On Sep 25, 10:41*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:53:10 -0700, Jack wrote:
You know, I don't get all this BS about how the middle class hasn't had
a raise in 30 years. *I look around at the middle class, and they're
living in nice houses, parking at least one nice, new car in their two
car garage, watching a big screen HDTV, PS3, the kids are going to music
and voice lessons, soccer, and have a car of their own when they get old
enough. *And then have tons of opportunity to go to college when they
graduate.

Maybe it's different here, than there, but here, it mostly takes 2
incomes to provide all that. *30-40 years ago, it wasn't that common for
wives to work. *Now, it is uncommon if they don't. *That has to account
for something. *

That's true. While my Mom didn't have a career, she did work before
the first kids were born, and then again after the last were old
enough to take care of themselves when they came home from school.
IOW, she was a stay at home mom when it counted.

But that doesn't really discount my point though, does it? People
these day want it all... several kids, big screen TV, nice cars, and
oh yeah... jobs that didn't require going to college, hard work, or
anything that resembles sacrifice to "earn" a salary that lets them
provide this to their family. Our parents did this, but modern
parents (and evidently liberals) think that all Americans should have
these advantages... without the hard work. I don't believe so.

You'll also note, at the recent G20, there were messages that America can
no longer be counted on to be the world's marketplace. *It's becoming
clear, that America's consumers can no longer afford to drive the world's
economy. *All those jobs shipped off to China, may produce cheap goods,
but if you don't have a job, even cheap goods are not affordable.

You have to admit that the unions have driven the wage for uneducated
labor up so much, that the USA can't be competitive in a world
market. I'd love to see the jobs come back to the USA. However, it's
unrealistic to think that a person that barely graduated high school
would be able to give his family the big house, big screen TV, nice
car reality that other, harder working people get. This is the land
of opportunity, not the land of hand-outs.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who
are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

On Sep 25, 5:28*pm, Zombywoof wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:42:10 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 25, 9:21*am, Zombywoof wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:04:18 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

NO chance of that ever happening
You're too stupid, ignorant and gullible to ever make more than minimum
wage.

IOW i'm middle class and work for a living

Ok, going to give you one more chance prior to sending you off to the
Bozo Bin. *What is the "Middle Class", what is "Rich"? *What is
working for a living, bushing a broom, or the POTUS?

why don't you tell me? you seem to think hedge fund managers earn
their keep by the sweat of their brows while janitors are fleecing the
economy...

Well you blew your last gasket -- off to the Bozo bin.
--

good. then i can be a right wing talk show host

On Sep 25, 5:53*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:28*pm, Zombywoof wrote:



Ok, going to give you one more chance prior to sending you off to the
Bozo Bin. *What is the "Middle Class", what is "Rich"? *What is
working for a living, bushing a broom, or the POTUS?

why don't you tell me? you seem to think hedge fund managers earn
their keep by the sweat of their brows while janitors are fleecing the
economy...

Well you blew your last gasket -- off to the Bozo bin.

You know, I don't get all this BS about how the middle class hasn't
had a raise in 30 years. *I look around at the middle class, and
they're living in nice houses, parking at least one nice, new car in
their two car garage, watching a big screen HDTV, PS3, the kids are
going to music and voice lessons, soccer, and have a car of their own
when they get old enough. *And then have tons of opportunity to go to
college when they graduate.

IOW don't confuse you with the evidence, your mind is made up.

yep. typical right winger. all is right with the world 'cuz the rich
are rich and the middle class is struggling...evidence be damned


I grew up middle class, and we didn't have all that!

and i didn't. guess that makes a difference

*It used to be
that if you wanted to live an affluent life, you studied and worked
your ass off, and hoped you'd make it. *Now people seem to think they
deserve it if they barely graduate high school just because they live
in the USA!

uh...no. the right preaches god has ordained the rich to be rich, and
the middle class has an obligation to support them regardless of how
they pork the middle class

On Sep 25, 10:41*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:53:10 -0700, Jack wrote:
You know, I don't get all this BS about how the middle class hasn't had
a raise in 30 years. *I look around at the middle class, and they're
living in nice houses, parking at least one nice, new car in their two
car garage, watching a big screen HDTV, PS3, the kids are going to music
and voice lessons, soccer, and have a car of their own when they get old
enough. *And then have tons of opportunity to go to college when they
graduate.

Maybe it's different here, than there, but here, it mostly takes 2
incomes to provide all that. *30-40 years ago, it wasn't that common for
wives to work. *Now, it is uncommon if they don't. *That has to account
for something. *

exactly. the reason median income has kept pace with inflation
(without INCREASING) is due to more 2 income families. the right wing
delusion that the middle class has increasing wealth is WRONG



You'll also note, at the recent G20, there were messages that America can
no longer be counted on to be the world's marketplace. *It's becoming
clear, that America's consumers can no longer afford to drive the world's
economy. *All those jobs shipped off to China, may produce cheap goods,
but if you don't have a job, even cheap goods are not affordable.



even the right wing is starting to get the message that, when you lay
off your consumers, the economy tanks.

On Sep 26, 12:56*am, Zombywoof wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who
are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

Old TJ was a wise man. *Most of our Founding Fathers wrote on the
danger of this and an unrestrained government. *I think if alive today
most would screamed at as a Tea-Bagger for not being onboard with the
program.
--

old TJ would turn over in his grave at the socialism in this
country...for the rich

On Sep 26, 12:53*am, Zombywoof wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:41:38 -0500, thunder
wrote:



Maybe it's different here, than there, but here, it mostly takes 2
incomes to provide all that. *30-40 years ago, it wasn't that common for
wives to work. *Now, it is uncommon if they don't. *That has to account
for something. *

Yeah it does account for something, like a whole plethora of Social
Problems. *While I won't save "wife", but when both spouses work who's
going to take care of hearth & home keeping those home fires burning
and nurturing the family unit?

ah the family unit, much beloved of the right wing. except they do
everything they can to destroy it.

family leave? they opposed it. it would hurt the profit of the rich

contraception? they oppose it. it reduces the work force

protection against sex discrimination? they oppose it. women shouldn't
be in the workforce

unemployment insurance? they oppose it. the middle class is lazy. ony
the rich work hard.

lots of blather about the 'family unit'. but they draw a BIG bull's
eye on the family.

On Sep 26, 2:21*pm, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote :



in fact, i've done ALOT of work with IBM over the last 20 years.
they're one of the most inventive and competitive companies in the
world. and their semiconductor plants are unionized

Not over that 20 years they weren't. *Unionization is quite a recent
thing with IBM. *The first alliance was in 1999.

thanks for proving my point. the semiconductor industry in the US has
collapsed. but IBM remains competitive due to its unionized workforce

i agree that unionization is a wonderful thing. the NON unionized
companies in silicon valley have disappeared.


Now, in recent history,
in 2001, IBM cut 500 workers in Burlington, VT, 400 in Endicott, NY, 200
in East Fishkill, 180 in Rochester, NY, 150 in Freemont, CA and 75 in
Raliegh, NC. *In 2002, over 9,000 jobs were cut in June of 2002 and
another 14,000 in August of the same year. *Their was a mass termination
at Lotus Professional Services (which is owned by IBM). *Half of the
consultants working there were told to find new jobs withing LPS or be
let go. *The IBM retirement package now requires that new retirees will
have to pay for medical benefits. *


again, thanks for proving my point. national semi in silicon valley is
closed. non union. phillips in san antonio is closed. non union.
motorola is closed. non union. again and again it's the NON union
plants that have disappeared.


So much for increased benefits by being unionized. *;(

really?

so why don't you get a job with a non-unionized plant?

oh. there aren't any

thanks again for proving why unions are great.

On Sep 26, 10:35*pm, Zombywoof wrote:


I've been an Exempt Employee all my adult life and have been at two
Companies while they went through the Unionization process. *

and i've worked for both unionized and non unionized companies.
unionized companies are healthier


In one Management was absolutely more then happy to see their workers
unionize because it allowed them to dump a ****-load of personnel
programs that weren't required by law, and costing them tons of money.\\

things like vacations...won by union workers? you ready to give up
weekends and vacations?


In the other management took what is more the normally perceived
action and attempted to dissuade the workers from organizing. *Of
course since they really can't prevent it they eventually develop

and since there's no penalty for firing workers engaged in unionizing,
that's what companies do. then they cry when things like the EFCA are
proposed

ed a
"How can we best turn this to our advantage approach". *In very, very
high level Executive Management discussions it was decided to wait and
see what the end-result of collective bargaining was going to be on
the bottom line, usually an increase in hourly wages, then balance the
ledger with numerous & massive cuts in the existing quality of life
programs. *Once again the employees perceived a win, yeah were making
more money, but took it in the ass on all sorts of benefits & perks.
--

chuckle what i've seen is that unionized companies are actually
healthier since unions act as a check on unlimited exec power. unions
win benefits for both exempt and non-exempt employees.

non unionized companies screw their workers like they're $2 whores.
and the right, with their deep, abiding disgust at the very existence
of the middle class, hates unions

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:21 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote :



in fact, i've done ALOT of work with IBM over the last 20 years.
they're one of the most inventive and competitive companies in the
world. and their semiconductor plants are unionized
Not over that 20 years they weren't. Unionization is quite a recent
thing with IBM. The first alliance was in 1999.

thanks for proving my point. the semiconductor industry in the US has
collapsed. but IBM remains competitive due to its unionized workforce

i agree that unionization is a wonderful thing. the NON unionized
companies in silicon valley have disappeared.


Now, in recent history,
in 2001, IBM cut 500 workers in Burlington, VT, 400 in Endicott, NY, 200
in East Fishkill, 180 in Rochester, NY, 150 in Freemont, CA and 75 in
Raliegh, NC. In 2002, over 9,000 jobs were cut in June of 2002 and
another 14,000 in August of the same year. Their was a mass termination
at Lotus Professional Services (which is owned by IBM). Half of the
consultants working there were told to find new jobs withing LPS or be
let go. The IBM retirement package now requires that new retirees will
have to pay for medical benefits.


again, thanks for proving my point. national semi in silicon valley is
closed. non union. phillips in san antonio is closed. non union.
motorola is closed. non union. again and again it's the NON union
plants that have disappeared.

So much for increased benefits by being unionized. ;(

really?

so why don't you get a job with a non-unionized plant?

oh. there aren't any

thanks again for proving why unions are great.

Your anecdotes prove nothing.

There are NO unionized semiconductor plants in Silicon Valley. Or
elsewhere, for that matter, AFAIK.

Semiconductor plants all across the US are closing because the plants
age, require billions of dollars to renovate to be competitive, and so
have been shut down in favor of using plants offshore.

And just FYI, Silicon Valley is one hellaciously expensive place to
live. Nobody in their right mind would try to build a new plant there.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

On Sep 27, 8:12*am, Bama Brian wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:21 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net wrote:
wf3h wrote :

in fact, i've done ALOT of work with IBM over the last 20 years.
they're one of the most inventive and competitive companies in the
world. and their semiconductor plants are unionized
Not over that 20 years they weren't. *Unionization is quite a recent
thing with IBM. *The first alliance was in 1999.

thanks for proving my point. the semiconductor industry in the US has
collapsed. but IBM remains competitive due to its unionized workforce

i agree that unionization is a wonderful thing. the NON unionized
companies in silicon valley have disappeared.

Now, in recent history,
in 2001, IBM cut 500 workers in Burlington, VT, 400 in Endicott, NY, 200
in East Fishkill, 180 in Rochester, NY, 150 in Freemont, CA and 75 in
Raliegh, NC. *In 2002, over 9,000 jobs were cut in June of 2002 and
another 14,000 in August of the same year. *Their was a mass termination
at Lotus Professional Services (which is owned by IBM). *Half of the
consultants working there were told to find new jobs withing LPS or be
let go. *The IBM retirement package now requires that new retirees will
have to pay for medical benefits. *

again, thanks for proving my point. national semi in silicon valley is
closed. non union. phillips in san antonio is closed. non union.
motorola is closed. non union. again and again it's the NON union
plants that have disappeared.

So much for increased benefits by being unionized. *;(

really?

so why don't you get a job with a non-unionized plant?

oh. there aren't any

thanks again for proving why unions are great.

Your anecdotes prove nothing.

There are NO unionized semiconductor plants in Silicon Valley. *Or
elsewhere, for that matter, AFAIK.

gee. it's too bad you don't know the industry. ever hear of IBM?

oh. you haven't. but you're an authority on the industry



Semiconductor plants all across the US are closing because the plants
age, require billions of dollars to renovate to be competitive, and so
have been shut down in favor of using plants offshore.

And just FYI, Silicon Valley is one hellaciously expensive place to
live. *Nobody in their right mind would try to build a new plant there.


agreed. and since there were no unionized plants there, ever, and
there are few plants there today, unions had zip to do with the death
of the industry in the US