In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

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

How is that relavent to the discussion?

We were discussing costs to employers. Wages are just one of many
costs.

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.

In the bay area, but not currently, as I'm not in a management
position, being self-employed... probably, I'll be staying that way,
at least for the next couple of years... pays better, lower stress,
more free time. G

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.

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
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 not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

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?

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

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?

Because that doesn't address the issue. There are always people who
don't act on what is best for them. But, to use that as an argument,
leaves out quite a bit.

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 believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

I don't have to .. it's obvious.

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

That "bottom line"? Which bottom line? The corporate/Halliburton/
cutting and running offshore bottom line?

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.

Maybe you should. Did you take a poll or just look in the paper for
want ads?




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

On 27 Mar 2007 12:26:29 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

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

How is that relavent to the discussion?

We were discussing costs to employers. Wages are just one of many
costs.

Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

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.

In the bay area, but not currently, as I'm not in a management
position, being self-employed... probably, I'll be staying that way,
at least for the next couple of years... pays better, lower stress,
more free time. G

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.

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

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 not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.
Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.
Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic
techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.


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?

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

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?

Because that doesn't address the issue. There are always people who
don't act on what is best for them. But, to use that as an argument,
leaves out quite a bit.

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 believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

I don't have to .. it's obvious.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

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

That "bottom line"? Which bottom line? The corporate/Halliburton/
cutting and running offshore bottom line?

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.

Maybe you should. Did you take a poll or just look in the paper for
want ads?

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

I always try to go forward not backward. It's called a discussion, and
should evolve, unless you're a right-wingnut and don't believe in
evolution. g

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

There are always going to be those sort. They are a very small
percentage of the poor. What's your point oh wanderer?

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.

Were you promoted? Did you end up as a manager in your time served (no
pun intended)?

Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.

Nope. I worked for the San Diego water district at $2.15/hour (it was
below mimimum wage, due to some strange agreement they had with the
University). I never did figure out how they got away with it.

I finally quit after 4 months, since I had no car and I had to be
there at 6am... it were a long bike ride on two-lane country roads.

Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

Must be your confusing attempt to rewrite logic. Sorry.

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic

But, you didn't start at minimum wage right? So, what point are you
trying to make? I started in a factory at minimum wage (also an entry
level position). I forget the $ number. After 6 mos, I was promoted to
a union job at $13.84/hr. Quite a nice jump and in those days a
fortune for a college student. I worked 2nd shift, got off at 11pm as
I recall.

techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.

Boss was an ahole and we regularly sparred about his bs. He needed me
more than I needed him, eventually, so I quit. No future there.

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

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

On 27 Mar 2007 13:56:55 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Not so. Go back to Max's post, but no matter.

I always try to go forward not backward. It's called a discussion, and
should evolve, unless you're a right-wingnut and don't believe in
evolution. g

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

The discussion and your repsponse had to do with the unemployable.
Those who "choose" not to work. Go back and read Max's entry to which
you reponded. Try not to wander to much.

There are always going to be those sort. They are a very small
percentage of the poor. What's your point oh wanderer?

Estimate is about three percent, which is plus or minus about half the
unemployed at any given time.

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

I started my work career at McDonald's. Worked there for over a year.

Were you promoted? Did you end up as a manager in your time served (no
pun intended)?

Did you ever work there? There are no chains in the floor that keep
you there. It is a job, that done well, can be part of your resume
with references when you move on and up.

Nope. I worked for the San Diego water district at $2.15/hour (it was
below mimimum wage, due to some strange agreement they had with the
University). I never did figure out how they got away with it.

I finally quit after 4 months, since I had no car and I had to be
there at 6am... it were a long bike ride on two-lane country roads.

Of course we have gone over this one before too. Something causing
your memory to fail?

Must be your confusing attempt to rewrite logic. Sorry.

I managed a factory. The assembly line and production workers started
at about $22,500/year and averaged about $36,000 per year with very
good benefits. Went from entry to top of classification in about
three years or so. Best of the bunch became supervisors, electronic

But, you didn't start at minimum wage right?
Below minimum wage at McDonalds. But, I moved on an up. that is the
point.

So, what point are you
trying to make? I started in a factory at minimum wage (also an entry
level position). I forget the $ number. After 6 mos, I was promoted to
a union job at $13.84/hr. Quite a nice jump and in those days a
fortune for a college student. I worked 2nd shift, got off at 11pm as
I recall.

What factory Jon. I'm curious about a factory that is organized that
has minimum wage jobs and you can be" promoted" to a union job. In a
non right to work state.


techs., superintendents, planners, buyers, model makers, etc. with
proportionately better salaries. My first job after McDonalds was as
an ASME code welder in a factory. I ended up running multiple
factories. But I guess in your mind that isn't possible.

Boss was an ahole and we regularly sparred about his bs. He needed me
more than I needed him, eventually, so I quit. No future there.

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

You just indicated that you cannot move up from McDonalds. Must not
be able to understand the concept.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?


Nope, could have didn't want to, no plans to stay. Boss at the time
was one of the best people and hardest workers I have ever known.
He would have made me a store manager had I wanted it. I didn't.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

How is it his fault. You can't answer by saying he lacks individual
repsonsibility. Specifically what has he done to create a group of
people who are unemployable by choice. You made the statement, back
it up.

In article ,

But not at McDonalds... that's my point.

So, what point are you

What factory Jon. I'm curious about a factory that is organized that
has minimum wage jobs and you can be" promoted" to a union job. In a
non right to work state.

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?


Nope, could have didn't want to, no plans to stay. Boss at the time
was one of the best people and hardest workers I have ever known.
He would have made me a store manager had I wanted it. I didn't.

Well then it's moot, since you didn't stay.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

How is it his fault. You can't answer by saying he lacks individual
repsonsibility. Specifically what has he done to create a group of
people who are unemployable by choice. You made the statement, back
it up.

Huh? Now you're losing it.



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

On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

In article ,

But not at McDonalds... that's my point.

So, what point are you

What factory Jon. I'm curious about a factory that is organized that
has minimum wage jobs and you can be" promoted" to a union job. In a
non right to work state.

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could happen.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is not a right to
work state.

And, you didn't give any example of you moving up there. You just said
you worked there. Did you move up in the organization in your year?


Nope, could have didn't want to, no plans to stay. Boss at the time
was one of the best people and hardest workers I have ever known.
He would have made me a store manager had I wanted it. I didn't.

Well then it's moot, since you didn't stay.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one. Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

That's what the subject was about, do you remember.

Not to me. Elaborate. I'd love to be educated as to why he is at
fault for lack of individual personal responsibility. And as you
explain, keep in mind these same individuals existed during Clinton's
time. And it wasn't his fault either.

He's certainly at fault for his lack of individual responsibility. He
doesn't care a fig about how what he does affects the lives of those
around him.

How is it his fault. You can't answer by saying he lacks individual
repsonsibility. Specifically what has he done to create a group of
people who are unemployable by choice. You made the statement, back
it up.

Huh? Now you're losing it.


Nope, completely lucid. You make constant reference in your posts to
Bush being the direct cause to everything bad in the world. The
conclusion that can be drawn is that you hate him like most liberals
do. I'm just trying to find out if you know something specific that
links him directly to a centuries old problem of people who lack the
individual iniative or personal responsibility to support themselves.
People who are able, but make a choice not to work.

That is the topic. I'm not talking about those who cannot because of
some mental or physical issue, just those who choose not to prepare
themselves or who refuse to take a job.

Once again, you made the claim, so back it up. Let's have the facts.

In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 17:35:46 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

I had to join the union. It was a completely different job function. I
forget the name of it... National something in San Diego.

Jon, I can remember the name of every organization I've worked for
going back fifty years. What's the problem?

I looked it up... National Pen... I had lots of jobs in college. g

It is unusual for a factory in a forced union state like California,
to have very low end and low paid jobs that are outside the bargaining
unit. Being involved in the collective bargaining process for many
years, I'm just trying to understand how that could happen.

I have no idea. That's the way it was. I actually tried to organize
the envelop stuffers and pen stampers at one point... looked up the
procedure in the library, then started calling established unions when
I realized how difficult it would be. Mostly, they weren't
interested. The company had a lot of non-English speakers... probably
illegals... who knows. Anyway, the company found out someone was doing
this and went around saying they were going to give people lie
detector tests. Most of the "American" workers told them to f*ck off,
so it didn't go anywhere.

I understand you had to join the Union. California is not a right to
work state.

Yah... nice job actually. Fun except for the ink smell.

Point is not moot. Point, stated one more time is that you can move
on or move up from any job. The key is to take one in the first
place, work well, and build on it, either with that organization
within the capacity for promotion or with the next one. Anyone can do
that if they "choose" to do so.

Ah, but sometimes, in fact most of the time, at a minimum wage job
that's just not possible. Anyone cannot do it if they choose anymore
than I can fly a kite in the midddle of a busy street... g

That's what the subject was about, do you remember.

Nope.

Nope, completely lucid. You make constant reference in your posts to
Bush being the direct cause to everything bad in the world. The
conclusion that can be drawn is that you hate him like most liberals
do. I'm just trying to find out if you know something specific that
links him directly to a centuries old problem of people who lack the
individual iniative or personal responsibility to support themselves.
People who are able, but make a choice not to work.

Everything bad? No. Just a major attempt at the ruination of this
great country.

That is the topic. I'm not talking about those who cannot because of
some mental or physical issue, just those who choose not to prepare
themselves or who refuse to take a job.

And, I'm saying that is a very small minority of those who do minimum
wage jobs.

Once again, you made the claim, so back it up. Let's have the facts.

Just did.



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