BLOODSUCKERS. 5 of 100

0 views
Skip to first unread message

MikeVilkin

unread,
Jul 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/28/96
to

BLOODSUCKERS. 5 of 100

I've got to comment on this.

Subject: Northeastern IL ADA Testimony on Living Wage
From: RaymondPempek <r...@popmail.mcs.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:20:24 -0700
Message-ID: <31F115...@popmail.mcs.net>

Americans For Democratic Action
Northeastern Illinois Chapter
Post Office Box 81904
Chicago, Illinois 60681-0904
(312) 918-2674

Betty Willhoite
Social & Domestic Policy and Economic Commission

July 19, 1996
Finance Committee
City of Chicago, City Council

> THE LIVING WAGE CAMPAIGN

<...>
> In tat context the living wage campaign in Chicago and other
> cities touches on the fundamental political issue and recalls the
> old union challenge, "Whose side are you on?"

I'm not on the side of unions. But there is no time to lock them out.
It's time to lock them up.
Should we increase minimum wages? That will not help. That was done many
times in Germany in the first third of this century. Poor people could not
afford to buy goods, produced by labor unions. So minimum wages were
increased. Then unions were going on strike to demand compensation for
inflation. The costs were passed on to the consumer. Again, consumers
could not afford to buy goods. Again, there was increase in unemployment.
It was going on and on until Germans got fed up with the unions.
We should remember that Hitler was elected. And the first thing he did
he got rid of the unions. Suddenly, there was work for everybody. Why?
Because workers were able to buy each others' goods.
My guess is that we have to create a free market for labor. We need new
labor laws. Ninety percent of workers in this country are not unionized.
If an employer can find somebody to do the same job at lower wages, the
worker is simply terminated. S/he will go to look for employment.
Is it good? Yes, it is very good. Higher (lower) costs are passed on to
the consumer, who will pay higher (lower) price.
What about the terminated worker? He should be able to go to the factory
where labor is unionized and say: "Hey, I will work on this assembly line
for lower wages. Now I'm working as a taxi driver in liberal New York city
for $10 /hr without any benefits. I'll work here for $12 /hr without
benefits."
If we create a free market, then workers will be able to buy each others'
products. Then we don't need to elect Hitler to clean up the place.

<...>
> the yearly total at minimum wage is just over half of the poverty level;

> the national median wage needed for a 2 bedroom apartment at fair market

> rent is $10.00 (IL- $12.45).

Yes, rent is a legalized robbery. Why the price is high? Low supply.
Can we increase supply of real estate? Easy. We have millions of people
on welfare. Let us put 'em to lay bricks.
Ah, I know the argument: "They are poor! They don't know how to build
a house! They need to get educated, so that those who are less educated
will build a house for them".
Then I've got another solution for liberals.
A small brick house for the poor is basically 10,000 bricks.
We need about one million brick houses to drive prices down.
One million by ten thousand -- ten billion bricks.
If we put one million liberals to make bricks, and another million
of liberals to lay bricks -- by the year 2000 all the poor will own
houses.

<...>
> The campaign for redress is gaining momentum. Candidates and
> parties are put on notice: the 96 update of the 92 warning,
> "It's the economy, stupid" is "It's the paycheck, stupid."

It's you who is stupid. If we increase minimum wages, it would be good.
$10 /hr sounds good to me. Poor people will be able to buy those new
autos. The problem is that labor unions will demand compensation for the
inflation, and nothing will change. Poor will be as poor as before.
O-o-ps! I'm wrong. Something will change.
Inflation will increase. Baby boomers, who are saving money for golden
years will see their money to lose purchasing power. If a person has
now enough money to buy a house, but keeps his money in cash or bonds,-
in a few years he will see that his money can buy only half of that house.
This is called redistribution of wealth. One way or another.
But where did another half of the house go?
Assets don't just disappear like that. If I lose, somebody finds it.
A few years ago baby boomers bought trillions of dollars worth of bonds
for the retirement. Now liberals want to rob them.
We all remember Orange County. One or two billions of dollars were
sucked out like a single drop of blood just from Orange County.
How much money were sucked out of the whole country?
How much money and blood liberals want to suck this time?
Labor secretary Rubin was making fifty million dollars *a year* before
he became a Labor secretary in Clinton administration.
The poor guy is forking hard now on low government salary.
I hope, the poor Democrat will be compensated by Goldman Sucks.
...So, who shorted bonds? Goldman? Hillary?
And Treasury bonds' futures and options are traded on Chicago
Mercantile Exchange, right?
That is why Finance Committee of the City of Chicago and City Council
are involved... Ah, bloodsuckers...

<...>
> It is inextricably tied to other, urgent public policy issues:
> welfare reform will be a revolving door if welfare-to-work leads
> to a minimum wage with no medical coverage or child care.

The biggest problem in economics is this. You can not eat two chickens
if you raised only one. Otherwise, there would be no problems.
Before you consume anything, you have to produce it. The more we produce,
the more we consume. How can we maximize production? We need full
employment and as high productivity as possible. We need to build those
houses and child care centers. There are millions of men on welfare who
could build child care centers. There are millions of women, who could
work in child care centers. We should put them to work.
If liberals resist, we will teach them economics in labor camps.
We will put them to make bricks for the poor.

> To Chicago's proud motto, "The city that works" should be added
> the words "for a living wage."

I like that. You 've got to work for living.
---------------------
Michael Vilkin, MikeV...@aol.com
-------------------
Official media belongs to liberals.
Internet belongs to the people.

Michael L. Coburn

unread,
Jul 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/28/96
to

In article <4tfn18$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

MikeVilkin <mikev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In tat context the living wage campaign in Chicago and other
>> cities touches on the fundamental political issue and recalls the
>> old union challenge, "Whose side are you on?"
>
>I'm not on the side of unions. But there is no time to lock them out.
>It's time to lock them up.
>Should we increase minimum wages? That will not help. That was done many
>times in Germany in the first third of this century. Poor people could not
>afford to buy goods, produced by labor unions. So minimum wages were
>increased. Then unions were going on strike to demand compensation for
>inflation. The costs were passed on to the consumer. Again, consumers
>could not afford to buy goods. Again, there was increase in unemployment.

All but the last sentence are factual and NOT misleading. The
last sentence INFERS that unemployment would not have increased or that
it would have increased less, had the minimum wage not been raised. This
is exceedingly presumptuous at best.

>It was going on and on until Germans got fed up with the unions.
>We should remember that Hitler was elected. And the first thing he did
>he got rid of the unions. Suddenly, there was work for everybody. Why?
>Because workers were able to buy each others' goods.

This guy would have us believe that the economic stimulus of
building tanks and bombs and other war stuff had absolutely nothing to do
with the employment rate. And if you believe that then your only hope is
a brain transplant.

> My guess is that we have to create a free market for labor. We need new
>labor laws. Ninety percent of workers in this country are not unionized.
>If an employer can find somebody to do the same job at lower wages, the
>worker is simply terminated. S/he will go to look for employment.
>Is it good? Yes, it is very good. Higher (lower) costs are passed on to
>the consumer, who will pay higher (lower) price.

And those who had money are now richer than they would have
otherwise been (i.e. their dollars will buy even more than before), and
those without money still cannot buy anything, cheaper though it may be.
And since those who have money will keep it because they observe that it is
increasing in value then no one will buy anything and we have another
round of downsizing and layoffs and the employer points to this and lowers
everyone's wage again. And the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Inflation hurts those with money to the benefit of those without.
This is most especially true, and irrevocably true if the inflation is
caused by increases in wages. Whatever 'lag' exists in the rise of prices
is of benefit to the working poor. The wealthy must 'invest' their money
or lose it to inflation, and so they are forced to take it out of their
mattress and start some kind of enterprise which benefits us all.

> What about the terminated worker? He should be able to go to the factory
>where labor is unionized and say: "Hey, I will work on this assembly line
>for lower wages. Now I'm working as a taxi driver in liberal New York city
>for $10 /hr without any benefits. I'll work here for $12 /hr without
>benefits."
> If we create a free market, then workers will be able to buy each others'
>products. Then we don't need to elect Hitler to clean up the place.
>

There is NOTHING wrong with a mixed economy where we compete as
you have suggested. I do not like labor unions, but I also do not like
insurance companies and banks. Removal of regressive and oppressive
taxation (i.e. the total elimination of any taxes which are based on
income) and the replacement thereof with asset and consumption taxes would
go a long way in restoring true competitiveness).

AGAIN: Inflation hurts people who "have money". It is of much
less concern to those who do not.

Baby boomers, who are saving money for golden
>years will see their money to lose purchasing power. If a person has
>now enough money to buy a house, but keeps his money in cash or bonds,-
>in a few years he will see that his money can buy only half of that house.
>This is called redistribution of wealth. One way or another.
> But where did another half of the house go?
>Assets don't just disappear like that. If I lose, somebody finds it.
>A few years ago baby boomers bought trillions of dollars worth of bonds
>for the retirement. Now liberals want to rob them.
> We all remember Orange County. One or two billions of dollars were
>sucked out like a single drop of blood just from Orange County.
>How much money were sucked out of the whole country?
>How much money and blood liberals want to suck this time?
> Labor secretary Rubin was making fifty million dollars *a year* before
>he became a Labor secretary in Clinton administration.
> The poor guy is forking hard now on low government salary.
>I hope, the poor Democrat will be compensated by Goldman Sucks.
>...So, who shorted bonds? Goldman? Hillary?
>And Treasury bonds' futures and options are traded on Chicago
>Mercantile Exchange, right?
>That is why Finance Committee of the City of Chicago and City Council
>are involved... Ah, bloodsuckers...
>

Fixed rate tradable bonds are "money", no less than a dollar bill.

><...>
>> It is inextricably tied to other, urgent public policy issues:
>> welfare reform will be a revolving door if welfare-to-work leads
>> to a minimum wage with no medical coverage or child care.
>

So long as medical coverage and child care are paid for by
a flat rate CONSUMPTION tax on ALL consumables including bread, milk,
beer, and cocaine and not by income taxes then government subsidy of
medical care and public education this is fine. It is NOT right to
fleece all people with an income tax to pay for YOUR children any more
than it is right to fleece the working poor with fica taxes in order
to pay for more tanks, bombs, and police.

>The biggest problem in economics is this. You can not eat two chickens
>if you raised only one. Otherwise, there would be no problems.
>Before you consume anything, you have to produce it. The more we produce,
>the more we consume. How can we maximize production? We need full
>employment and as high productivity as possible. We need to build those
>houses and child care centers. There are millions of men on welfare who
>could build child care centers. There are millions of women, who could
>work in child care centers. We should put them to work.
>If liberals resist, we will teach them economics in labor camps.
>We will put them to make bricks for the poor.
>

The screw economics: The real question is how do we improve the
quality of life for ALL who are willing to produce and to contribute to
such quality? If we increase production and consumption to the point that
we destroy the biosphere then we have only gained our early demise.

>> To Chicago's proud motto, "The city that works" should be added
>> the words "for a living wage."
>
>I like that. You 've got to work for living.
>---------------------
>Michael Vilkin, MikeV...@aol.com
>-------------------
>Official media belongs to liberals.
>Internet belongs to the people.


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Let me assure you that | Michael L. Coburn | mco...@halcyon.com |
* my employer agrees with| Softfolks Inc. | softfolk.wa.com |
* what I say. He's me. | UNIX,c,X/Motif,Oracle,DCE,CM,& SYS ADM |

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages