"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...

The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in
products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be
in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding
back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to
address the things that are killing the manufacturing base.

Old instructor told me long ago, don't bother with the bee, go for the
stinger...

Scotty, we need to go for the stinger.


The roads and bridges are dandy, until they collapse. Infrastructure is
one of the things we really need to work on in this country.


The reason they haven't been is .... no money. An otherwise healthy
business climate must
exist generating tax revenues is needed to pay for fixing the roads a
bridges. A healthy
business climate is something we don't have.

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:56:47 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

There are plenty of things we need in the
infrastructure area. We just need to talk people into paying for it.

The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in
products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be
in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding
back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to
address the things that are killing the manufacturing base.

When you start building roads and bridges you also crank up the heavy
equipment factories, the cement plants and the steel fabricators.
There are also other infrastructure items like our failing sewer
systems and water distribution that need work.
We would put a lot of people to work if this wind generation scheme
caught hold but the environmentalists will never let it happen.


I just don't get it. Government spending on infrastructure may create some
jobs in
certain industries, but it needs to be paid for by tax revenues from
somewhere.
Tax revenues come mostly from income taxes on employed people..... 45
percent, I think.
Point is, there has to be more private industry jobs hiring people who pay
taxes than just
those working on infrastructure improvements to pay for it.

Otherwise, the US just continues to borrow money to create a few jobs.

Eisboch

Exactly... We have to stop making roads and hiring Government auditors
to keep track of them.

Scotty

I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:56:47 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

There are plenty of things we need in the
infrastructure area. We just need to talk people into paying for it.
The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in
products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be
in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding
back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to
address the things that are killing the manufacturing base.
When you start building roads and bridges you also crank up the heavy
equipment factories, the cement plants and the steel fabricators.
There are also other infrastructure items like our failing sewer
systems and water distribution that need work.
We would put a lot of people to work if this wind generation scheme
caught hold but the environmentalists will never let it happen.

I just don't get it. Government spending on infrastructure may create some
jobs in
certain industries, but it needs to be paid for by tax revenues from
somewhere.
Tax revenues come mostly from income taxes on employed people..... 45
percent, I think.
Point is, there has to be more private industry jobs hiring people who pay
taxes than just
those working on infrastructure improvements to pay for it.

Otherwise, the US just continues to borrow money to create a few jobs.

Eisboch

Exactly... We have to stop making roads and hiring Government auditors
to keep track of them.

Scotty


We?

You don't work and you don't pay taxes.

On Jan 24, 9:35*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jan 24, 4:38 pm, I am Tosk wrote:





In article f59dda3b-def7-4970-a98a-c5314f862444
@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 24, 3:02 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...

Chinese are tightening their credit. I thinks Obama's problems just
got
worse. Especially if China wants some of that maturing US debt paid
off.

What happens if the USA just says, "No"?

Just curious.

Eisboch

They'll quit selling their products here. That'll show us.

I dare you to walk around your house and find 10 items you need to live
life the way you do.. Then do an Internet search and see if you could
have those items if the Chinese stopped making them or the parts for
them... OK, you might be able to do it if you tried, but if everyone in
the country was trying to buy a pair of socks from the last company in
the US that made them (BTW I don't think anybody here does) we would run
out pretty quickly.

Scotty
A huge part of the problem is the fact that we don't manufacture much
stuff here. *IMO, we need to start making stuff here again. *Of

I agree.

course, we can't when unions think that unskilled labor assemblimg an
outlet strip should earn $60k a year.

What's wrong with them thinking that? Nothing. It's called what the market
will bear.

No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.
Collective bargaining = legalized coercion. In the end the workers
priced themselves right out of a job.


And if we all bought socks from the last US company making them,
they'd have a banner year, expand, and we'd have the socks we need and
more jobs to boot.

Except that GM/Chrysler designed cars that nobody wanted.

That dog won't hunt... if that were true there wouldn't be so many of
them on the road. The companies simply became unprofitable, for many
reasons. One large factor is the cost of labor, AKA unions.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:52:23 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:56:47 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

There are plenty of things we need in the
infrastructure area. We just need to talk people into paying for it.

The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in
products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be
in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding
back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to
address the things that are killing the manufacturing base.

When you start building roads and bridges you also crank up the heavy
equipment factories, the cement plants and the steel fabricators.
There are also other infrastructure items like our failing sewer
systems and water distribution that need work.
We would put a lot of people to work if this wind generation scheme
caught hold but the environmentalists will never let it happen.

I still think putting all that money into roads that folks will drive
around on for free isn't as good as putting the money into factories t
make hard goods that can be sold to the public...

Scotty


Without decent roads, how will they get those goods to market?
Roads aren't "free" anyway. They get funded through gas taxes.
Unfortunately that fund gets raided for non-road things.

Well, I am certainly not advocating stopping maintenance on current
roads and such, but that alone is not going to save our economy or
manufacturing base. I don't think there are too many here who really
trust that the union highway workers are "productive" with our money. We
need to start making products again, period...

Scotty

I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:52:23 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:56:47 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

There are plenty of things we need in the
infrastructure area. We just need to talk people into paying for it.
The roads and bridges are fine, and the dollar for dollar return in
products is not as good when spent on highway maintenance as it would be
in a decent sock factory. It's not the infrastructure that is holding
back our manufacturing. It's the Un..... well, either way, we need to
address the things that are killing the manufacturing base.
When you start building roads and bridges you also crank up the heavy
equipment factories, the cement plants and the steel fabricators.
There are also other infrastructure items like our failing sewer
systems and water distribution that need work.
We would put a lot of people to work if this wind generation scheme
caught hold but the environmentalists will never let it happen.
I still think putting all that money into roads that folks will drive
around on for free isn't as good as putting the money into factories t
make hard goods that can be sold to the public...

Scotty

Without decent roads, how will they get those goods to market?
Roads aren't "free" anyway. They get funded through gas taxes.
Unfortunately that fund gets raided for non-road things.

Well, I am certainly not advocating stopping maintenance on current
roads and such, but that alone is not going to save our economy or
manufacturing base. I don't think there are too many here who really
trust that the union highway workers are "productive" with our money. We
need to start making products again, period...

Scotty


Since you are not qualified to make products, you ought to pick up some
skills to help you get that day laborer job...

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:


No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

On Jan 25, 2:19*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. *It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. *Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage,
and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven
by , among other factors, market conditions.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to
sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the
unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking
workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's
demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry.

Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:52:08 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Jan 25, 2:19Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. Â*It's not market driven when the company has
no choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Â*Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage, and
the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven by ,
among other factors, market conditions.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to sustain
the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the unions. The
company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking workers, and
will go under if it does not comply with the union's demands. It is
essentially held hostage until bled dry.

The entire history of the labor movement, not withstanding. Coercion is
just as likely to come from management, as from the union. The entire
concept of unions, is to balance the equation. If either side gets out
of whack, the system doesn't work. You seem quite willing to accept the
company's collective, take it or leave it position. I'll point out,
that's many against one. With a union, it's many against many. Which is
fairer?

Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

While you're thinking, consider this. The strength of this country is
the middle class, and the strength of the middle class correlates quite
closely with union membership. Cause and effect?

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 2:19 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:11:32 -0800, Jack wrote:
No, it's called greed. It's not market driven when the company has no
choice but to pay.

Gordon Gekko, "Greed...is good."

You're basing your position on a fictional character? Awesome.

You're basing your position on words from Rush? Equally Awesome.


Collective bargaining = legalized coercion.

I'm glad you finally see it. Although, I'm sure that you are in denial
that a corporation is a collective by definition.

Big difference in application, though.

In a non-union environment, the company offers the jobs for a wage,
and the workers have a choice to take it or not. The wage is driven
by , among other factors, market conditions.

Assuming there are other jobs.

In a union environment, the job and it's wages are controlled by the
union through coercion. As we've seen, the market's ability to
sustain the wage seemingly has no influence on the demands of the
unions. The company has no choice, as it can not terminate striking
workers, and will go under if it does not comply with the union's
demands. It is essentially held hostage until bled dry.

No.. negotiated by the management and the union. Both have coercive elements
in their position. Yes, there's a lag in wage adjustment due to market
conditions, since it's a contract situation. The management (and the union)
need to honor the contract, unless the company goes bankrupts (as what
happened). Union workers don't generally strike in the middle of a contract,
unless there are special circumstances.

And, it's never an either/or situation. There are typically union and
non-union shops. So, your statement about if they don't like the wage, they
can go somewhere else doesn't necessarily apply. There might be other
non-union shops, but there might not be.

Easy concepts to grasp, if you'll just... think.

I agree!

--
Nom=de=Plume