agency's headquarters to smile for cameras with a giant
ceremonial check for $107,533,278.27 from Pennsylvania Lottery officials.
The real thing will be in winners' hands in four to six weeks, lottery
executive director Todd Rucci said.
All who spoke expressed gratitude for the security the windfall will provide
their families, but said they don't plan to make any drastic alterations.
"I will still bring my lunch every day," said winner Bryant Vaders with a
smile. "My wife makes a lovely lunch for me."
There are technically 49 winners because two co-workers split the $5
per-person buy-in for the office pool. They will split their $2.2 million
share.
The enviable crowd ranges in age from 26 to 69 and has logged SEPTA tenure
from less than a year to 42 years. They work in a variety of departments.
They declined to give specifics on their job titles but said none of the
winners currently works as a driver.
They come from "culture, backgrounds, heritages ... as varied as the
customer base we serve," said winner Robert Landgraf of suburban Abington."
[snip]
This also ties in with something else I was reading recently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-incredible-shrinking-labor-force/2012/05/04/gIQANXAy1T_blog.html
"The incredible shrinking labor force
Posted by Brad Plumer at 04:53 PM ET, 05/04/2012
If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack
Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent. If the
percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the
unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent.
That helps explain a seeming contradiction in the unemployment numbers - the
rate keeps dropping even though job creation has been soft.
In April, the U.S. economy added a mere 115,000 jobs, according to Bureau of
Labor Statistics data released Friday. In a normal month, that would not
even be enough to keep up with new entrants into the labor market. But in
this economy, it was enough to drive unemployment from 8.2 percent down to
8.1 percent, the lowest point since January 2009.
The explanation is a little-watched measure known as the "labor force
participation rate." That tracks the number of working-age Americans who are
holding a job or looking for one. Between March and April, it dropped by
342,000. But because the official unemployment rate counts only those
workers who are actively seeking work, that actually made the unemployment
rate go down.
Critics of the Obama administration have been quick to seize on this as the
real reason for the falling unemployment rate. In February, the Republican
National Committee released a research note on "The Missing Worker," arguing
that "over 3 million unemployed workers have called it quits due to
Obamanomics."
Economists say the story is considerably more complicated. For one thing,
the trend predates President Obama. And while part of the story is clearly
that the labor force is shrinking because the bad economy is driving workers
out, another significant factor is that baby boomers are beginning to retire
early - a trend that has worrying implications for future growth.
An accelerating trend
The percentage of Americans in the labor force has been declining for more
than a decade. In January 2000, 67.3 percent of Americans had a job or were
actively seeking work. By 2007, just before the recession, that had fallen
to 66 percent. In January 2009, the month Obama assumed the presidency, it
was 65.7 percent. Since then, it has fallen to 63.6 percent, a level not
seen since the first year of the Reagan administration.
The implications for returning to what economists call "full employment" are
significant. According to calculations by Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton
Project, if the labor force grows by 90,000 a month, then an economy
creating 200,000 jobs a month would take about eight years to return to full
employment. If the labor force grows by 125,000 a month - plausible if
discouraged workers begin returning to the labor force - it will take almost
14 years to return to full employment.
The 'discouraged worker' story
It's easy to see why some workers would, in the current environment, get
discouraged and stop looking for work altogether. There are about 3.7 job
seekers for every available opening.
"We're not going to see the labor force tick back up until there are enough
opportunities that the people who enter aren't faced with months of
fruitless job searches," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic
Policy Institute.
Once the economy improves, the theory goes, more workers will start
searching for jobs and the unemployment rate will go back up.
The more worrying possibility is that workers discouraged by bleak job
prospects will find themselves unable to return to the labor market even
after it improves. About 41 percent of the unemployed have been out of work
for more than 27 weeks, and economists have found that as workers remain
jobless for extended periods of time, their skills erode, their work
contacts move on, their motivation wanes and they have difficulty returning
to the labor force when the economy picks back up. They move from being
unemployed to being almost unemployable.
The 'demographics' story
But a number of economists are arguing that the recession is distracting
people from the real story - long-run demographic trends that have nothing
to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en
masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.
Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor
force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged
from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact
that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health
and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.
But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the
baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in
2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.
In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an
economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a
majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.
A smaller workforce means less growth
And what about the most recent downturn? Based on survey data, Maki found
that about 35 percent of Americans who have dropped out of the labor force
since the recession began in 2007 do want a job, but they have become too
discouraged to fire off résumés. That's a sign of a weak labor market. But
the other 65 percent are people who have left the labor force and do not
want a job. The biggest chunk of that group seems to be composed of baby
boomers, those 55 and older, who have decided to retire early."
[snip]
TB
Thats Me
May 6, 2012, 6:01:02 PM5/6/12
to
Obama) she wants to work but there just a no jobs that pay enough, She
needs to make $20hr to breakeven on a 25mi oneway commute. We had an
argument about her wanting to take a job at $15hr, I told her "no way
your doing that, I'm not going to pay $5hr just so you can get off
unemployment". This area is next to a major military installation and
there are lots of Active Duty spouses also looking for work with few
is any Government contracts being renewed (thank you Sen Harry Reid
for no budget).
Just my $0.05 worth
Happy Camping. ldp...@NOPANTS.juno.com
Remove NOPANTS To reply by direct E-Mail;
2003 Dodge 1500 QC SB Hemi, A/T, Tow Package, 3.92 gears (11 mpg Towing)
2001 Aerolite 21RDB 21ft TT (Scales 2900 dry)
Linux/Unix is user-friendly.
It's just very selective with who its friends are.
Bob Hatch
May 6, 2012, 6:11:36 PM5/6/12
to
This area is next to a major military installation and
> there are lots of Active Duty spouses also looking for work with few
> is any Government contracts being renewed (thank you Sen Harry Reid
> for no budget).
>
> Just my $0.05 worth
> Happy Camping. ldp...@NOPANTS.juno.com
> Remove NOPANTS To reply by direct E-Mail;
>
> 2003 Dodge 1500 QC SB Hemi, A/T, Tow Package, 3.92 gears (11 mpg Towing)
> 2001 Aerolite 21RDB 21ft TT (Scales 2900 dry)
>
> Linux/Unix is user-friendly.
> It's just very selective with who its friends are.
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man
to pay for what he does not want merely because
you think it would be good for him.”
? Robert A. Heinlein
LonVanOstran
May 6, 2012, 6:28:04 PM5/6/12
to
Thats Me wrote:
> My wife has been out of work for just over 14 months now, (Thank you
> Obama) she wants to work but there just a no jobs that pay enough, She
> needs to make $20hr to breakeven on a 25mi oneway commute. We had an
> argument about her wanting to take a job at $15hr, I told her "no way
> your doing that, I'm not going to pay $5hr just so you can get off
> unemployment".
You told her what? And you are still alive? My wife loves me, but I'm
> My wife has been out of work for just over 14 months now, (Thank you
> Obama) she wants to work but there just a no jobs that pay enough, She
> needs to make $20hr to breakeven on a 25mi oneway commute. We had an
> argument about her wanting to take a job at $15hr, I told her "no way
> your doing that, I'm not going to pay $5hr just so you can get off
> unemployment".
not stupid enough to tell her she isn't going to do something. On the
other hand, she isn't silly enough to tell me I'm not going to do
something, either. We respect each other more than that.
Lon
Technobarbarian
May 6, 2012, 8:00:01 PM5/6/12
to
"Thats Me" <yqc...@whab.pbz> wrote in message
news:1urdq7dv4pgu0k3oe...@4ax.com...
> My wife has been out of work for just over 14 months now, (Thank you
> Obama) she wants to work but there just a no jobs that pay enough, She
> needs to make $20hr to breakeven on a 25mi oneway commute. We had an
> argument about her wanting to take a job at $15hr, I told her "no way
> your doing that, I'm not going to pay $5hr just so you can get off
> unemployment". This area is next to a major military installation and
> there are lots of Active Duty spouses also looking for work with few
> is any Government contracts being renewed (thank you Sen Harry Reid
> for no budget).
up? Daycare? Whatever the math is this is a situation you put yourselves in.
Entitled much? Eventually the unemployment insurance runs out. What are you
going to do then? I think your logic is seriously flawed in a number of
other ways. It's a lot easier to go from a $15/hour job to a $20/hour job
than it is to go from doin' nothin' to a $20/hour job. There are a lot of
companies who will not hire anyone who either doesn't already have a job or
who has been out of work for more than 6 months. Right or wrong they figure
those folks don't really want to work.
You're blaming a sorts of other people for your problem. Are the rest
of us supposed to pony up enough tax dollars so your wife can have a nice
fat do nothing government job at $20+/hour? Personally I think waiting for
the government to help you out is a trap. Even though I don't believe in a
God who gives a damn, I still figure the Lord helps those who help
themselves. This includes wheeling the lawn mower around and knocking on
doors if necessary. I've gone from jobs that didn't pay much to ones that
did because the person doing the hiring could see that I was willing to work
and knew how to show up on time every morning.
TB
"80% of success is showing up." Woody Allen
Thats Me
May 6, 2012, 8:14:47 PM5/6/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:11:36 -0700, Bob Hatch <bob....@ymail.com>
wrote:
No Problem, Cost to operate automobile, cost for parking, misc costs
associated with transportation roughly $1.39 a mile times 50 miles a
day equals $69.50 a day or $8.69 an hour. Her Unemployment is $453 a
week or 11.33 per hour, thus $20.01 for BEP (I'll eat the penny, 8
cents a day but I won't swallow 5 buck an hour).
wrote:
associated with transportation roughly $1.39 a mile times 50 miles a
day equals $69.50 a day or $8.69 an hour. Her Unemployment is $453 a
week or 11.33 per hour, thus $20.01 for BEP (I'll eat the penny, 8
cents a day but I won't swallow 5 buck an hour).
nothermark
May 6, 2012, 8:21:01 PM5/6/12
to
$10/hr. That was a couple of years ago and he was a skilled worker
with a class A CDL and low level managerial experience. $40K is very
good money in todays market even for many very skilled folks. Too
much competition for the jobs that are out there.
Dean
May 6, 2012, 8:50:01 PM5/6/12
to
wage skills, WTF do you expect. The people in this gimme culture have
lost the initiative gene, I guess.
I never stayed in the same job (position/skill) for more than one year
during my 50 year career. I either would be promoted to a higher
skill, higher paying position or I would get bored and seek a higher
skill set job. I never took a cut in pay and always had A++ reviews.
I went to work for a company and one of the jobs was aligning one
figure to another. The guy that had been doing it had been there
about one month longer than I. He was on vacation one week and I was
handed the job. I turned out 4-5 times as any parts in a shift as he
did. And the failure rate was Zero. They put him on another job.
--
If you can get people to believe absurdities,
you can get them to commit atrocities.
-Voltaire
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 6, 2012, 9:48:16 PM5/6/12
to
government stops paying them not to. In this case the $453 a week
unemployment check is the reason this individual is NOT working.
No matter how you cut it....... people will start working when the
Government stops paying people not to work.
Technobarbarian
May 6, 2012, 10:26:13 PM5/6/12
to
"Thats Me" <yqc...@whab.pbz> wrote in message
with--a diesel pusher?
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=250882,00.html
R-2011-116, Dec. 9, 2011
WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service today issued the 2012 optional
standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating
an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes.
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2012, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car
(also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:
55.5 cents per mile for business miles driven
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2012/04/cost-of-owning-and-operating-vehicle-in-u-s-increased-1-9-percent-according-to-aaa%E2%80%99s-2012-%E2%80%98your-driving-costs%E2%80%99-study/
ORLANDO,Fla., (April 27, 2012) - AAA released the results of its annual
'Your Driving Costs' study today revealing a 1.9 percent rise in the yearly
costs to own and operate a sedan in the U.S. The average costs rose 1.1
cents per mile to 59.6 cents per mile, or $8,946 per year, based upon 15,000
miles of annual driving.
"The average driving cost for 2012 is up due to relatively large increases
in fuel and tire costs, and more moderate increases in other areas," said
John Nielsen, AAA director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. "Those
increases were offset by a decrease in depreciation resulting in an overall
increase of 1.9 percent."
I figure those estimates are pretty generous. By driving carefully
selected used cars I figure I beat those numbers. I would have never
survived the days when I was driving a lot more than I am now if I was
paying anything close to your estimate. We used to think nothing of driving
two cars to Phoenix, 120 miles one way, driving both of them all over town
for a few days, and paying for a motel out of our end of the contract. We've
worked our way up to less driving and better pay, and it just keeps getting
better. I haven't had to run up to Phoenix or down to Douglas for awhile
now. The way things are working out I expect my next long distance commutes
to be by airplane and rental car--paid for by someone else.
My situation is a bit different than most of you guys. I have a
fairly young wife. There are some mighty good aspects to this and some not
so good. One of them is that I figure if I know what's good for me I had
better support her career both ways--good times and bad. She used to work
for a major airlines. It's run by idiots. I won't go into details, but when
things weren't going well I told her I would back her up if she wanted to
tell them to take their job and shove it. When they parted company it was
hard on her, but I figured it was mostly a good thing. With what's going on
with them now it was obvious a VERY good thing. The way things worked out we
both changed careers at about the same time. We didn't know it at the time,
but the only way our timing could have been better is if we had done it
sooner. I've done all sorts of things to support here career since then.
When we worked together I was usually the boss. She has learned a lot of her
job from me, but she's a smart gal and has picked up a lot of stuff on her
own. I also learn from her. When that was what was called for I've also been
her assistant. (And I'm good at that too.)
I doubt that my situation is all *that* different from yours. If you
don't support your wife's decisions and her career--who will? Where I live
the days when the wife's job was secondary are long gone. I think you are
being extremely short sighted.
TB
Bruce S
May 6, 2012, 10:36:44 PM5/6/12
to
On 5/6/2012 3:01 PM, Thats Me wrote:
driving a vehicle, where it will cost you $160 a day to commute to a
lousy 25 miles to work, that is your own fault. And if you are getting
enough from unemployment to prevent starvation, you are getting way too
much.
--
Bruce
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -
Flannery O'Connor
Bob Hatch
May 6, 2012, 11:11:45 PM5/6/12
to
What do you consider "misc costs associated with transportation?"
>
>>
>>> This area is next to a major military installation and
>>> there are lots of Active Duty spouses also looking for work with few
>>> is any Government contracts being renewed (thank you Sen Harry Reid
>>> for no budget).
>>>
>>> Just my $0.05 worth
>>> Happy Camping. ldp...@NOPANTS.juno.com
>>> Remove NOPANTS To reply by direct E-Mail;
>>>
>>> 2003 Dodge 1500 QC SB Hemi, A/T, Tow Package, 3.92 gears (11 mpg Towing)
>>> 2001 Aerolite 21RDB 21ft TT (Scales 2900 dry)
>>>
>>> Linux/Unix is user-friendly.
>>> It's just very selective with who its friends are.
>
> Happy Camping. ldp...@NOPANTS.juno.com
> Remove NOPANTS To reply by direct E-Mail;
>
> 2003 Dodge 1500 QC SB Hemi, A/T, Tow Package, 3.92 gears (11 mpg Towing)
> 2001 Aerolite 21RDB 21ft TT (Scales 2900 dry)
>
> Linux/Unix is user-friendly.
> It's just very selective with who its friends are.
>>
>>> This area is next to a major military installation and
>>> there are lots of Active Duty spouses also looking for work with few
>>> is any Government contracts being renewed (thank you Sen Harry Reid
>>> for no budget).
>>>
>>> Just my $0.05 worth
>>> Happy Camping. ldp...@NOPANTS.juno.com
>>> Remove NOPANTS To reply by direct E-Mail;
>>>
>>> 2003 Dodge 1500 QC SB Hemi, A/T, Tow Package, 3.92 gears (11 mpg Towing)
>>> 2001 Aerolite 21RDB 21ft TT (Scales 2900 dry)
>>>
>>> Linux/Unix is user-friendly.
>>> It's just very selective with who its friends are.
>
> Happy Camping. ldp...@NOPANTS.juno.com
> Remove NOPANTS To reply by direct E-Mail;
>
> 2003 Dodge 1500 QC SB Hemi, A/T, Tow Package, 3.92 gears (11 mpg Towing)
> 2001 Aerolite 21RDB 21ft TT (Scales 2900 dry)
>
> Linux/Unix is user-friendly.
> It's just very selective with who its friends are.
nothermark
May 6, 2012, 11:49:01 PM5/6/12
to
Don Lampson
May 7, 2012, 4:33:52 AM5/7/12
to
On May 6, 7:36 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 3:01 PM, Thats Me wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:18:24 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
> > <Technobarbarian-ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 3:01 PM, Thats Me wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:18:24 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
any good Republican would? HawHawHaw!
Diamond Jim Brady
LonVanOstran
May 7, 2012, 6:40:53 AM5/7/12
to
Lon
nothermark
May 7, 2012, 7:29:01 AM5/7/12
to
cannot be any bargaining as long as one side has most of the power.
Technobarbarian
May 7, 2012, 10:02:22 AM5/7/12
to
"Don Lampson" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c25502cf-026f-4c8f...@ee2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
raining enough money on him. This could be one of the legendary
ubber-Liberals that we see so many horror stories about here.
TB
Bruce S
May 7, 2012, 11:51:42 AM5/7/12
to
$15/hour job because they were better off on unemployment. Their
unemployment is about $453/week too much.
LonVanOstran
May 7, 2012, 2:19:54 PM5/7/12
to
nothermark wrote:
> In a true capitalist society large corporations would not exist. There
> cannot be any bargaining as long as one side has most of the power.
Your first sentence is false, and your second is irrelevant to
> In a true capitalist society large corporations would not exist. There
> cannot be any bargaining as long as one side has most of the power.
Capitalism, since nobody can be forced into servitude under true Capitalism.
Lon
D-R
May 7, 2012, 2:20:47 PM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 7:29 AM, nothermark wrote:
> In a true capitalist society large corporations would not exist. There
> cannot be any bargaining as long as one side has most of the power.
Could someone explain the FEELING behind this collection of words
> In a true capitalist society large corporations would not exist. There
> cannot be any bargaining as long as one side has most of the power.
because I know there was no thinking...
--
AJ -- To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Payne
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 7, 2012, 4:43:24 PM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 08:51:42 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
------------------------------
Exactly my point Bruce.
And to add to the gall he was pissed with "the president" that she did
not have a "good-job".
It is always some one else's fault.
But like I said they will work when the government stops paying them
to not work.
wrote:
Exactly my point Bruce.
And to add to the gall he was pissed with "the president" that she did
not have a "good-job".
It is always some one else's fault.
But like I said they will work when the government stops paying them
to not work.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 7, 2012, 4:48:29 PM5/7/12
to
TB, I wonder whether that "notme" poster is a DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN?
He sounds like a DEMOCRAT but one never knows.
Any thoughts?
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 7, 2012, 4:54:00 PM5/7/12
to
Don, I am not sure if "thats me" is a DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN.
He does blame the "president" for his wife not having a "good job".
But then again, he is squeezing all he can out of the GOVERNMENT.
Something tells me "thats me" is a DEMOCRAT, it is just the way he is
"living" and his "logic".
nothermark
May 7, 2012, 5:25:01 PM5/7/12
to
jobs do not pay nearly that well. I could also have pointed out that
it was highly unlikely the job sat there unfilled because his wife was
not availalable and that if she turned that one down it was unlikely
she would easily get another offer once her unemployment runs out. I
think he really wants her at home "where she belongs". ;-)
Bruce S
May 7, 2012, 5:30:27 PM5/7/12
to
said both he and his wife worked in education at one time, so who knows.
Bruce S
May 7, 2012, 5:49:19 PM5/7/12
to
their choices. Foreclosure, bankruptcy, indigency, hunger - all fates
that they have completely earned.
nothermark
May 7, 2012, 6:05:01 PM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:20:47 -0400, D-R <##!!!!@home.com> wrote:
>On 5/7/2012 7:29 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
>> In a true capitalist society large corporations would not exist. There
>> cannot be any bargaining as long as one side has most of the power.
>
> Could someone explain the FEELING behind this collection of words
>because I know there was no thinking...
No "feeling" involved. Capitalism is based on bargaining. One cannot
>On 5/7/2012 7:29 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
>> In a true capitalist society large corporations would not exist. There
>> cannot be any bargaining as long as one side has most of the power.
>
> Could someone explain the FEELING behind this collection of words
>because I know there was no thinking...
engage in bargaining unless both sides have more or less equal power.
If the power is too lopsided it becomes a case of the weaker side
begging. Let's try a couple of examples:
Farmer John plants a couple of acres of sweet corn over what he has
contracted. The corn on contract is sold at a price set by the
canner/buyer co op that he has a contract with. They set the price.
He takes their price because he has no other high volume market. He
opens a stand to sell the rest of his corn. He sets his sell price
and his neighbors can take it or leave it. One neighbor plans a party
so he hits up John for a special price for 10 dozen ears, John can
take it or leave it. It's enough to get John's attention but the
buyer can also hit up Farmer Jack so they both have bargaining power.
It's the same deal in any business arrangement. Unions did not make
sense when 10 men was a big shop. Workers needed work but had
options, owners need workers but have options.
When the big factory comes to town and hires 75% of the workforce they
dictate what they pay. Yes, they can play favorites and juggle a bit
here and a bit there but they have a more or less fixed amount for
payroll. The workers take it or leave it. If they leave it their
choices are significantly limited. If the owner is fair everything is
wonderful and the few disgruntled folks take a hike. OTOH, if the
owner is more focused on maximizing worker output than caring for the
workforce it puts the workers in the position of lumping it or
balancing the owners power by unionizing the workforce. The owner
cannot fire them all and keep the plant running. We are back in a
power balance.
Back to the question. Folks who focus on "true capitalism" often want
a situation where the company and the stock holders dictate to the
workers what they will pay. The worker can take it or leave it but
has few choices outside of the "the company" so many take it as their
only alternative. That is not capitalism as there is no bargaining
involved.
I can reason through this in many ways. I can discuss it rationally.
No "feeling" involved. If you cannot do that I suggest you think
about who is "feeling" and who is "reasoning".
Vito
May 7, 2012, 6:11:57 PM5/7/12
to
"Thats Me" <yqc...@whab.pbz> wrote
I don't understand. 50 miles @ say 15 mpg or so is only $12 - 15/day,
plus parking. The other costs (insurance, depreciation, etc) accrue
anyway. So ... ?????
| No Problem, Cost to operate automobile, cost for parking, misc costs
| associated with transportation roughly $1.39 a mile times 50 miles a
| day equals $69.50 a day or .....
| associated with transportation roughly $1.39 a mile times 50 miles a
I don't understand. 50 miles @ say 15 mpg or so is only $12 - 15/day,
plus parking. The other costs (insurance, depreciation, etc) accrue
anyway. So ... ?????
NotMe
May 7, 2012, 7:12:37 PM5/7/12
to
"Mike Hendrix" <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote in message
I've not posted anything in this tread until now.
As to my (NotMe) political world view I was once a Goldwater Republican who
voted for GWB in his first run for Texas Gov but not his second. I've
since move to Independent.
Save for massive medical problems that forced me into retirement I've been
gainfully employed since I was a very young teen.
LonVanOstran
May 7, 2012, 8:14:31 PM5/7/12
to
nothermark wrote:
> No "feeling" involved. Capitalism is based on bargaining. One cannot
> engage in bargaining unless both sides have more or less equal power.
> If the power is too lopsided it becomes a case of the weaker side
> begging. Let's try a couple of examples:
Your problem is that you have no confidence in your own abilities, or
> No "feeling" involved. Capitalism is based on bargaining. One cannot
> engage in bargaining unless both sides have more or less equal power.
> If the power is too lopsided it becomes a case of the weaker side
> begging. Let's try a couple of examples:
your own value to society. I've never been powerless in any negotiation
in my life. So long as you have something to either offer or withhold,
you have power.
I feel sorry for those with so little self confidence that they are
willing to enslave themselves in order to avoid finding out their own
true worth. That pity turns to disgust when they wish to enslave ME in
order that they not find out their own true worth.
Lon
Technobarbarian
May 7, 2012, 8:28:01 PM5/7/12
to
"Mike Hendrix" <mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote in message
me. Of course, on this group, playing the percentages, I automatically
assume new identities are trolls until they prove otherwise--particularly
when they don't make sense right from the git go.
TB
Bruce S
May 7, 2012, 11:27:15 PM5/7/12
to
reality that there will be other jobs, other buyers, other sellers. With
free markets, and if one business, person, buyer, seller, does not meet
your needs, there will be others to fill the gap - or you will be forced
to re-evaluate the reality of what you are seeking.
Bruce S
May 7, 2012, 11:31:12 PM5/7/12
to
as regular at posting now as he once was. He has changed names several
times which is why he appears new - however, he has kept a fairly
consistent sig which makes him identifiable.
Don Lampson
May 8, 2012, 12:03:23 AM5/8/12
to
Andrew Jackson
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 8, 2012, 9:06:54 AM5/8/12
to
Blaming Obama is certainly the trademark of a Republican. But on the
other hand he screams Democrat.
The guy has an avoidance of work attitude/mentality that is generally
associated with "freeloading" Democrats.
That is why I asked the question.
nothermark
May 8, 2012, 11:04:01 AM5/8/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:27:15 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Your dilusion is that we are still in the buggy factory days where
somebody can go in business with hand tools and a few employee's. It
has not been that way for over 100 years.
wrote:
somebody can go in business with hand tools and a few employee's. It
has not been that way for over 100 years.
Bruce S
May 8, 2012, 12:09:03 PM5/8/12
to
small start-ups succeed every day. Wasn't that long ago that Walmart,
Microsoft, Apple, Verizon, Cisco, Home Depot, McDonald's, and Intel were
all small start-up companies - in fact, those companies (some of the
biggest in the world) all started in YOUR lifetime.
We do not live in a closed society - it is always possible to find
someone else to do business with or to become that someone.
nothermark
May 8, 2012, 12:33:01 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 09:09:03 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
be that they would be your competition.
scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
be that they would be your competition.
Bruce S
May 8, 2012, 12:49:13 PM5/8/12
to
If your beliefs had any merit, no small company could start today and
ever hope to be anything but a mom and pop operation. That idea is
complete bullshit - every day small companies are growing and in a few
years some (many?) of them will become BIG companies. And if we could
get the government completely out of the way, we would see even more of
that.
D-R
May 8, 2012, 1:16:43 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 12:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
> be that they would be your competition.
Everything you write is about reasons to fail. You have your excuses
> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
> be that they would be your competition.
all lined up so there is no reason to try.. Your glass is always half empty.
nothermark
May 8, 2012, 1:44:00 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 09:49:13 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
Then explain it to me. After 45 years of watching business's operate
I do agree that we do not seem to see the same things.
I do agree that we do not seem to see the same things.
nothermark
May 8, 2012, 1:49:01 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:16:43 -0400, D-R <##!!!!@home.com> wrote:
>On 5/8/2012 12:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
>> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
>> be that they would be your competition.
>
> Everything you write is about reasons to fail. You have your excuses
>all lined up so there is no reason to try.. Your glass is always half empty.
No, I write about a lot of things. I also have worked through several
>On 5/8/2012 12:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
>> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
>> be that they would be your competition.
>
> Everything you write is about reasons to fail. You have your excuses
>all lined up so there is no reason to try.. Your glass is always half empty.
startup business's as well as working for the Fortune 500. Bruce's
answer to everything is uncontrolled free market competition. I do
not see how that would solve our problems as I see the cost of entry
into manufacturing these days. If you think I am wrong then you tell
me why. Just saying it proves nothing.
Dean
May 8, 2012, 1:56:39 PM5/8/12
to
>On 5/8/2012 12:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
>> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
>> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
>> be that they would be your competition.
>
> Everything you write is about reasons to fail. You have your excuses
>all lined up so there is no reason to try.. Your glass is always half empty.
Business startups are at a record low. Cost of doing so are high, that
>> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
>> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
>> be that they would be your competition.
>
> Everything you write is about reasons to fail. You have your excuses
>all lined up so there is no reason to try.. Your glass is always half empty.
they cannot get financing.
--
If you can get people to believe absurdities,
you can get them to commit atrocities.
-Voltaire
Bruce S
May 8, 2012, 2:11:00 PM5/8/12
to
intervention. In fact, you have gotten so used to government
intervention that you believe that such intervention is the natural
state of affairs.
In a free market the only place for government involvement it to prevent
crime - real crime, not some sort of regulatory nonsense - crime like
theft (taking your money and not providing product) or gross fraud (most
of what passes for anti-fraud law is really an excuse to relieve people
of the responsibility to do their own due diligence).
For a couple small scale examples of free markets, look at garage sales
and auctions. In both cases people offer a product and other people try
to obtain that product. The sellers ask a price and the buyers
negotiate that price - those negotiations are made with both the seller
and the other buyers. In the end both buyers and sellers leave
satisfied - a price has been agreed upon that causes both sides to get
what they want - or no sale happens. No force, no coercion, just free
trade.
Now, before you say that will only work on the small scale of yard
sales, you are wrong - it works everywhere on whatever scale you can
choose. You don't notice the auction going on when you go into Walmart,
but you look at the camping equipment, check the quality, compare the
price, and then make your bid (you either buy it, or you don't). If
Walmart has priced it too high, you keep your money and look elsewhere.
If the price is low, they sell a lot of them, and realize they could
ask more, so they raise the price.
Every day, every transaction is part of the auction - unless the
government gets involved and changes the rules. Your problem is that
you are scared to death of the freedom that comes with a market economy,
and you want to be protected from yourself, so you want the government
to step in and regulate everything. You want to be lazy and never have
to do the work of protecting yourself - and (of course) you are so
arrogant that you believe that most people are incapable of protecting
themselves - so you demand that the government relieve them of any
responsibility for their own decisions.
On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the job of watching my
own back, and am quite willing to accept the consequences for failing to
do a good job of it. But far more importantly, I believe that the vast
majority of people are capable of doing the same thing, and those who
aren't are not my problem - their families, friends, neighbors,
churches, civic organizations and other people who know them personally
can take on that task - or just leave them to learn the hard way.
And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
LonVanOstran
May 8, 2012, 4:24:51 PM5/8/12
to
nothermark wrote:
> Your dilusion is that we are still in the buggy factory days where
> somebody can go in business with hand tools and a few employee's. It
> has not been that way for over 100 years.
What? Your drug supply is way out of hand. Take fewer of them.
> Your dilusion is that we are still in the buggy factory days where
> somebody can go in business with hand tools and a few employee's. It
> has not been that way for over 100 years.
Lon
LonVanOstran
May 8, 2012, 4:25:48 PM5/8/12
to
Lon
nothermark
May 8, 2012, 4:45:03 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:11:00 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
Partly true, partly not. Government's have been interferring in
business since there were governments. That is what they do. They
make the rules business's need to follow and they collect taxes as
fee's for doing it. OTOH if the rules set a level playing field
where everybody is free to compete with the same burden it does not
really matter.
You are too busy hating govenment to see that.
Our country has a problem because a lot of big business has figured
out that it is cheaper to export jobs than to play by the rules here.
Now a bunch are whining because they made a lot of money doing that
but they cannot bring the money back without paying the taxes on it.
Poor babies. They cost us more and want to get paid for doing it.
business since there were governments. That is what they do. They
make the rules business's need to follow and they collect taxes as
fee's for doing it. OTOH if the rules set a level playing field
where everybody is free to compete with the same burden it does not
really matter.
You are too busy hating govenment to see that.
Our country has a problem because a lot of big business has figured
out that it is cheaper to export jobs than to play by the rules here.
Now a bunch are whining because they made a lot of money doing that
but they cannot bring the money back without paying the taxes on it.
Poor babies. They cost us more and want to get paid for doing it.
Bruce S
May 8, 2012, 6:16:34 PM5/8/12
to
marketplace is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically, the only
interference from kings was collection of personal taxes - businesses
were pretty much left alone since the better they did, the more money
their owners had to use for taxes.
A level playing field is a communist myth - no two people have the same
intellect, skills, talents, or contacts. Any efforts to legislate
equality is doomed to end in equal failure.
Lone Haranguer
May 8, 2012, 7:12:35 PM5/8/12
to
Dean wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:16:43 -0400, D-R<##!!!!@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2012 12:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
>>> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
>>> be that they would be your competition.
>> Everything you write is about reasons to fail. You have your excuses
>> all lined up so there is no reason to try.. Your glass is always half empty.
> Business startups are at a record low. Cost of doing so are high, that
> they cannot get financing.
>
You can start your own business with a minimum of cash
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:16:43 -0400, D-R<##!!!!@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2012 12:33 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> The short answer is no. Duplicating any of those companies from
>>> scratch would be daunting in today's world. Your first problem would
>>> be that they would be your competition.
>> Everything you write is about reasons to fail. You have your excuses
>> all lined up so there is no reason to try.. Your glass is always half empty.
> Business startups are at a record low. Cost of doing so are high, that
> they cannot get financing.
>
investment....IF.....you have experience or knowledge to market.
LZ
Vito
May 8, 2012, 8:21:49 PM5/8/12
to
"LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote
My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two choices:
offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it or
not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no authority to
better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
| Your problem is that you have no confidence in your own abilities, or
| your own value to society. I've never been powerless in any negotiation
| in my life. So long as you have something to either offer or withhold,
| you have power.
In theory, but ....
| your own value to society. I've never been powerless in any negotiation
| in my life. So long as you have something to either offer or withhold,
| you have power.
My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two choices:
offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it or
not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no authority to
better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
LonVanOstran
May 8, 2012, 8:42:28 PM5/8/12
to
Capitalism. It's a condemnation of your self esteem and or job
preparation. Nobody lives in such a vacuum that they have only one
choice of how to build a future. Think small, stay small. We all have
choices. Lots of them. You were not obliged to accept that limited offer
from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
Lon
LonVanOstran
May 8, 2012, 8:53:37 PM5/8/12
to
nothermark wrote:
> You are too busy hating govenment to see that.
It's not necessary to HATE government to recognize it as the necessary
> You are too busy hating govenment to see that.
evil which it is. We can't get by without government, but need not
worship it the way you do. Some of us recognize that government is
dangerous, and a threat to the very freedom it is charged with
defending. We obviously value our freedom more than you do. You fear
Liberty more than you fear losing it. That's sad.
Lon, who pities those like mark who live in constant fear of accepting
responsibility for their own lives.
nothermark
May 8, 2012, 9:30:01 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 15:16:34 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
Sorry, I missed this last time.
For the most part there is a big difference between garage sales and
Walmart. Garage sales are extracting some value from "stuff" so any
money is profit. Walmart, or any other retail business, needs to set
prices high enough to cover their costs plus make a profit but low
enough to get my business in preference to the competition. Your
auction idea is only part of the mix. One of the reasons the old
Montgomery Wards went belly up was their distribution costs got so far
out of line that they could not sell cheap enough to compete. There
are many more examples of that.
>>>
>>> Every day, every transaction is part of the auction - unless the
>>> government gets involved and changes the rules. Your problem is that
>>> you are scared to death of the freedom that comes with a market economy,
>>> and you want to be protected from yourself, so you want the government
>>> to step in and regulate everything.
You are misreading me. I am quite content to let the market set
pricing.
The protections I want from the government are along the lines of
assuring the product is what the box says it is and, in the case of
food and medicine that it is prepared and packaged in a clean
environment with reasonably pure materials. Individuals have no way
of telling that on one hand but the potential for damage is great on
the other.
>>>You want to be lazy and never have
>>> to do the work of protecting yourself - and (of course) you are so
>>> arrogant that you believe that most people are incapable of protecting
>>> themselves - so you demand that the government relieve them of any
>>> responsibility for their own decisions.
It's not a question of laziness or arrogance. Few people have he
knowledge or facilities to test every chemical compound they buy to
make sure it is what the box says it is. That is why the people
delegate the chore to the government and supposedly fund them to do
it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the job of watching my
>>> own back, and am quite willing to accept the consequences for failing to
>>> do a good job of it.
I do not know if you are really that talented, that arrogant, that
naive, or that stupid. You pick.
>>>But far more importantly, I believe that the vast
>>> majority of people are capable of doing the same thing, and those who
>>> aren't are not my problem - their families, friends, neighbors,
>>> churches, civic organizations and other people who know them personally
>>> can take on that task - or just leave them to learn the hard way.
I think most of them profoundly disagree with you. I hear a lot more
folks complaining that about the lack of oversight than I do about
wanting to do their own. Few folks want to need to test for poison in
their baby formula. It would seem that if my numbers are anywhere
near correct then in any semblance of a representative government that
would become a government function.
>>>
>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
>>
>> Partly true, partly not. Government's have been interferring in
>> business since there were governments. That is what they do. They
>> make the rules business's need to follow and they collect taxes as
>> fee's for doing it. OTOH if the rules set a level playing field
>> where everybody is free to compete with the same burden it does not
>> really matter.
>>
>> You are too busy hating govenment to see that.
>>
>> Our country has a problem because a lot of big business has figured
>> out that it is cheaper to export jobs than to play by the rules here.
>>
>> Now a bunch are whining because they made a lot of money doing that
>> but they cannot bring the money back without paying the taxes on it.
>> Poor babies. They cost us more and want to get paid for doing it.
>
>Actually in the course of human history, government interference in the
>marketplace is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically, the only
>interference from kings was collection of personal taxes - businesses
>were pretty much left alone since the better they did, the more money
>their owners had to use for taxes.
Governmental interference goes back at least to the Fairs in Europe
where caravans were taxed for transiting lands on the way to the Fair
and taxed at the Fair for use of the site. It probably goes back to
the Egyptians who collected the grain crop, stored it, and doled it
out. They developed early mathematics to record the grain records as
well as survey farm plots and regulate irrigation water usage. It
probably goes farther than that but records that old are hard to come
by.
>
>A level playing field is a communist myth - no two people have the same
>intellect, skills, talents, or contacts. Any efforts to legislate
>equality is doomed to end in equal failure.
Wrong focus. A level playing field is quite possible in the business
world. Ability and talent are how well one plays the game not what
the game is. It is quite possible to define the game. The problem we
are dealing with now is that the rules are not the same for all the
players. That can, and should, be fixed.
For the most part there is a big difference between garage sales and
Walmart. Garage sales are extracting some value from "stuff" so any
money is profit. Walmart, or any other retail business, needs to set
prices high enough to cover their costs plus make a profit but low
enough to get my business in preference to the competition. Your
auction idea is only part of the mix. One of the reasons the old
Montgomery Wards went belly up was their distribution costs got so far
out of line that they could not sell cheap enough to compete. There
are many more examples of that.
>>>
>>> Every day, every transaction is part of the auction - unless the
>>> government gets involved and changes the rules. Your problem is that
>>> you are scared to death of the freedom that comes with a market economy,
>>> and you want to be protected from yourself, so you want the government
>>> to step in and regulate everything.
pricing.
The protections I want from the government are along the lines of
assuring the product is what the box says it is and, in the case of
food and medicine that it is prepared and packaged in a clean
environment with reasonably pure materials. Individuals have no way
of telling that on one hand but the potential for damage is great on
the other.
>>>You want to be lazy and never have
>>> to do the work of protecting yourself - and (of course) you are so
>>> arrogant that you believe that most people are incapable of protecting
>>> themselves - so you demand that the government relieve them of any
>>> responsibility for their own decisions.
knowledge or facilities to test every chemical compound they buy to
make sure it is what the box says it is. That is why the people
delegate the chore to the government and supposedly fund them to do
it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the job of watching my
>>> own back, and am quite willing to accept the consequences for failing to
>>> do a good job of it.
naive, or that stupid. You pick.
>>>But far more importantly, I believe that the vast
>>> majority of people are capable of doing the same thing, and those who
>>> aren't are not my problem - their families, friends, neighbors,
>>> churches, civic organizations and other people who know them personally
>>> can take on that task - or just leave them to learn the hard way.
folks complaining that about the lack of oversight than I do about
wanting to do their own. Few folks want to need to test for poison in
their baby formula. It would seem that if my numbers are anywhere
near correct then in any semblance of a representative government that
would become a government function.
>>>
>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
>>
>> Partly true, partly not. Government's have been interferring in
>> business since there were governments. That is what they do. They
>> make the rules business's need to follow and they collect taxes as
>> fee's for doing it. OTOH if the rules set a level playing field
>> where everybody is free to compete with the same burden it does not
>> really matter.
>>
>> You are too busy hating govenment to see that.
>>
>> Our country has a problem because a lot of big business has figured
>> out that it is cheaper to export jobs than to play by the rules here.
>>
>> Now a bunch are whining because they made a lot of money doing that
>> but they cannot bring the money back without paying the taxes on it.
>> Poor babies. They cost us more and want to get paid for doing it.
>
>Actually in the course of human history, government interference in the
>marketplace is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically, the only
>interference from kings was collection of personal taxes - businesses
>were pretty much left alone since the better they did, the more money
>their owners had to use for taxes.
where caravans were taxed for transiting lands on the way to the Fair
and taxed at the Fair for use of the site. It probably goes back to
the Egyptians who collected the grain crop, stored it, and doled it
out. They developed early mathematics to record the grain records as
well as survey farm plots and regulate irrigation water usage. It
probably goes farther than that but records that old are hard to come
by.
>
>A level playing field is a communist myth - no two people have the same
>intellect, skills, talents, or contacts. Any efforts to legislate
>equality is doomed to end in equal failure.
world. Ability and talent are how well one plays the game not what
the game is. It is quite possible to define the game. The problem we
are dealing with now is that the rules are not the same for all the
players. That can, and should, be fixed.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 8, 2012, 10:19:42 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:11:00 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
Bruce, you did a good job of explaining things to Mark but you can bet
your sweet ass Mark is looking through a different pair of shades.
Mark doesn't like any part of the free market system but the cheap
prices.
Sit back and watch what Mark writes in response to your explanation.
your sweet ass Mark is looking through a different pair of shades.
Mark doesn't like any part of the free market system but the cheap
prices.
Sit back and watch what Mark writes in response to your explanation.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 8, 2012, 10:25:35 PM5/8/12
to
On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
>
>No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????
>>>>
>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
>
>No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
Does anyone have a clue?
What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
mind?
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 12:05:31 AM5/9/12
to
without nanny government protecting them. I'll respond to his post, but
it will be another waste of time.
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 12:06:44 AM5/9/12
to
eternally entitled to everything you can give them from that point on to
infinity.
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 6:51:01 AM5/9/12
to
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 7:09:01 AM5/9/12
to
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 8:22:01 AM5/9/12
to
Owen McKenzie
May 9, 2012, 10:26:26 AM5/9/12
to
someone to do something for him and he replied "No." The person asked,
"Why not, you did it for me the last time I asked." The reply was, "If I
do it once it's a favor, if I do it again it becomes part of my job."
--
Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL
We were promised hope and change.
We got hype and blame.
Frank Howell
May 9, 2012, 11:44:31 AM5/9/12
to
ringside view of a present day nanny state Greece and the consequences of
living beyond your means, a key component of any nanny state. Billions of
chickens are coming home to roost in the form of unpayable debt.
The Greece economy is so bad they passed a law allowing the government to
seize any bank account from persons suspected of evading income tax. Anyone
wanna guess the outcome of that move?
With no government in place the poor European leaders have no one to
negotiate with on the next bailout tranche. Does anyone think that the
winner of the Greek election will acquiesce to the European Union and IMF
demands that deep cuts in healthcare and public sector employment be
implemented?
The only logical outcome of this matter is that Nanny will go on strike and
the citizens of Greece will have to make new arrangements based on living
within their means instead of effort of others.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
May 9, 2012, 11:49:13 AM5/9/12
to
Hank wrote:
> On May 6, 12:18 pm, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
> ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Bullshit. Some Americans do not want to work. Many do. At the wages
>> department stores pay they're hiring from the bottom of the labor
>> pool. I knew a woman who worked for a major chain for over 20 years.
>> At the end of that time she was still making just slightly more than
>> minimum wage.
>>
>> My wife has been hiring people all over the country for weeks now.
>> For a little more money than what department stores pay you get a
>> much better quality employee.
>>
>> TB
>
> I agree. Some may be taking a day off to look and apply for a better
> job than Mikes friend can supply (and many other reasons), But then
> again, Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
> one catagory.
>
> Hank
"Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
one catagory."
Is this not an example of a "Lumper," Mr. Pot?
--
Frank Howell
> On May 6, 12:18 pm, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
> ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Bullshit. Some Americans do not want to work. Many do. At the wages
>> department stores pay they're hiring from the bottom of the labor
>> pool. I knew a woman who worked for a major chain for over 20 years.
>> At the end of that time she was still making just slightly more than
>> minimum wage.
>>
>> My wife has been hiring people all over the country for weeks now.
>> For a little more money than what department stores pay you get a
>> much better quality employee.
>>
>> TB
>
> I agree. Some may be taking a day off to look and apply for a better
> job than Mikes friend can supply (and many other reasons), But then
> again, Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
> one catagory.
>
> Hank
"Mike is a typical RORT conservative who lump all people into
one catagory."
Is this not an example of a "Lumper," Mr. Pot?
--
Frank Howell
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 12:33:54 PM5/9/12
to
better than any politician alive. And that quote perfectly captures
mark's attitude - once the government helps, they have no choice but to
keep helping. That is exactly why government should never help anyone.
Vito
May 9, 2012, 12:48:57 PM5/9/12
to
"LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote
supervisor and so on up to the guy who could negotiate who was 1000 miles
away?
| Vito wrote:
| > My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two
choices:
| > offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it
or
| > not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no
authority to
| > better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
| >
| >
|
| > My first job was with AT&T. The person interviewing me had two
choices:
| > offer me a standard job package or not. I had two choices: accept it
or
| > not. There was no negotiating because the interviewer had no
authority to
| > better or reduce the offer. That's SOP in most corporate jobs.
| >
| >
|
| You were not obliged to accept that limited offer
| from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
|
Kindly elaborate. Should I have demanded to see his supervisor's
| from a man who wasn't really the man with the power to offer it.
|
supervisor and so on up to the guy who could negotiate who was 1000 miles
away?
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 1:23:46 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/8/2012 6:30 PM, nothermark wrote:
Again your lack of understanding about how markets work makes it
impossible for you to comprehend the discussion. The market aspect of
businesses like Walmart is absolutely no different from the market
aspect of a yard sale. Buyers and sellers seek a sale based on VALUE -
and remember that value is ALWAYS subjective so when expenses go up,
that figures into the auction - but only to the seller, the buyer still
must determine value for himself. Just because some businesses cannot
compete does not change that equation at all. When Wards sells a widget
for $100 that you can get at Walmart for $75, people will make their
auction choice and place their bid at Walmart. Wards then has a choice,
find a way to add more value (customer service for example) or find a
way to reduce the price, or go out of business. Every one of those
options is simply a part of the economic auction.
And, of course, if an item becomes too expensive for the value it
provides, people will quit buying it completely. That is the market in
action - no one is guaranteed that whatever it is they are selling,
whether it be widgets or labor, that they will find a buyer. And the
higher the costs (or more accurately the lower the value), the fewer
buyers they will find. That is exactly the way free markets are
supposed to work.
>>>>
>>>> Every day, every transaction is part of the auction - unless the
>>>> government gets involved and changes the rules. Your problem is that
>>>> you are scared to death of the freedom that comes with a market economy,
>>>> and you want to be protected from yourself, so you want the government
>>>> to step in and regulate everything.
>
> You are misreading me. I am quite content to let the market set
> pricing.
No, you aren't. You refuse to let the market set the price for labor.
head. Do you really believe that the government is the only possible
way to obtain protection in the marketplace? Have you ever heard of
Consumer Reports? Underwriters Laboratory? Civil courts? Insurance
companies? The government is not only NOT the only way to get
protection, it is not even the best - not by a long shot.
>>>> You want to be lazy and never have
>>>> to do the work of protecting yourself - and (of course) you are so
>>>> arrogant that you believe that most people are incapable of protecting
>>>> themselves - so you demand that the government relieve them of any
>>>> responsibility for their own decisions.
>
> It's not a question of laziness or arrogance. Few people have he
> knowledge or facilities to test every chemical compound they buy to
> make sure it is what the box says it is. That is why the people
> delegate the chore to the government and supposedly fund them to do
> it.
Anyone too incompetent to look in consumer reports or do some research
on the internet, deserves the results they end up with. But far more
importantly, a free market system will result in real competition with
the side effect that companies will promote their adherence to good
business practices. This is somewhat like eBay where people proudly
brag about their 1 millionth customer and 97% satisfaction rating. In a
market without government involvement, companies will advertise that
they have the Consumers Insurance seal of quality proving that they are
a good place to do business.
>>>> On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the job of watching my
>>>> own back, and am quite willing to accept the consequences for failing to
>>>> do a good job of it.
>
> I do not know if you are really that talented, that arrogant, that
> naive, or that stupid. You pick.
You don't need to be very talented to do a little market research, and
understand how markets work.
>>>> But far more importantly, I believe that the vast
>>>> majority of people are capable of doing the same thing, and those who
>>>> aren't are not my problem - their families, friends, neighbors,
>>>> churches, civic organizations and other people who know them personally
>>>> can take on that task - or just leave them to learn the hard way.
>
> I think most of them profoundly disagree with you. I hear a lot more
> folks complaining that about the lack of oversight than I do about
> wanting to do their own. Few folks want to need to test for poison in
> their baby formula. It would seem that if my numbers are anywhere
> near correct then in any semblance of a representative government that
> would become a government function.
Your position here is that because people have been brainwashed into
believing a bad system is the only choice they have, that we should
continue using that bad system.
>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
>
> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
That might be the stupidest thing you wrote in this entire post. No one
is ENTITLED to have the government GIVE things to them. The simple fact
that they got stuff in the past is no reason to believe that they should
get it in the future. If you think they deserve help, provide it, just
leave me out of your schemes.
>>
>> A level playing field is a communist myth - no two people have the same
>> intellect, skills, talents, or contacts. Any efforts to legislate
>> equality is doomed to end in equal failure.
>
> Wrong focus. A level playing field is quite possible in the business
> world. Ability and talent are how well one plays the game not what
> the game is. It is quite possible to define the game. The problem we
> are dealing with now is that the rules are not the same for all the
> players. That can, and should, be fixed.
The rules are not the same for everyone because of government
interference. Get the government out of the game, and the playing field
has no choice but to be level.
impossible for you to comprehend the discussion. The market aspect of
businesses like Walmart is absolutely no different from the market
aspect of a yard sale. Buyers and sellers seek a sale based on VALUE -
and remember that value is ALWAYS subjective so when expenses go up,
that figures into the auction - but only to the seller, the buyer still
must determine value for himself. Just because some businesses cannot
compete does not change that equation at all. When Wards sells a widget
for $100 that you can get at Walmart for $75, people will make their
auction choice and place their bid at Walmart. Wards then has a choice,
find a way to add more value (customer service for example) or find a
way to reduce the price, or go out of business. Every one of those
options is simply a part of the economic auction.
And, of course, if an item becomes too expensive for the value it
provides, people will quit buying it completely. That is the market in
action - no one is guaranteed that whatever it is they are selling,
whether it be widgets or labor, that they will find a buyer. And the
higher the costs (or more accurately the lower the value), the fewer
buyers they will find. That is exactly the way free markets are
supposed to work.
>>>>
>>>> Every day, every transaction is part of the auction - unless the
>>>> government gets involved and changes the rules. Your problem is that
>>>> you are scared to death of the freedom that comes with a market economy,
>>>> and you want to be protected from yourself, so you want the government
>>>> to step in and regulate everything.
>
> You are misreading me. I am quite content to let the market set
> pricing.
>
> The protections I want from the government are along the lines of
> assuring the product is what the box says it is and, in the case of
> food and medicine that it is prepared and packaged in a clean
> environment with reasonably pure materials. Individuals have no way
> of telling that on one hand but the potential for damage is great on
> the other.
Once more, your absolute dependence on a nanny government rears its ugly
> The protections I want from the government are along the lines of
> assuring the product is what the box says it is and, in the case of
> food and medicine that it is prepared and packaged in a clean
> environment with reasonably pure materials. Individuals have no way
> of telling that on one hand but the potential for damage is great on
> the other.
head. Do you really believe that the government is the only possible
way to obtain protection in the marketplace? Have you ever heard of
Consumer Reports? Underwriters Laboratory? Civil courts? Insurance
companies? The government is not only NOT the only way to get
protection, it is not even the best - not by a long shot.
>>>> You want to be lazy and never have
>>>> to do the work of protecting yourself - and (of course) you are so
>>>> arrogant that you believe that most people are incapable of protecting
>>>> themselves - so you demand that the government relieve them of any
>>>> responsibility for their own decisions.
>
> It's not a question of laziness or arrogance. Few people have he
> knowledge or facilities to test every chemical compound they buy to
> make sure it is what the box says it is. That is why the people
> delegate the chore to the government and supposedly fund them to do
> it.
on the internet, deserves the results they end up with. But far more
importantly, a free market system will result in real competition with
the side effect that companies will promote their adherence to good
business practices. This is somewhat like eBay where people proudly
brag about their 1 millionth customer and 97% satisfaction rating. In a
market without government involvement, companies will advertise that
they have the Consumers Insurance seal of quality proving that they are
a good place to do business.
>>>> On the other hand, I am quite willing to accept the job of watching my
>>>> own back, and am quite willing to accept the consequences for failing to
>>>> do a good job of it.
>
> I do not know if you are really that talented, that arrogant, that
> naive, or that stupid. You pick.
understand how markets work.
>>>> But far more importantly, I believe that the vast
>>>> majority of people are capable of doing the same thing, and those who
>>>> aren't are not my problem - their families, friends, neighbors,
>>>> churches, civic organizations and other people who know them personally
>>>> can take on that task - or just leave them to learn the hard way.
>
> I think most of them profoundly disagree with you. I hear a lot more
> folks complaining that about the lack of oversight than I do about
> wanting to do their own. Few folks want to need to test for poison in
> their baby formula. It would seem that if my numbers are anywhere
> near correct then in any semblance of a representative government that
> would become a government function.
believing a bad system is the only choice they have, that we should
continue using that bad system.
>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
>
> No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
> they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
> an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
is ENTITLED to have the government GIVE things to them. The simple fact
that they got stuff in the past is no reason to believe that they should
get it in the future. If you think they deserve help, provide it, just
leave me out of your schemes.
>>
>> A level playing field is a communist myth - no two people have the same
>> intellect, skills, talents, or contacts. Any efforts to legislate
>> equality is doomed to end in equal failure.
>
> Wrong focus. A level playing field is quite possible in the business
> world. Ability and talent are how well one plays the game not what
> the game is. It is quite possible to define the game. The problem we
> are dealing with now is that the rules are not the same for all the
> players. That can, and should, be fixed.
interference. Get the government out of the game, and the playing field
has no choice but to be level.
Lone Haranguer
May 9, 2012, 1:57:15 PM5/9/12
to
over the value of your Model 42 Winchester to a buyer at a gun show,
He wants to get it as cheaply as possible BUT HE WANTS IT. It's
part of the negotiating process to find out just how bad he wants
it. What skills do you have that the employer wants? What does
your resume say and what endorsements do you have from previous
employers? Vito said it was his first job.....he never cut grass
or other chores for someone?
LZ
RonB
May 9, 2012, 2:09:22 PM5/9/12
to
On May 6, 11:18 am, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bullshit. Some Americans do not want to work. Many do. ....
>
Maybe so but our son, a construction superintendent, has told me that
the average life span for a high school kid on his job is about three
weeks. Hired as laborer's "its too hard, they hurt, they have to go
to work too early, they have to work late, bitch, bitch,
bitch....." That is why he as very high respect for his LEGAL
Hispanics.
Similar story with college interns. He told me last week he had three
interns coming from two area colleges. Says him "One will show up in
Redwing work boots, worn jeans and with a pair of gloves. Two will
show up in Dockers, sports shirts and polished shoes. One will spend
the first day in the trailer with him learning the scheduling and
management software. Two will help pour and work concrete."
You can kinda figure out who is doing what.
RonB
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bullshit. Some Americans do not want to work. Many do. ....
>
Maybe so but our son, a construction superintendent, has told me that
the average life span for a high school kid on his job is about three
weeks. Hired as laborer's "its too hard, they hurt, they have to go
to work too early, they have to work late, bitch, bitch,
bitch....." That is why he as very high respect for his LEGAL
Hispanics.
Similar story with college interns. He told me last week he had three
interns coming from two area colleges. Says him "One will show up in
Redwing work boots, worn jeans and with a pair of gloves. Two will
show up in Dockers, sports shirts and polished shoes. One will spend
the first day in the trailer with him learning the scheduling and
management software. Two will help pour and work concrete."
You can kinda figure out who is doing what.
RonB
dm_callier
May 9, 2012, 2:24:09 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 9:33 am, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
> >> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 7:26 AM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/9/2012 12:06 AM, Bruce S wrote:
> >> On 5/8/2012 7:25 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your are a hoot...your political philosophy comes from writers of
fiction, Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein...no wonder your solutions to
real problems read like fantasies...
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 3:02:47 PM5/9/12
to
value to the employer as the seller to the buyer. Sometimes it is
appropriate to say, "I am not bringing any experience in this field, I
have no job history, I am a high risk to the employer, so I must be
realistic and accept this offer, with the understanding that as I gain
those skills and history, I will renegotiate." A person who comes in
with $5/hour skills should think twice before demanding $10/hour.
Dean
May 9, 2012, 3:42:13 PM5/9/12
to
The interview went well and I fully expected an offer. After about 2
months, I called the guy and was told since I didn't show up for work,
they went on to another applicant.
Needless to say, I was pissed.
--
If you can get people to believe absurdities,
you can get them to commit atrocities.
-Voltaire
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 3:47:00 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 08:44:31 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The one thing that I am sure of about Greece it that they will
continue to be interesting to watch. If I recall correctly the
deficite about equals the estimated uncollected tax revenue. Of
course if folks start paying their taxes all those government tax
collectors will miss out on their bribes. ;-)
wrote:
continue to be interesting to watch. If I recall correctly the
deficite about equals the estimated uncollected tax revenue. Of
course if folks start paying their taxes all those government tax
collectors will miss out on their bribes. ;-)
Dean
May 9, 2012, 3:49:28 PM5/9/12
to
RMcBane
May 9, 2012, 4:59:46 PM5/9/12
to
$10/hr for a job that is only worth $5/hr to the employer.
--
Richard McBane
LonVanOstran
May 9, 2012, 5:25:34 PM5/9/12
to
only choice. Who am I to argue if you believe you were unfit for any
other job.
Lon
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 5:57:35 PM5/9/12
to
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 9, 2012, 6:03:54 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:54 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
----------------
Truer words were never spoken.
The Government should never help anyone.
wrote:
Truer words were never spoken.
The Government should never help anyone.
Mike Hendrix at dot
May 9, 2012, 6:05:11 PM5/9/12
to
$40,000 dollars a year apart.
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 6:19:00 PM5/9/12
to
And neither you nor Lon understand what I have written let alone what
I think.
I think.
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 6:31:01 PM5/9/12
to
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 6:36:01 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:05:11 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:
>On 9 May 2012 06:09:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:25:35 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>>(dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
>>>>
>>>>No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????
>>>
>>>Does anyone have a clue?
>>>
>>>What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>mind?
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>>A minimum level of subistence. That is the social safety net.
>
>Your definition of "A minimum level of subsistence" and mine are about
>$40,000 dollars a year apart.
>
>mike
I did not know you were that generous! ;-)
>On 9 May 2012 06:09:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:25:35 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>>(dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 May 2012 20:30:01 -0500, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I know that is the attitude that you hate, but if you are that
>>>>>>> concerned for the well being of strangers, get your ass in gear and help
>>>>>>> them out personally - just leave the government out of the process.
>>>>
>>>>No, the profound disagreement is over begging. If they depend on me
>>>>they have to beg from me. If they get help from the government it is
>>>>an entitlement so they are claiming for their portion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark, read what you just wrote. What in the Hell did you say?????
>>>
>>>Does anyone have a clue?
>>>
>>>What exactly are the citizens of this country "entitled to" in your
>>>mind?
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>>A minimum level of subistence. That is the social safety net.
>
>Your definition of "A minimum level of subsistence" and mine are about
>$40,000 dollars a year apart.
>
>mike
RMcBane
May 9, 2012, 6:48:21 PM5/9/12
to
to communism?
--
Richard McBane
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 8:06:25 PM5/9/12
to
enforce the rules. Not to make the rules, not to help one time win the
game, not to change the outcome of the game, simply to enforce the
rules. If we could get the government completely out of the game,
except for stopping crime, we would all be better off.
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 8:09:25 PM5/9/12
to
cj
May 9, 2012, 8:10:07 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/6/2012 9:48 PM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
> No matter how you cut it....... people will start working when the
> Government stops paying people not to work.
>
bullshit
cj
> No matter how you cut it....... people will start working when the
> Government stops paying people not to work.
>
bullshit
cj
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 8:52:01 PM5/9/12
to
part of the working population. That is essentially what you are
advocating when you say employers should be able to cut wages to suit
themselves.
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 8:55:01 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:06:25 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
If the government does not make the rules then who does?
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 8:58:01 PM5/9/12
to
nothermark
May 9, 2012, 8:59:00 PM5/9/12
to
folks are well aware of that possibility.
LonVanOstran
May 9, 2012, 9:13:15 PM5/9/12
to
before they will work.
Lon
LonVanOstran
May 9, 2012, 9:16:42 PM5/9/12
to
nothermark wrote:
> The quickest way to communism or socialism is to impoverish a large
> part of the working population. That is essentially what you are
> advocating when you say employers should be able to cut wages to suit
> themselves.
Who wrote that? Employers should be able to hire the people they wish,
> The quickest way to communism or socialism is to impoverish a large
> part of the working population. That is essentially what you are
> advocating when you say employers should be able to cut wages to suit
> themselves.
at a wage which is acceptable to both the employer and the employee.
People like you don't like that idea because you KNOW what you are
worth, and couldn't live on that.
Lon
LonVanOstran
May 9, 2012, 9:20:16 PM5/9/12
to
Lon
LonVanOstran
May 9, 2012, 9:20:58 PM5/9/12
to
nothermark wrote:
> And neither you nor Lon understand what I have written let alone what
> I think.
You don't.
> And neither you nor Lon understand what I have written let alone what
> I think.
Lon
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 9:38:28 PM5/9/12
to
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 9:40:19 PM5/9/12
to
supported a free market - EVER. You are at a minimum a total STATIST -
you want government control over all facets of life - a free market
never enters your mind.
Bruce S
May 9, 2012, 9:43:21 PM5/9/12
to
would slow down the gravy train (not even stop it, just slow it a bit),
the people voted them out and found politicians who don't give a damn
about the end result, they will keep stealing from one group of people
to give it away to another group. Anything to keep the freebies coming.
I just hope the rest of the world lets them all starve to death.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages