On 05 Nov 2004 06:33:36 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

What should we as a society do for those people who do not have the desire
or the ability to move up?

Employment is not a contract between a worker and "society", but rather between
a worker and an employer.

What society should do is prevent the unequal status of the
applicant/supplicant desperate for work and the potential employer with the job
from becoming an abusive situation. The lower the wages paid to an employee,
the greater the dependence that employee will have on the public trough.
Mini-wage sets a realistic standard that says, "you will pay at least this
pittance, to offset at least some of the living expenses and keep your people
out of the trough as much as possible." It shouldn't be the taxpayer's
responsibility to provide virtually all the basic needs for a family just so an
employer can get by with paying a predatory wage.

What should we do when an honest hard working immigrant (either legal or
illegal) wants to work picking produce or digging ditches.

See above. Asking society to provde food, shelter, and other basic services to
an employee so that you, the employer, can work that person on the double cheap
is just plain wrong. It's just a surely a raid on the public treasury for the
benefit of a private individual (the employer) as the stereotypical welfare
woman cranking out 15 kids to stay on the dole most of her life.


In construction
and farming, 2 or 3 levels promotion is middle management. If we don't
believe they can move up to middle management we just don't hire them?

You don't oridnarily hire a lot of permanent workers in farming. When you have
a crop to pick, you take all willing and capable hands. You don't worry about
30 days down the road, harvest will be over by then.

When you do hire those willing and capable hands, it should be done legally and
at a rate equal to or above the state minimum.

In your car dealership when you hired a janitor, what jobs were you planning
to promote him to?

Janitors were outside contractors. I would imagine a beginning janitor would be
able to work up to crew chief, or what not, before long- but I never direclty
hired janitors.

Menial laborers were typically "lot boys."
Good ones could work up to slightly less menial jobs in the shop, take some
technical classes and buy some tools, and eventually make a decent middle class
income as a technician. Those proving unworthy of promotion typically didn't
last long- chronic absenteeism, showing up to drunk to work, burning a phat one
out behind the detail shop, etc. "Next!"


What do we do for all these people who can not meet your requirements for
employment.

We don't do anything for them. No need. There are plenty of guys who believe
that hiring as cheaply as possible is the only way to go, and they can't be too
picky about what they get. The guys who don't want to pay anything and those
who don't want to work very hard deserve each other, and they do seem to find
one another more often than not.

All we do is be sure that the employer doesn't take such extreme advantage of
his superior economic power that his sick, starving, homeless workers create a
huge drain on everybody else.

An employer with a growing business is always in a position to provide
opportunities to bright, energetic, talented people who will grow along with
the business and make everybody in sight richer along the way. It isn't the
employers responsibilty to waste those opportunities on the dull, the
undermotivated, or the unqualified. The culls should go to the guys who run a
business so badly that a worker isn't empowered to produce enough wealth for
both himself and his employer.

Ever notice that it is usually the same guys who call for the elimination of
minimum wage laws who also call for an end to all public assistance for food,
shelter, or medical care?

You might ask some of them what should be done with the working poor.....

"better they should die, and decrease the surplus population" Ebenezer
Scrooge, "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens

Anyone lacking a close up perspective might enjoy reading a book called
"Nickled and Dimed, on Not Getting By in America."


Chuck, do you think increasing the minimum wage will slow down the
illegal immigration across our southern border? Or, will it just
become worse? If the situation is so bad, why do we get three million
illegals a year?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:49:11 +0100, Jelle
wrote:

Snipped

And another brilliant argument! You are right because you know you are
right! And you know that it is right to show off your patriotism, and to
make your neighbors do the same. Did you do your marching 'for freedom'
yet?

[...please learn to quote...]

Jelle, keep watching the European news networks, especially the
French, and believe everything they say. You'll go far and gain a lot
of respect, from Harry and b'asskisser.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:41:29 -0500, "Netsock" wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
As you just did?

Posting off topic...

Feeding the trolls...

Contributing nothing about boating...

Strike three...you're out!

*ploink*

Hope I'm still out!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On 05 Nov 2004 16:54:24 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Eisboch,
Gould showed us that when it is his company or his money, he is a brutal
Capitalist.

It's written somewhere that a liberal must be poor?

You and Eisboch both fail to see the fundamental liberalism in the hiring
philosophy. An employer has an obligation to create an atmosphere of
opportunity, where employees can grow and prosper.
This serves fiscal and social ends at the same time. Judge a business not
merely on how well the owner prospers, but how the employees grow and prosper
as well.



I thought I
was a Capitalist, but I would have keep an employee if was able to do the
job he was paid to do.

Sounds like a government job. That sort of attitude will put a private company
in the tank, especially a small one.

The guy merely doing the job he was hired to do was either mishired, (as he has
no capacity to grow and therefore help the company at an increased level of
responsibility), is undermotivated, or works in an environment that is not
interested in the future and well-being of the employee and does not provide
opportunity and training for advancement.
Those are all management failures. Show me an enterprise filled with folks
merely doing "the job I was hired to do" and we'll see a stagnant or failing
business.

I would not fire him or leave him in the roles of
unemployable just because I did not believe he could move up in the
corporation.

Ever hire anybody? That process always involves a decision to leave people in
the ranks of the unemployed. Do you recommend that when a firm has a job
opening it should be filled with the first warm body to appear with an
application?
Failure to do so will probably leave somebody among the ranks of the
unemployed.


Or employed in a lower position somewhere. Much hiring occurs at
levels other than entry level. Entry level jobs are just that. A
person shouldn't be making babies if he/she has an entry level
position. The minimum wage was never supposed to care for a family of
four or more.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:27:05 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:38:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


There are a number of attractive places in the world where the Bushtapo
isn't...I suspect there will be a significant and increasing outflow of
some of our really best and brightest to those locations as the United
States of Jesus slides back into the primordial ooze.

Geez Harry, we aren't there yet. While I found the election results
*very* discouraging, I have faith in the resilience of this great country.
We will survive this administration. Also, don't forget, that since
Eisenhower, the Republicans haven't been able to run this country without
shooting themselves. I'm sure with all the zealots, the DeLays, history
will repeat itself.

What do they call the 10,000 liberals moving to Canada?

A good start. Lead the procession, both of you!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:13:13 -0500, JohnH wrote:


What do they call the 10,000 liberals moving to Canada?

A good start. Lead the procession, both of you!

Said the brown shirt to the Jew.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:28:32 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:13:13 -0500, JohnH wrote:


What do they call the 10,000 liberals moving to Canada?

A good start. Lead the procession, both of you!

Said the brown shirt to the Jew.

I've been to Canada and to Dachau. No comparison.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Chuck, do you think increasing the minimum wage will slow down the
illegal immigration across our southern border? Or, will it just
become worse? If the situation is so bad, why do we get three million
illegals a year?

John H

I believe an employer should follow all the applicable laws regarding hiring
and employment, and that nobody should be expected to work for less than the
legal minimum. The minimum wage is a state's right issue, (over and above the
$5 something federal requirement), so nobody can say that across the board the
miniwage has to be increased.

An individual working 40 hours a week ought to be able to, in the spirit of
fairness,
live an an adequate shelter, enjoy adequate nutrition, and obtain the most
fundamental basic necessities of life. Those necessities don't include a new
car,
(or maybe even any car) a 35" plasma TV, etc.Nobody realistically expects the
people on the bottom rung to be awarded a
luxurious lifestyle- but if a person is offering his life's energy to an
employer it shouldn't fall to society at large to get that person off the
street and fed at least a subsistence diet.

Our $7 + miniwage around here might sound like a lot of money to somebody
living where rents are still $350 a month- but it takes some creative arranging
to stretch $14,000 a year in an economy where marginally liveable apartments
are
$700-1000 a month. Different states and local economies have different costs
and pay scales.

Gould,

You showed that you are interested in doing whatever is necessary to make a
profit, to make your company profitable and to maximize your growth. You
wanted to maximize the return to the owners at any costs, including firing
people who were not able to do the job at the level you demanded of them.

What if a corporation did exactly what you recommended for your smaller
company? What if a corporation found it could it could hire better workers
for less than their current employees? Should they fire those workers or
continue to pay higher salaries to workers who are not as productive as the
new work force?

What if a school district fired a teacher because here students were not
performing well on their standardized tests. Since the students are the
future of our country, shouldn't we hold them up to the same standards as
you employed in your car business?




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
That is not a liberal philosophy, that is Capitalism at its best.

Why do you feel liberalism and capitalism are incompatible?

Netsock reminds me of Harry, continually telling everyone who he has in his
bozo bin.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:41:29 -0500, "Netsock" wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...
As you just did?

Posting off topic...

Feeding the trolls...

Contributing nothing about boating...

Strike three...you're out!

*ploink*

Hope I'm still out!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!