"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take
issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last
year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than

Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.

Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?


the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed
the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15%
to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally,
which

According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some
people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.

They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and
ABS.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?

I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post
where I said it was an immediate threat.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some

Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your
responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care.

people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

There you go. Blame the poor for being poor.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On 26 Mar 2007 23:07:44 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?

I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post
where I said it was an immediate threat.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some

Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your
responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care.

people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

There you go. Blame the poor for being poor.

Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.


Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders?

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Curious Jon, have you ever been in a position where you've had to
hire a lot of individuals at the entry level, but well over minumum.
It would help me to understand whether you are just blathering or
actually can comment from the experience.

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.

Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

I've hired lots of people who were both entry level and who would
otherwise be paid minimum wage. We never did the latter.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.

Yes, they do. Bosses tell you the pay range. Lots of places say pay
the minimum. I've never worked nor would I work for such a company.

Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

Don't know where "around here" is, but in general, the US economy
isn't doing very well... certainly not as well as it could do.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On 27 Mar 2007 10:46:56 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

On 27 Mar 2007 09:30:47 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I've never hired anyone and paid them just the minimum wage. I've
hired dozens, perhaps approaching 100 in the good old days (pre-Bush
g). We always paid more. It's expensive but you tend to get better
workers. In fact, I can't think of a boss who told me to hire entry
level people and pay them at the minimum.

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

But, yes, I'm just blathering of course.


That's what I said, entry level but well over minimum wage.

I've hired lots of people who were both entry level and who would
otherwise be paid minimum wage. We never did the latter.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

And bosses don't tell you to hire at a minimum unless the job is a
minimum wage job. If it is not you wouldn't get anyone anyway.
Because the economy is good and they don't have to work for minimum.


Yes, they do. Bosses tell you the pay range. Lots of places say pay
the minimum. I've never worked nor would I work for such a company.




Those individuals are not considered "poor" as your response
indicated. Yet as one who had to try to hire people, approximately
50-100 per year over a multi-year period to staff my business, I found
your comment on the post ridiculous blathering. There are people who
choose not to work. There are people who choose not to become
educated, even with basic skills. There are people who, when hired,
refuse to be trained to do a job. There are homeless people who
choose to be homeless.

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Fortunately, those people are a small percentage, but they make up the
core unemployable. They will always exist. Government can do nothing
about them, unless you are of the mindset that their "choice" should
be supported by tax dollars.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I live in a community of 50K population Every day there are at least
five pages of employment ads, hundreds to the page, from entry level
to high paid professional. Yet unemployment is the same as the
national average. Check your paper and then tell me what the problem
is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

You'll have a hard time talking bad economy around here. We just
bagged a Toyota plant. 2000 new direct jobs and another 2000
supporting. Those bad ole Republicans, Senator, House Representive,
and particularly, Governer had a lot to do with it. Yeah, were ready
to throw them out and change to the Dems.

Don't know where "around here" is, but in general, the US economy
isn't doing very well... certainly not as well as it could do.



Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.