"Jim -" wrote in message
news:vSDib.763168$uu5.132463@sccrnsc04...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

When an H-1 visa engineer that is just as capable as a USA
born
engineer will work for $60k, you think we can compete in the
world market?

If we had our **** together and did a decent job of educating
our
kids,
we
could be pumping out labor ready technical folks who'd be
damned
pleased
to
make $40 to $60K a year. We haven't made the investment in our
own
educational infrastructure, India obviously has.

It's just another example of how we've ceded our competitive
edge to
others -- in an industry we invented.

Stupid.

You call me stupid? Read your statement and then go look in the
mirror.
We
seem to have non labor ready carpenters that require 80k a year,
longshoreman that require 100k+ and you think a college
educated,
labor
ready person will want to work for 40-60K?



It's your own fault you made the wrong career choices.



Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are.
Explain
how we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.



We can start by lowering "executive" salary to no more than several
times what the average worker at a corporation makes.


I think that would be a terrific start. Would labor agree to
proportional
cuts, as well? In other words, would the following hypothetical
scenario be
agreeable?

Management's total income costs a company $500 million dollars split
among
500 of its top management. If you cut that by 60%, you've reduced
management labor expense to $200 million split among the top
management.

If labor's total income expense is also $500 million, but it's split
among
10000 employees, would they accept a 60% cut in pay? How about a 40%
cut?
Or even a 10% cut? Probably not...because labor is very
short-sighted.




Most successful companies overseas allow their chief execs to make only
several times the average pay of the people they employ.


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

You are nothing but a left wing socialist Harry. In your world everyone
should make
the same and share equally in the wealth, regardless of whose money was
originally at
or remains at stake to create the wealth.

I am glad I don't live in your world.



Japanese actually do pay salaries to their top exec's that are only a small
multiple of the employees. But for tax purposes the expense account is
tremendous. Expenses the US IRS would not allow without charging taxes on
them, in otherwords salary. House, vacations, unlimited charge card for
entertaining, etc.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim - wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim - wrote:

Most successful companies overseas allow their chief execs to make only
several times the average pay of the people they employ.


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

Don't be so damned lazy, Dennis. It's out there. It's even been reported
in the WSJ any number of times.


That is your typical response when asked to provide proof. But that dog don't hunt
anymore Harry. If you cannot provide the proof I guess I will once again assume
you
spouted nothing but a lie.


It's not my fault you're an intellectual washout, Dennis. It is
well-known that many American corporations grossly overpay their chief
execs, and that among many successful European corporations, the
multiple of the chief exec's income over that of the average worker
doesn't begin to approach the multiple here.

As an example, one of the highest paid European execs is Jorma Ollila,
the chairman and CEO of Nokia, one of the most the most successful telco
equipment manufacturers in the world. In 2002, Ollila earned about $3
million, half from salary, half from bonus. A lot of money, and much
more than his average worker, but...the multiple isn't like it is in
this country, where the typical corporate CEO at a large company is
taking home about 600 times as much as the typical worker.

Do something other than skim NewsMax, Dennis. Your ignorance of the real
world has to embarrass your family.



You still have not provided proof to your statement that "Most successful companies
overseas allow their chief execs to make only several times the average pay of the
people they employ."

Insult me all you want Harry. That is your MO when cornered like a rat.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:vSDib.763168$uu5.132463@sccrnsc04...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

When an H-1 visa engineer that is just as capable as a USA
born
engineer will work for $60k, you think we can compete in the
world market?

If we had our **** together and did a decent job of educating
our
kids,
we
could be pumping out labor ready technical folks who'd be
damned
pleased
to
make $40 to $60K a year. We haven't made the investment in our
own
educational infrastructure, India obviously has.

It's just another example of how we've ceded our competitive
edge to
others -- in an industry we invented.

Stupid.

You call me stupid? Read your statement and then go look in the
mirror.
We
seem to have non labor ready carpenters that require 80k a year,
longshoreman that require 100k+ and you think a college
educated,
labor
ready person will want to work for 40-60K?



It's your own fault you made the wrong career choices.



Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are.
Explain
how we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.



We can start by lowering "executive" salary to no more than several
times what the average worker at a corporation makes.


I think that would be a terrific start. Would labor agree to
proportional
cuts, as well? In other words, would the following hypothetical
scenario be
agreeable?

Management's total income costs a company $500 million dollars split
among
500 of its top management. If you cut that by 60%, you've reduced
management labor expense to $200 million split among the top
management.

If labor's total income expense is also $500 million, but it's split
among
10000 employees, would they accept a 60% cut in pay? How about a 40%
cut?
Or even a 10% cut? Probably not...because labor is very
short-sighted.




Most successful companies overseas allow their chief execs to make only
several times the average pay of the people they employ.


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

You are nothing but a left wing socialist Harry. In your world everyone
should make
the same and share equally in the wealth, regardless of whose money was
originally at
or remains at stake to create the wealth.

I am glad I don't live in your world.



Japanese actually do pay salaries to their top exec's that are only a small
multiple of the employees. But for tax purposes the expense account is
tremendous. Expenses the US IRS would not allow without charging taxes on
them, in otherwords salary. House, vacations, unlimited charge card for
entertaining, etc.



Harry did not say "Many successful businesses in Japan". He said "most successful
businesses overseas".

And he was wrong.

I worked for a company located in Zurich. The executives were very well paid. This
company was not an exception of the successful ones in Europe, not by a far stretch.
This included manufacturing companies and service providers.

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:LYQib.560810$cF.237779@rwcrnsc53...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:vSDib.763168$uu5.132463@sccrnsc04...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

When an H-1 visa engineer that is just as capable as a USA
born
engineer will work for $60k, you think we can compete in
the
world market?

If we had our **** together and did a decent job of
educating
our
kids,
we
could be pumping out labor ready technical folks who'd be
damned
pleased
to
make $40 to $60K a year. We haven't made the investment in
our
own
educational infrastructure, India obviously has.

It's just another example of how we've ceded our
competitive
edge to
others -- in an industry we invented.

Stupid.

You call me stupid? Read your statement and then go look in
the
mirror.
We
seem to have non labor ready carpenters that require 80k a
year,
longshoreman that require 100k+ and you think a college
educated,
labor
ready person will want to work for 40-60K?



It's your own fault you made the wrong career choices.



Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are.
Explain
how we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.



We can start by lowering "executive" salary to no more than
several
times what the average worker at a corporation makes.


I think that would be a terrific start. Would labor agree to
proportional
cuts, as well? In other words, would the following hypothetical
scenario be
agreeable?

Management's total income costs a company $500 million dollars
split
among
500 of its top management. If you cut that by 60%, you've reduced
management labor expense to $200 million split among the top
management.

If labor's total income expense is also $500 million, but it's
split
among
10000 employees, would they accept a 60% cut in pay? How about a
40%
cut?
Or even a 10% cut? Probably not...because labor is very
short-sighted.




Most successful companies overseas allow their chief execs to make
only
several times the average pay of the people they employ.


Care to provide some proof to that claim?

You are nothing but a left wing socialist Harry. In your world
everyone
should make
the same and share equally in the wealth, regardless of whose money
was
originally at
or remains at stake to create the wealth.

I am glad I don't live in your world.



Japanese actually do pay salaries to their top exec's that are only a
small
multiple of the employees. But for tax purposes the expense account is
tremendous. Expenses the US IRS would not allow without charging taxes
on
them, in otherwords salary. House, vacations, unlimited charge card for
entertaining, etc.



Harry did not say "Many successful businesses in Japan". He said "most
successful
businesses overseas".

And he was wrong.

I worked for a company located in Zurich. The executives were very well
paid. This
company was not an exception of the successful ones in Europe, not by a
far stretch.
This included manufacturing companies and service providers.



Sweden used to have a 101% tax rate on all income over 100K. They corrected
that but I would guess they still have huge tax rate on middle higher
income. So the payoff is probably stock options, etc.
Bill

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
snip

Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are. Explain how
we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.

Tell me again how much we are supposed to make to be competitive with
$2.00/hour labor?

We simply are not going to be able to reduce wages enough to be competitive
with the third world. Now that the Pandora's box of free-trade is open, our
standard of living will be under fire until the standard of living in the
USA is equal to the standards of living in the poorest country in the world.

End of story.

Mark Browne

"NOYB" wrote in message
.net...
snip

I think that would be a terrific start. Would labor agree to proportional
cuts, as well? In other words, would the following hypothetical scenario
be
agreeable?

Management's total income costs a company $500 million dollars split among
500 of its top management. If you cut that by 60%, you've reduced
management labor expense to $200 million split among the top management.

If labor's total income expense is also $500 million, but it's split among
10000 employees, would they accept a 60% cut in pay? How about a 40% cut?
Or even a 10% cut? Probably not...because labor is very short-sighted.

It does not matter if they agree or not - with the magic of free trade, and
our free market economy - the average worker will get the big cut anyway.
Judging from the tone of your post; you should welcome this truth.

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
. net...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
snip

Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are. Explain
how
we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.

Tell me again how much we are supposed to make to be competitive with
$2.00/hour labor?

We simply are not going to be able to reduce wages enough to be
competitive
with the third world. Now that the Pandora's box of free-trade is open,
our
standard of living will be under fire until the standard of living in the
USA is equal to the standards of living in the poorest country in the
world.

End of story.

Mark Browne



Free trade has been around for a long time. Isolationism did not work in
the 30's, won't work now. The last 25 years of excess government spending
has screwed us. 1980 $23K was a good white collar salary. Now this is at
least $2k into the poverty level. People were doing well in this country on
$14k / year. the rest of the industialized world was not that far from us
in wages. Now we can not compete in the labor intensive jobs. Maybe if
China floats their currency, things would be better, but they are not about
to float it. We had the same problem with Japan. For years, the Yen, was
artificially held low. Japan would not allow the yen to be used for
international debt currency clearing. Only accepted $$$$ or related
European money. Made Japan an economic powerhouse. Now Japan is in a funk
economically as their labor costs are higher then mainland Asia. Maybe the
only cure is Deflation. This administration is adding to the debt, but no
more than the last bunch of administrations in relation to GDP. Deficit
spending has been about 3% / year for years. Unfortunately 3% compounded
doubles cost in about 24 years.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
. net...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
snip

Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are. Explain
how
we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.

Tell me again how much we are supposed to make to be competitive with
$2.00/hour labor?

We simply are not going to be able to reduce wages enough to be
competitive
with the third world. Now that the Pandora's box of free-trade is open,
our
standard of living will be under fire until the standard of living in
the
USA is equal to the standards of living in the poorest country in the
world.

End of story.

Mark Browne



Free trade has been around for a long time. Isolationism did not work in
the 30's, won't work now. The last 25 years of excess government spending
has screwed us. 1980 $23K was a good white collar salary. Now this is at
least $2k into the poverty level. People were doing well in this country
on
$14k / year. the rest of the industrialized world was not that far from
us
in wages. Now we can not compete in the labor intensive jobs.

When the USA achieves parity with the rest of the world, we will be ale to
compete again. Unfortunately, there will be a great deal of pain involved.
The possibility a stagnant economy until the rest of the world catches up,
or rampant deflation until we achieve parity. Neither way is very good. A
third, but almost unthinkable way, is to speed up the growth of partner
economies to achieve parity. Sadly, greed and shortsightedness will never
allow this as a viable option.

Maybe if
China floats their currency, things would be better, but they are not
about
to float it. We had the same problem with Japan. For years, the Yen, was
artificially held low. Japan would not allow the yen to be used for
international debt currency clearing. Only accepted $$$$ or related
European money.

The world conversion to Euros is likely. The dollar would take a terrible
beating because of the current USA structural weakness, as you have
outlined. We are in for several years of very hard sledding.

Made Japan an economic powerhouse. Now Japan is in a funk
economically as their labor costs are higher then mainland Asia. Maybe
the
only cure is Deflation.

We agree on this. See above.

This administration is adding to the debt, but no
more than the last bunch of administrations in relation to GDP. Deficit
spending has been about 3% / year for years. Unfortunately 3% compounded
doubles cost in about 24 years.

I agree, the national debt is one of the greatest problems this country
faces. Both parties are to blame. Both parties should be given their walking
papers. Sadly, at this point in time, what is the alternative?

The current parties have built themselves into the election process. I would
like to see an end to the party process and related structures.

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
. net...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
snip

Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are. Explain
how
we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.

Tell me again how much we are supposed to make to be competitive with
$2.00/hour labor?

We simply are not going to be able to reduce wages enough to be
competitive
with the third world. Now that the Pandora's box of free-trade is open,
our
standard of living will be under fire until the standard of living in the
USA is equal to the standards of living in the poorest country in the
world.

There's your pessimism shining through again, Mark.

Why not rewrite that to say "Now that we have free-trade, the standards of
living in the poorest countries will continue to rise until the standard of
living in those countries is closer to the standard of living in the USA"?

You say "Yeah, right". Well...it happened in Japan.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
. net...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
snip

Your reply shows how much out of touch with reality you are. Explain
how
we
are to compete in the world market, given our labor costs.

Tell me again how much we are supposed to make to be competitive with
$2.00/hour labor?

We simply are not going to be able to reduce wages enough to be
competitive
with the third world. Now that the Pandora's box of free-trade is open,
our
standard of living will be under fire until the standard of living in
the
USA is equal to the standards of living in the poorest country in the
world.

There's your pessimism shining through again, Mark.

Why not rewrite that to say "Now that we have free-trade, the standards of
living in the poorest countries will continue to rise until the standard
of
living in those countries is closer to the standard of living in the USA"?

You say "Yeah, right". Well...it happened in Japan.

Hmmm, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Japan was a relatively
small country in relation to the United States, and the degree of trade
imbalance was small in relation to the United States GDP. The population in
China, just to take one trading partner for example, dwarfs the USA. When
you add up India, China, most of Asia, Mexico, and Canada, you are turning
the equation completely around. We can bleed the USA dry and not bring the
rest of the world up the current USA standard of living. On the other hand,
as skilled jobs leave the country we can see a collapse of the middle class
resulting in a transformation of the USA into a country resembling Mexico.

The only hope in my mind is to use tools like the IMF and WTO to rapidly
build up the economies of other countries, instead of bleeding them dry.

Mark Browne