wrote in message
t...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:57:41 -0500, John wrote:


In all this discussion, you've never answered the questions asked by
myself or Tom.

A lot of side-stepping, but no direct answer.

Well Colonel, I'm not in the service. Why in the hell, would I take
orders from you? Answer your own strawman.


Well said...The Lt Colonels' own motley irregulars don't follow his orders,
so why should anyone else.

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:12:10 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:03:17 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Well, that's kind of the point. What data do you trust?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Fine - but what caused the increase? Something has to change - what
was it?

Who should benefit from the obvious productivity increase - the company
or the workers?

Historically, when productivity increases, there may be a lag, but wages
also increase. What's changed?

The answer to that, is far more devastating to this country's long term
economic health, than the middle-class not getting their share.

You raise some important questions and frankly, I don't have an answer
for you - I'll admit it.

Obviously, its far to simplistic to blame the fat cats and corporate
executives. Perhaps there has been a fundamental shift in how money
is distributed, the money supply being managed - there's a whole host
of factors that could explain it, but I'm not an economist although I
do play one on TV. :)

I watch CNBC a lot - in particular the early show Squawk Box or if I'm
out and about, I listen on Sirius. When you watch two opposing sides
take the same sets of data and make them fit their own agendas and
viewpoints, you begin to wonder if anybody really and truly knows
what's going on.

Now for the really oddball opinon. I've often suspected that "real
wages" are being sucked up by government in various ways. I had an
experience Friday that floored me. I was kind of messing around in
the kitchen and I gathered up the bills for the paper pusher to
handle. I just started looking through them - there are more fees,
taxes and "adjustments' on my cable, telephone and wireless bills that
I could shake a stick at - easily adding 3-4% to the cost of the bill
and that's before sales/service taxes which add another - what, 6%?

What are all these fees/taxes/access charges doing to real wages?

What's the measure of productivity he's quoting? Per unit, per hour,
per what? I would think that if a company over 8 years increased it's
productivity by 20% (which is 2.5%/yr by the way) that's not a whole lot
considering inflation, raw material costs, etc. And if your company has
a high labor quotient to the cost of production, that's almost
negligible.

If you want to consider inflation, real wages have decreased.

Well, I think the last time I could buy a decent cigar for .75¢ was
about twenty years ago. :)


You should see my water bill. After all the extras like waste water
management and environmental protection fees aew tacked on, the basic charge
and actual usage fees (per cubic meter) triples.
Unbelievable..

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:31:09 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:21:32 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:15:33 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:15*pm, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:10:09 +0000 (UTC), RLM wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:57:41 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:51:27 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:37 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...

That may, or may not be, but American workers are still the most
productive workers on this planet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

In all this discussion, you've never answered the questions asked by
myself or Tom.

A lot of side-stepping, but no direct answer.

Do your own research to prove him wrong. Twenty years of welfare and
nothing but questions. Too lazy to use the internet. Still on welfare.

Who holds your hand to cross the street?

There was no research needed. They were simple questions.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

snerk

Is snerk a remark like snot? It's "snot" in the dictionary and it's "snot"
making any sense. Snot at least is both of those.

Is it just the best the group can muster. My answer to that snerk!

snot

You need to do your own research about 'snerk'.
I did. It means nothing. Just as your remark means nothing. As in doesn't exist.
No value. I could go on.
snot

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:56:12 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:31:09 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:21:32 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:15:33 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:15*pm, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:10:09 +0000 (UTC), RLM wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:57:41 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:51:27 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:37 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...

That may, or may not be, but American workers are still the most
productive workers on this planet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

In all this discussion, you've never answered the questions asked by
myself or Tom.

A lot of side-stepping, but no direct answer.

Do your own research to prove him wrong. Twenty years of welfare and
nothing but questions. Too lazy to use the internet. Still on welfare.

Who holds your hand to cross the street?

There was no research needed. They were simple questions.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

snerk

Is snerk a remark like snot? It's "snot" in the dictionary and it's "snot"
making any sense. Snot at least is both of those.

Is it just the best the group can muster. My answer to that snerk!

snot

You need to do your own research about 'snerk'.
I did. It means nothing. Just as your remark means nothing. As in doesn't exist.
No value. I could go on.
snot

Here, I've done it for you.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snerk

Now, be nice.
--
John

wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:54 pm, D K wrote:
Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and
certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things,
only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary
bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at
bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical
obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is
developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in
GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the
plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when
implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be
produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually
goes belly up in Chapter 7.
Sure, but the end result is "getting people to do the same thing, only
cheaper". Let me ask you something, does the bankruptcy court take
into consideration America's interests? Under normal circumstances,
I would readily agree GM should go Chapter 11, but these are not
normal circumstances. We are in recession, and it's looking like it
could be a severe one. Personally, I don't think we can afford to let
GM go into bankruptcy at this time.
Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto
companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole.
Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money.
The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need
a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in
today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a
government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process,
makes sense to me.
You know, we have already spent $350 billion to bail out the *******s
that caused this mess. We've let them keep their millions in bonuses,
but we're quibbling about spending 1/10 of that to save an industry
that provides 1-3 million jobs. I don't get it. And, I would point
out, it was the incompetence of Wall Street that brought Detroit's
troubles into crisis.
Obama's already talking about major infrastructure spending with the
intent of creating jobs. It seems to me, saving GM's jobs, might in
the long run, be cheaper.
You don't get it? It's easy. The Republicans have great disdain for
working people, especially working people represented by unions. Working
people, after all, are nothing more than property, to be used up and
discarded.
I was opposed to the Wall Street-banker bailout, but not the auto bailout.
Why do employees need the added cost of "representation"? That money
could go into their pockets, not to a litany of people who profit from
other people's work. "Joe Six Pack" certainly doesn't need Jerry
Maguire to represent them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The lazy ones who won't work need the representation. If you work too
hard the union gets on your case. It is in their interest to have
lot's of extra hands around to pay the dues.. Usually it's some excuse
like, "we might get busy so we need to have extra hands around". The
town here wanted to hire a couple of more guys for the street crew so
they slowed down to a crawl last year doing the fall leaves. I was
there when they were all sitting around joking about it. They got
their guys over the summer and low and behold, they were able to make
the schedual this year.. Now what to do with those guys the rest of
the year? I used to work for the town years ago, I had between 1.5 to
two hours work a day and was told directly to make it last all day...

Yup. Typical union BS. The freebie pensions are killing the automakers.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:06:05 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:56:12 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:31:09 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:21:32 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:15:33 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:15*pm, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:10:09 +0000 (UTC), RLM wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:57:41 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:51:27 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:17:37 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...

That may, or may not be, but American workers are still the most
productive workers on this planet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

In all this discussion, you've never answered the questions asked by
myself or Tom.

A lot of side-stepping, but no direct answer.

Do your own research to prove him wrong. Twenty years of welfare and
nothing but questions. Too lazy to use the internet. Still on welfare.

Who holds your hand to cross the street?

There was no research needed. They were simple questions.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

snerk

Is snerk a remark like snot? It's "snot" in the dictionary and it's "snot"
making any sense. Snot at least is both of those.

Is it just the best the group can muster. My answer to that snerk!

snot

You need to do your own research about 'snerk'.
I did. It means nothing. Just as your remark means nothing. As in doesn't exist.
No value. I could go on.WARNING: Crossposting without setting Followup-To.
Post anyway, despite this problem?
snot

Here, I've done it for you.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snerk

Now, be nice.

There's a book of knowledge. You use that as an example?
Snot

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]

Snot \Snot\, n. [AS. snot; akin to D. snot, LG. snotte, Dan.
snot, and to E. snout. See Snout.]
1. Mucus secreted in, or discharged from, the nose. [Low]
[1913 Webster]

2. A mean, insignificant fellow. [Low]
[1913 Webster]


Snot \Snot\, v. t.
To blow, wipe, or clear, as the nose.
[1913 Webster]

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]

snot
n 1: a person regarded as arrogant and annoying [syn: snob, prig]
2: nasal mucus

Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]

77 Moby Thesaurus words for "snot":
bugger, carrion, chyle, colostrum, corruption, creep, crumb, cur,
dandruff, decay, discharge, dog, excrement, filth, foul matter,
furfur, gangrene, gleet, high-hat, humor, ichor, knave, lachryma,
lactation, leukorrhea, louse, lowlife, lymph, matter, mess, milk,
muck, mucor, mucus, obscenity, ordure, peccant humor, phlegm, pig,
prick, puke, purulence, pus, putrid matter, rat, reptile, rheum,
rogue, rot, saliva, sanies, scoundrel, scum, scurf, scuz,
serous fluid, serum, ****, ****head, skunk, slime, smut, snake,
snoot, sod, sordes, stinkard, stinker, suppuration, sweat, tear,
teardrop, the whites, toad, turd, urine, wretch

That's nice.

BAR wrote:


Outstanding performers are taken care of, those who just show up and do
enough to get a paycheck should work for someone else.

You are 100% correct. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in the
unions. They reward the lazy workers and, in turn, give the top
performers no reason to work harder than the losers. They all get the
same pre-negotiated raises so seniority is all they have as a true
benefit over the rest.

I have talked to some "top performers" who would prefer to not be in the
union so they can reap the benefits of their hard work. They were also
concerned about their pensions and would rather have an actual 401K that
can't be mismanaged - by law.

Fortunately, some hard working union members make it into management and
escape the union BS.

Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:


It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching
righties everywhere choking on their own bile.


This does sum up your philosophy of life. Instead of enjoying
watching your political party implement their agenda, that they
believe will strengthening the economy, protecting Americans, while
preserving the Constitution, reestablishing America as a world leader,
that can build consensus to solve global problems etc., you are going
to enjoy "watching righties everywhere chocking on their own bile".

Have you been this way all of your life?




First, Reggie, try to internalize the oft-stated fact that I don't give
a schitt about what you think, feel, or do.

Second, there is nothing inconsistent in believing President Obama with
the help of stronger Democratic majorities in Congress will work
assiduously to reverse the GOP horrors of the last eight years and
improve the quality of life for most Americans and our position in the
world *and* watching righties everywhere choke on their own bile.

I'll be glad to see us moving away from "traditional Republican values,"
such as lynching blacks, beating up gays, and Latinos, and keeping the
"little woman" barefoot, pregnant, and in servitude.

Damn. That was a *bit* over the top. WAFA.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:01 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
Boater wrote:

It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching righties
everywhere choking on their own bile.
This does sum up your philosophy of life. Instead of enjoying watching
your political party implement their agenda, that they believe will
strengthening the economy, protecting Americans, while preserving the
Constitution, reestablishing America as a world leader, that can build
consensus to solve global problems etc., you are going to enjoy
"watching righties everywhere chocking on their own bile".

Have you been this way all of your life?

Remember, they are the party of intolerance and hate.. This is what
you get with the "far left". Unfortunately, that tends to be the
majority of the party recently...

NO, Harry does not represent anyone in any party. He is a frustrated
old man, who is desperately seeking emotional support in rec.boats.
Since he can not find any positive support, he is willing to accept
negative. He is like a 2 yr old whose parents ignore him, so he throws
a tantrum. I would guess he was ignored or abused by his father, and is
looking for some kind of confirmation from anyone.

He doesn't even own a house. I bought my first house when I was 25.

He has a lot to be bitter about and his narcissism only makes it worse.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:01 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
Boater wrote:

It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching
righties
everywhere choking on their own bile.
This does sum up your philosophy of life. Instead of enjoying
watching
your political party implement their agenda, that they believe will
strengthening the economy, protecting Americans, while preserving
the
Constitution, reestablishing America as a world leader, that can
build
consensus to solve global problems etc., you are going to enjoy
"watching righties everywhere chocking on their own bile".

Have you been this way all of your life?

Remember, they are the party of intolerance and hate.. This is what
you get with the "far left". Unfortunately, that tends to be the
majority of the party recently...

NO, Harry does not represent anyone in any party. He is a
frustrated old man, who is desperately seeking emotional support in
rec.boats. Since he can not find any positive support, he is
willing to accept negative. He is like a 2 yr old whose parents
ignore him, so he throws a tantrum. I would guess he was ignored
or abused by his father, and is looking for some kind of
confirmation from anyone.


Ahhh...more psychobabble from the rec.boats pansy.

No it is a very accurate analysis.


More rationalization from Reggie the rec.boats pansy.

Sorry...*still* not interested in the b.s. you spew.

Harry,
I have never known anyone who is more obsessed about other people's
bile, puss and ejaculate than you are. Can you imagine what your wife,
friends or neighbors would say if they read any of your posts in
rec.boats? Can you imagine what they would think if they read your 10
plus years of inflammatory hate filled messages?

Perhaps a summary sent to his "wife" would be in order. We all have the
address.