|
Liberal Racist?
Ok.. Let us put this into terms you can understand, it is plain to see I
have put it over your head. 1 of these jobs sent over seas that could be held by an unskilled American. By the company hiring 2 unskilled Americans, 2 families can be reduced from the American Welfare Roles. They can work 24 hours a week and earn around the same amount as they get on welfare. Earning $6,552 per year. By the company hiring 2 unskilled persons in America, the persons working at the skilled rate of $10.00 per hour for the 24 hour work week, they would earn $12,480 per year. This would possibly get them off welfare and foodstamps. Either way, the company is protected as the people are not "full time" employees (no benefits), the United States Government gets the taxes, the Local Governments get the taxes, The Department of Social Security gets an infusion of money, and, you aren't "paying for some lazy so-and-so to sit at home and do nothing while everyone else has to work to support them." America becomes stronger, the economy is stimulated and it helps all of America. No, I don't sound like the people of the past, Progress is a move forward, not a step back. Outsourcing jobs is not a step forward for our country. For us to help the "world economy" we must be able to support our own economy. We can't support our own if we are building someone else's just to make a company rich. If you want to see America Advance, you must start in America. You don't do this by sending American Jobs to other countries, you don't do this by opening the borders to employment from other countries. You do this by building America then look toward inviting others to join in the prosperity. I used to live in El Paso, Texas. They opened the border there for employees from Mexico. Yes they are great people, yes they are hard workers. These employees would come to America every day to work, they would earn 5.25 per hour (more money in 1 week that they could earn in an entire month in Mexico), but due to the number of employees working for minimum wage, skilled Americans were unable to earn a living. They were exempt from all taxes in the United States with the exception of State Sales Tax. "John Smith" wrote in message news:2iVGc.39249$%_6.16397@attbi_s01... You sound like the people in the 1950's who were waging a war against automation in the manufacturing sector, or in the 60's and 70's who were waging a war against people who were losing jobs to computers, or going back to the early 20th century, those in the buggy whip factories whose jobs were replaced by those in the automotive industry. The fact of the matter is if US companies do not do what is necessary to insure that they are not completive with other countries (i.e. European, Japan, Australia, Canada etc) it will result in substantially more US jobs lost than we are currently losing. Is this unfair to those who lose their jobs, definitely, but the alternative is substantially worse. The US or any other country can not ignore the fact the rules have changed, today we are in a world economy. Those industries and countries who adapt will prosper. Those countries and industries who ignore that fact, will go the way of the dodo bird. wrote in message nk.net... Ok.. So it is 2496 hours a year $3,000 dollars a year. $1.20 per hour Figuring a 48 hour work week: An American just lost $14,198.08 at the federal minimum wage of $5.25 per hour. A skilled American just lost $27,040 at $10.00 per hour. The company saved $11,198.08 or $24,040 for the skilled American, not including the amount they would have been paying in matching taxes to the United States Department of Social Security. The United States Government looses Federal Income Taxes paid by the employee, Social Security taxes paid by the employee, matching social security taxes paid by the company. The local government looses property taxes. The state government looses state employment taxes, state sales taxes. Looks like the Company is the winner in this while the rest of America suffers. Put the numbers to it, there is no way outsourcing jobs is good for the American people. "John Smith" wrote in message news:DNUGc.39078$%_6.9986@attbi_s01... India's Labor Laws, state that the maximum workday is 8 hrs a day and a maximum workweek of 48 hrs. While smaller business using unskilled labor, do ignore those laws, the companies that involved in telephone support do not. wrote in message nk.net... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in590004.shtml On any given day in New Delhi and Bombay and Bangalore, the call goes out for new call center recruits as more and more American companies come calling. The call center employees earn $3,000 to $5,000 a year, in a nation where the per capita income is less than $500. The perks include free private transport to and from work plus the sheer heaven of an air-conditioned workplace. Now John, I know you are going to say that 3 grand a year does not equal 1 dollar an hour, but you must remember the people there are reported to work 12 hours a day 5 and 6 days a week. 5 days a week is 3120 hours a year 6 days a week is 3744 hours a year An American, working a 40 hour work week at minimum wage of $5.25 per hour would make a gross salary of 10,920 "John Smith" wrote in message news:hfHGc.36245$XM6.24561@attbi_s53... Gould, I am curious where you found the info on paying those in India $1 an hour, can you provide a link? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... You think Dell's going to find people in Texas who are fluent in English and will work for $5.75 per hour? $1 per hour is the going rate for English speaking help in India or the Phillipines. 'Course you can halfway live on $40 a week in some places. In Texas, that 40 bucks would fill your gas tank, buy you a six pack, and leave enough left over for a corn dog. Every week. |
Liberal Racist?
"John Smith" wrote in message news:2iVGc.39249$%_6.16397@attbi_s01... You sound like the people in the 1950's who were waging a war against automation in the manufacturing sector, or in the 60's and 70's who were waging a war against people who were losing jobs to computers, or going back to the early 20th century, those in the buggy whip factories whose jobs were replaced by those in the automotive industry. He sounds like a liebral whiner who doesn't have a clue as to the purpose of a corporation, nor of economics in general. The purpose of a corporation is t make money for the shareholders.... its pupose is NOT to provide jobs. The value of a job is is based on what the lowest cost a person is willing to perform it for. Unions and guvmint minimum wages are driving those jobs out of the country......but liebral sare too blind to see it. The fact of the matter is if US companies do not do what is necessary to insure that they are not completive with other countries (i.e. European, Japan, Australia, Canada etc) it will result in substantially more US jobs lost than we are currently losing. Is this unfair to those who lose their jobs, definitely, but the alternative is substantially worse. The US or any other country can not ignore the fact the rules have changed, today we are in a world economy. Those industries and countries who adapt will prosper. Those countries and industries who ignore that fact, will go the way of the dodo bird. wrote in message nk.net... Ok.. So it is 2496 hours a year $3,000 dollars a year. $1.20 per hour Figuring a 48 hour work week: An American just lost $14,198.08 at the federal minimum wage of $5.25 per hour. A skilled American just lost $27,040 at $10.00 per hour. The company saved $11,198.08 or $24,040 for the skilled American, not including the amount they would have been paying in matching taxes to the United States Department of Social Security. The United States Government looses Federal Income Taxes paid by the employee, Social Security taxes paid by the employee, matching social security taxes paid by the company. The local government looses property taxes. The state government looses state employment taxes, state sales taxes. Looks like the Company is the winner in this while the rest of America suffers. Put the numbers to it, there is no way outsourcing jobs is good for the American people. "John Smith" wrote in message news:DNUGc.39078$%_6.9986@attbi_s01... India's Labor Laws, state that the maximum workday is 8 hrs a day and a maximum workweek of 48 hrs. While smaller business using unskilled labor, do ignore those laws, the companies that involved in telephone support do not. wrote in message nk.net... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in590004.shtml On any given day in New Delhi and Bombay and Bangalore, the call goes out for new call center recruits as more and more American companies come calling. The call center employees earn $3,000 to $5,000 a year, in a nation where the per capita income is less than $500. The perks include free private transport to and from work plus the sheer heaven of an air-conditioned workplace. Now John, I know you are going to say that 3 grand a year does not equal 1 dollar an hour, but you must remember the people there are reported to work 12 hours a day 5 and 6 days a week. 5 days a week is 3120 hours a year 6 days a week is 3744 hours a year An American, working a 40 hour work week at minimum wage of $5.25 per hour would make a gross salary of 10,920 "John Smith" wrote in message news:hfHGc.36245$XM6.24561@attbi_s53... Gould, I am curious where you found the info on paying those in India $1 an hour, can you provide a link? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... You think Dell's going to find people in Texas who are fluent in English and will work for $5.75 per hour? $1 per hour is the going rate for English speaking help in India or the Phillipines. 'Course you can halfway live on $40 a week in some places. In Texas, that 40 bucks would fill your gas tank, buy you a six pack, and leave enough left over for a corn dog. Every week. |
Liberal Racist?
Gould,
The minimum wage in Jharkhandndia is Rs 64.72 /hr. and in Delia are 70 Rs.which is more in the $1.50 to $1.75 range. When people quote an average rate of $1/hr. they are looking at the minimum wage for the undeveloped areas of India. According to the web sites encouraging outsourcing the jobs to India, they state one of the benefits of doing so is that the entry level India techies earn in the $4000 to $7000 range. If you want to believe that the salary of a trained IT employee is below the minimum wage, that is ok with me. The key is if you don't want more jobs to leave the US, the US companies have to do everything they can to be competitive with companies from the other industrialized countries, who are outsourcing their telemarketing jobs. Today, we are looking at a world economy and no one will be able to close Pandora's box, no matter how much you and I might object to it any more than we are not going back to the time when products were individually crafted instead of being mass produced and 85% of the population lived on family farms "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... So if you want your argument to carry weight it is best to use accurate info, instead of repeating rumors and incorrect data. "Accurate data" being anything that agrees with your assertion and "rumors and incorrect data" anything that does not? Here's something so outdated it is certain to be incorrect. It's from July 2004: http://www.smihq.org/public/publicat..._outsource.pdf Check the second paragraph. "Wages for telephone operators in India are often less than $1 an hour." The article also lists a number of legislative steps currently under consideration to address the outsourcing issue. Makes interesting reading. |
Liberal Racist?
I think you have to understand that if US companies can not be completive
with other industrialized countries our economy will go down the crapper. Can you imagine a country who said it would not allow mass produced products because it was detrimental to those craftsman who would be displaced? If you don't accept the new rules of the world economy, the country, the companies and their employees will lose in the new world economy. wrote in message nk.net... Ok.. Let us put this into terms you can understand, it is plain to see I have put it over your head. 1 of these jobs sent over seas that could be held by an unskilled American. By the company hiring 2 unskilled Americans, 2 families can be reduced from the American Welfare Roles. They can work 24 hours a week and earn around the same amount as they get on welfare. Earning $6,552 per year. By the company hiring 2 unskilled persons in America, the persons working at the skilled rate of $10.00 per hour for the 24 hour work week, they would earn $12,480 per year. This would possibly get them off welfare and foodstamps. Either way, the company is protected as the people are not "full time" employees (no benefits), the United States Government gets the taxes, the Local Governments get the taxes, The Department of Social Security gets an infusion of money, and, you aren't "paying for some lazy so-and-so to sit at home and do nothing while everyone else has to work to support them." America becomes stronger, the economy is stimulated and it helps all of America. No, I don't sound like the people of the past, Progress is a move forward, not a step back. Outsourcing jobs is not a step forward for our country. For us to help the "world economy" we must be able to support our own economy. We can't support our own if we are building someone else's just to make a company rich. If you want to see America Advance, you must start in America. You don't do this by sending American Jobs to other countries, you don't do this by opening the borders to employment from other countries. You do this by building America then look toward inviting others to join in the prosperity. I used to live in El Paso, Texas. They opened the border there for employees from Mexico. Yes they are great people, yes they are hard workers. These employees would come to America every day to work, they would earn 5.25 per hour (more money in 1 week that they could earn in an entire month in Mexico), but due to the number of employees working for minimum wage, skilled Americans were unable to earn a living. They were exempt from all taxes in the United States with the exception of State Sales Tax. "John Smith" wrote in message news:2iVGc.39249$%_6.16397@attbi_s01... You sound like the people in the 1950's who were waging a war against automation in the manufacturing sector, or in the 60's and 70's who were waging a war against people who were losing jobs to computers, or going back to the early 20th century, those in the buggy whip factories whose jobs were replaced by those in the automotive industry. The fact of the matter is if US companies do not do what is necessary to insure that they are not completive with other countries (i.e. European, Japan, Australia, Canada etc) it will result in substantially more US jobs lost than we are currently losing. Is this unfair to those who lose their jobs, definitely, but the alternative is substantially worse. The US or any other country can not ignore the fact the rules have changed, today we are in a world economy. Those industries and countries who adapt will prosper. Those countries and industries who ignore that fact, will go the way of the dodo bird. wrote in message nk.net... Ok.. So it is 2496 hours a year $3,000 dollars a year. $1.20 per hour Figuring a 48 hour work week: An American just lost $14,198.08 at the federal minimum wage of $5.25 per hour. A skilled American just lost $27,040 at $10.00 per hour. The company saved $11,198.08 or $24,040 for the skilled American, not including the amount they would have been paying in matching taxes to the United States Department of Social Security. The United States Government looses Federal Income Taxes paid by the employee, Social Security taxes paid by the employee, matching social security taxes paid by the company. The local government looses property taxes. The state government looses state employment taxes, state sales taxes. Looks like the Company is the winner in this while the rest of America suffers. Put the numbers to it, there is no way outsourcing jobs is good for the American people. "John Smith" wrote in message news:DNUGc.39078$%_6.9986@attbi_s01... India's Labor Laws, state that the maximum workday is 8 hrs a day and a maximum workweek of 48 hrs. While smaller business using unskilled labor, do ignore those laws, the companies that involved in telephone support do not. wrote in message nk.net... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in590004.shtml On any given day in New Delhi and Bombay and Bangalore, the call goes out for new call center recruits as more and more American companies come calling. The call center employees earn $3,000 to $5,000 a year, in a nation where the per capita income is less than $500. The perks include free private transport to and from work plus the sheer heaven of an air-conditioned workplace. Now John, I know you are going to say that 3 grand a year does not equal 1 dollar an hour, but you must remember the people there are reported to work 12 hours a day 5 and 6 days a week. 5 days a week is 3120 hours a year 6 days a week is 3744 hours a year An American, working a 40 hour work week at minimum wage of $5.25 per hour would make a gross salary of 10,920 "John Smith" wrote in message news:hfHGc.36245$XM6.24561@attbi_s53... Gould, I am curious where you found the info on paying those in India $1 an hour, can you provide a link? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... You think Dell's going to find people in Texas who are fluent in English and will work for $5.75 per hour? $1 per hour is the going rate for English speaking help in India or the Phillipines. 'Course you can halfway live on $40 a week in some places. In Texas, that 40 bucks would fill your gas tank, buy you a six pack, and leave enough left over for a corn dog. Every week. |
Liberal Racist?
Gould,
The minimum wage in Jharkhandndia is Rs 64.72 /hr. and in Delia are 70 Rs.which is more in the $1.50 to $1.75 range. When people quote an average rate of $1/hr. they are looking at the minimum wage for the undeveloped areas of India. According to the web sites encouraging outsourcing the jobs to India, they state one of the benefits of doing so is that the entry level India techies earn in the $4000 to $7000 range. Don't confuse wages paid to computer programmers with those paid to boiler room phone workers. I would agree with your $4000 plus per year figure for computer programmers. We have seen a number of programming jobs from the PNW disappear to India, and in all the local stories and discussions of the pros and cons the salary figure of $100 per week has been commonly associated with Indian computer programmers. Guess I'm gettin old. I can clearly remember when $100 a week was a decent income in the US. Now it takes $2500 a week for most families to have a middle income lifestyle. No wonder jobs are packing off to India. |
Liberal Racist?
Whether you just too stupid, or too rude doesn't matter...posting OT and
feeding the trolls means goodbye forever! *ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/ "John Smith" wrote in message news:_GWGc.40735$IQ4.34656@attbi_s02... I think you have to understand that if US companies can not be completive with other industrialized countries our economy will go down the crapper. Can you imagine a country who said it would not allow mass produced products because it was detrimental to those craftsman who would be displaced? If you don't accept the new rules of the world economy, the country, the companies and their employees will lose in the new world economy. |
Liberal Racist?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:03:11 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:
The value of a job is is based on what the lowest cost a person is willing to perform it for. Unions and guvmint minimum wages are driving those jobs out of the country......but liebral sare too blind to see it. And the value of goods and services is base on what people are willing to pay for them. The United States has been the market that has driven the world's economy because of those high paying "unions and guvmint minimum wages". With those jobs flying to the Third World, perhaps you'll enlighten us on where the markets for *our* goods will be. |
Liberal Racist?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... PS - According to Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute, the quality of some of India's telephone support in the software field, is the best in the world. They state that quality of support personnel is one of the key factors for the export of jobs to India. No doubt. They turn out 15 million college graduates a year in India, and most speak better English than Bubba the HS dropout. Chuck, you do know that India has two official languages: Hindi and English. Norway starts teaching English in the second grade. A couple of decades ago, we were somewhat insulated from outsourcing because even though overseas workers were willing to work for almost nothing, they often didn't have the skills or education to compete with US workers. Their training and education improved much faster than their demand for US dollars. Oh oh. It sounds like we got greedy. I know that people in the IT industry got greedy in the late '80s and they are paying for it now with lower wages now. |
Liberal Racist?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 1) Your data does not change the basic idea behind what Gould said. Those people are still paid a LOT less than comparable workers here. 2) Their comparable purchasing power is not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about how bad we feel (or not) about their wages. The point is that we're stuck with lousy service because American companies are unwilling to pay what it takes to provide complete and proper support. "John Smith" wrote in message news:zVTGc.37658$MB3.18218@attbi_s04... Doug, I think you missed the point of my posts, so often rumors and incorrect data is transmitted as fact on the internet. According to the Times of India, they are on the verge of increasing the minimum wage from their current rate of Rs 64.72/hr (or approx. $1.50/hr). According to those in the Telephone Service Industry promoting outsourcing of jobs, the average wage for telephone service center operators is $2 to $3/hr which equals $4160 - $6240 annual income, well above the average income in the US, when comparing the purchasing power of their income ( $2900 in India is equal to the average income in the US.) So if you want your argument to carry weight it is best to use accurate info, instead of repeating rumors and incorrect data. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:fbTGc.6642$WX.211@attbi_s51... Gould, Thanks for the suggestion, but I was hoping you would have followed up on some of the links yourself to see that they really do not pay call center employees $1 / hr. Chuck has a job. You want a secretary? Hire one. You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make $100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for $20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners, and stockholders? |
Liberal Racist?
|
Liberal Racist?
|
Liberal Racist?
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:00:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: 1) Your data does not change the basic idea behind what Gould said. Those people are still paid a LOT less than comparable workers here. Then the natural follow up question would be; do those workers feel cheated that they're making less than we are (adjusted for inflation and living standards)? If the answer is yes, then it's up to those people to demand more. If I create a job, and offer it at $2.00 an hour and someone applies for it, am I to be faulted? Business is run by the principles of supply and demand. As long as someone is willing to work for what you offer, then THAT rate is what that job will be worth. 2) Their comparable purchasing power is not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about how bad we feel (or not) about their wages. The point is that we're stuck with lousy service because American companies are unwilling to pay what it takes to provide complete and proper support. Sometimes the differences in costs are much greater than the difference in service. Dave |
Liberal Racist?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On 07 Jul 2004 14:58:09 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: PS - According to the CIA World Fact book, for someone in India to earn as much purchasing power as the average worker in the US, they must earn $2900 per year. That's $1.45 an hour, assuming the Indian workers do 5 (8-hr) days per week (not more) and get two weeks of unpaid vacation. I provide 807 links that establish a typical pay rate of $1 per hour, check a few to verify, and you fault my research? Here's a face-saving fig leaf for ya. A cut n paste from one article that says some wages in India can be as high as $2...... thereby ripping the heart out of my assertion that the Indian call center employees are working more cheaply than any American can afford to. (Typical liberal. Bemoans that no American can exist on $40 a week, when the facts are that a very industrious worker with a little seniority and a willingness to assume some management responsibility can eventually hope to rise to $80 a week. Instead of one corn dog a week, the industrious worker will be able to have a tank of gas, a six pack of beer, and a corn dog *every day*! Woo hoo! Watch those damn liberals, they refuse to see the upside potential) ************ Near-shore locations offer workers at wages lower than the US' though not as low as India's. According to Trammell Crow, typical hourly wages in US dollars are $2.50-$3 in Jamaica and $5-$7 in Canada compared to $7.50-$14 in the US. In contrast, India's typical hourly wages in US dollars are just $1-$2. **************** So what exactly is your beef? Are you faulting the companies which are taking advantage of these low wages? Or should you be faulting the ignorant Indian (and other) workers who don't know that they should be making much more? Remember, no one is holding a gun to the heads of these workers. In many cases, even thought their wages are lower than what WE are accustomed to, they are far better than what they were making before. Improvements in any third world country's standard of living will come slowly. But it will come. The people have to realize what they have, and fight to get more for it. So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Dave |
Liberal Racist?
P. Fritz wrote:
So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers can't spell. Sheesh. |
Liberal Racist?
You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the
manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make $100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for $20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners, and stockholders? No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to several days' income for a typical American. Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price represents several days' income for the people that built it. The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year in sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm per year. UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting and customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive" clause in the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm. The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went through the roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the stockholders were all delighted. Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus. Many had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars, savings accounts, as a result. Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered that by forming sub corporations in Malaysia and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations, there would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the proceeds. Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto the doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in the social costs associated with the layoff. That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a greenback and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let the common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of their Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?) BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little scenario. Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to any portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business that is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar spent in the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it *expects* them to offshore as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's 200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven for $39. Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher unemployment and greater underemployment depresses wages for all, meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it did when the appliance cost a bit more). Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar professionals, and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the consumer, rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax burden to the little people). Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing? That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and perspectives. No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times. |
Liberal Racist?
Greed is a part of human nature. The more you have, the more you want.
That's why liberalism is destined to fail. Liberals believe that people will do the morally right thing, if given the chance. Hoboy..... Dave, liberals try to avoid stereotyping. I can't think of a single thing that *all* liberals believe in common. Unlike some folks, I actually know and associate with a lot of liberals. :-) Don't tell me what liberals believe. Even if Rush and Hannity have assured you that "liberals believe this and that" they are usually (often deliberately) wrong. In example: You state that liberals believe people will do the morally right thing if given the chance. Horseflies. Nobody is that naive. Some liberals believe that one of the challenges in life is to figure out how to do the morally right thing as often as possible while (as you say) the dominant force in human nature is self serving greed. If left to the natural course of commerce, there will always be those who take advantage of any given situation to increase their net worth. There is a *natural* course to commerce? This natural course, or commerce itself, should be the supreme principle upon which our social fabric is founded? It's all about money, property, and net worth? Only through strong government regulation (Socialism) do you stand any chance of mitigating this. Here's the hilarious aspect of your statement. Many of the countries where the US coroporations are relocating manufacturing, accounting, engineering, customer service, etc, are able to pay workers such itsy-bitsy salaries because they are *more* socialized than the US! (But not usually socialistic). Our industry fat cats eschew any suggestion that we adopt public housing, health care, education, transportation, or subsidize cultural events in this county while they trip over themselves to take advantage of low wages made possible by other countries where government subsidies and support make high individual wages unnecessary. Socialism is not "strong government regulation of the market". Socialism is an economic model where a country's natural resources, physical infrastructure, public agencies and utilities are owned in common by the population. (As opposed to pure communism, where there is no private property of *any* kind). I know only two liberals who are socialists. Next failing argument, please? No, the unfortunate truth is that the world market will have to equalize on its own, and that could take 50 years. Not very comforting for those of us in the inflated "1st world" countries. But as the rest of the world catches up to our standard of living, there will be no further incentive to more work offshore. We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the rest of the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners are the very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas. The losers are the middle class, which will disappear as people willing to live in a home that allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse meals a day instead of three big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god forbid!) bus displace the middle class American workers doing those jobs now. The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America. I'll be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is doing to the world my children are inheriting. |
Liberal Racist?
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:27:43 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:
We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the rest of the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners are the very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas. The losers are the middle class, which will disappear as people willing to live in a home that allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse meals a day instead of three big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god forbid!) bus displace the middle class American workers doing those jobs now. The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America. I'll be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is doing to the world my children are inheriting. Add in the predicted oil shortages and there is a recipe for disaster. The broad scope of these policies could cause severe and violent social unrest. After several generations of being comfortable haves, I don't think we'll be as docile have nots as our thirties forefathers. |
Liberal Racist?
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:27:43 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote: We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the rest of the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners are the very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas. The losers are the middle class, which will disappear as people willing to live in a home that allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse meals a day instead of three big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god forbid!) bus displace the middle class American workers doing those jobs now. The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America. I'll be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is doing to the world my children are inheriting. Add in the predicted oil shortages and there is a recipe for disaster. The broad scope of these policies could cause severe and violent social unrest. After several generations of being comfortable haves, I don't think we'll be as docile have nots as our thirties forefathers. .....and people wonder why Bush will probably NOT sunset the assault weapon ban...... |
Liberal Racist?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers can't spell. Sheesh. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? |
Liberal Racist?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... You will not pay $1000 for a 60 gig disk drive! If you would, then the manufacturers could build them here. Fully bundled labor cost in Malaysia is probably in the $3-5 range, was $1.50 in the early 1990's. So, since the consumer wants the $60 drive retail, the companies are forced to build overseas. You think that a PR guy for a union pension fund, should make $100k+? Then you can hire him, but if you could get the same thing for $20k, would it not be provident to do so for the benefit of the pensioners, and stockholders? No, most folks wouldn't pay $1000 for a disk drive. That would amount to several days' income for a typical American. Ironically, when we build them overseas and sell them for $60, that price represents several days' income for the people that built it. The missing portion of this equation is executive compensation. UP Uranus Widgets and Gidgets, (for example), traditonally grossed $500mm per year in sales with a respectable 8% operating net of $40mm. The CEO earned $6mm per year. UP Uranus moved manufacturing from Oklahoma to Malaysia, and accounting and customer service to New Delhi. The decrease in personnel cost improved the company operating net from $40mm to $110mm, activating an "incentive" clause in the CEO's contract that increased his pay from $6mm per year to $35mm. The board of directors voted themselves fat bonuses, dividends went through the roof, and the stock price advanced sharply. The CEO, the board, and the stockholders were all delighted. Somewhat less delighted were the ex-rank and file employees of UP Uranus. Many had to rely on unemployment insurance, some were forced into an early and underfunded retirement, and others settled for "underemployed" jobs at a fraction of their former wages and lost homes, cars, savings accounts, as a result. Almost as undelighted were the taxpayers in Oklahoma. UP Uranus discovered that by forming sub corporations in Malaysia and India and registering these entities in certain Caribbean nations, there would no longer be any US federal or local sate taxes paid on the proceeds. Just when UP Uranus dumped thousands of involuntarily jobless people onto the doorstep of society, UP Uranus engineered a way to avoid participating in the social costs associated with the layoff. That's what is defined as "smart business" by many people whose god is a greenback and holy writ is last quarter's financial statement. What the hell, let the common people eat cake. If they get too desperate, they can sell one of their Lexus......(surely every family has at least a couple of those, right?) BUT.....we haven't finsihed casting all the villains in this little scenario. Throw in another 200 million adults of consuming age and blind them all to any portion of a purchase decision except price. Have them shop in a business that is so powerful it collects almost 10-cents out of every retail dollar spent in the US, and have that business inform its competing suppliers that it *expects* them to offshore as many jobs and reduce costs as much as possible so that the company's 200-million customers can buy a new toaster for $10, or a microwave oven for $39. Winners: The very rich and the very poor. (Most of the very poor being overseas). Middle class consumers but only to a point. (Higher unemployment and greater underemployment depresses wages for all, meaing that it takes as long or longer to earn that $39 microwave as it did when the appliance cost a bit more). Losers: The middle class overall. Skilled labor, white collar professionals, and tax revenues. (Sales tax doesn't diminish much when the companies reorganize offshore, so the portion of the tax burden paid by the consumer, rather than the corporations, remains relatively high. Transfers the tax burden to the little people). Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing? That's up to everybody to decide based on individual values and perspectives. No doubt about it, however, it is a common scenario in contemporary times. Part of the problem has been the astronomical inflation of wages in the USA in the last 25 years. Middle class wages. 1980 a good engineering job paid about $23k a year. A car cost $2-4K and the burger flipper was making $2 an hour. Now the burger flipper is making $9 an hour and the employed engineer is making $100k a year for the same position and the same car is $25-40k. What is that inflation wise? About 10% a year. A lot brought on by the overspending of the government giving away lots of money to the downtrodden. War on Poverty. Did we win the war? Still people complaining about the downtrodden. Look at the Carter Presidential years. 17%+ inflation. We have priced ourselves out of the market in a lot of areas. The rust belt, had huge unemployment because of a couple of reasons. Iron ore ran short, and the foundries did not upgrade to produce steel with scrap and some ore more efficently. And the labor unions forced huge wage increases via strikes. Sure, it is nice to be a high school dropout, or even a graduate and earn $80k a year. average public traded companies CEO's in 1962 made about $130k. 10x the average workers salary. Now same CEO's are making $1mm. maybe 15x the average workers salary. Sure, there are the Martha Stewarts, et al. But a small percentage of the CEO's. And we probably had a similar % ripping off the stockholders in 1964. We are in for hard times, but maybe we come back into line with the rest of the world in terms of pay. |
Liberal Racist?
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers can't spell. Sheesh. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? Back to your bowl of porridge, Bilk. |
Liberal Racist?
|
Liberal Racist?
"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers can't spell. Sheesh. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? Because he is a liebral hypocrite |
Liberal Racist?
P.Fritz wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers can't spell. Sheesh. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? Because he is a liebral hypocrite What's a "liebral," Dumfoch Fritz? |
Liberal Racist?
|
Liberal Racist?
Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it? The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending. Each subsequent administration spends money even faster that the previous. Until recently, each side had an excuse that the "other side" controlled either the Executive Branch or Congress. Now that one party controls both, spending is out of control like never before. We're borrowing almost $2 billion a day just to keep up with it. (to put that in perspective, every six weeks we're borrowing as much money as congress appropriated last year to continue the war in Iraq!) If we are going to reduce wages in the US, and it seems that we must in order to compete with the third world, that money that remains in a worker's paycheck has to count for something. High interest rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income from the average worker. To say that taxes are the only problem, and that tax cuts without spending cuts will solve it, is silly. Every dime of the deficit is a deferred taxation, we just haven't scheduled the collection yet. Just like $3mm a month CEO salaries, there is a lot of waste in the government. Cutting out the waste would reduce the cost of government while leaving basic services in tact. Second step is to tax exported capital. You want to send $1 billion US to East Overshirt to build a factory that will put 35,000 Americans out of work? No problem, but we do have a bit of a tax you need to pay to cover the social costs associated with your private profiteering. It just might be so high that you'll think twice about moving the factory.......... Third step is to progressively eliminate social security, and the associated taxation. It's too late to tell people in their 60's to start saving for retirement because there isn't going to be any social security. But it might not be too late to tell those 55-60 that their benefits will be only 95% of what they expect. Those 50-55 will have to save enought to cover 10%. Ages 40-50 will get only 80%, ages 30-40 only 60% (they have more decades to compound interest on savings), ages 20-30 only 30%, and kids just starting off......zero. When Uncle Harry or Aunt Georgia spends every dime they ever earn and can't pay the rent in their "golden years" they better hope the relatives will take them in. There might ge a middle ground on Social Security. Nobody should be without minimal and safe shelter or susbsistence food, and nobody should have to die simply because medical treatment for an illness in unaffordable. However, if able bodied and mentally alert people want to take the last few decades of life "off" and not have to work for a living, it should be up to them as individuals to arrange for that rather than up to all of us as a society to guarantee it. |
Liberal Racist?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers can't spell. Sheesh. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? Back to your bowl of porridge, Bilk. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? |
Liberal Racist?
"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: So why no complaints from the liebrals about liebral hollywood doing so much offshore filming....backward places like Romania, Bulgaria, Canada :-) Liebral? Even if it is a coined word, you dumbfoch Konservatrashers can't spell. Sheesh. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? Back to your bowl of porridge, Bilk. Sheesh, look at the spelling in your post. And why no complaints about offshore filming? Just like when he was cornered on his lobsta boat and 'doctor doctor' wife.....he lamely tries to change the subject. |
Liberal Racist?
|
Liberal Racist?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On 09 Jul 2004 16:16:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem. So what do we do about it? The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending. Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who have historically been more inclined to cut government spending? The ones who wrote a blank check to a monkey for a war whose goal could've been met for under five hundred dollars a year by simply getting your president a prescription for Viagra? Those Republican congress people? |
Liberal Racist?
Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending? There is no correlation between party affiliation and irresponsible spending. With a gop in the WH and gops controlling Congress, we *should* be running a tight ship right now. Alas: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ (here's where you come back with a retort about how it's really Clinton's fault) The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts to cut spending. So, what happened? Without an opposing party Executive, the Republican Congress has gone on a *wild* spending spree. We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle down again. Nonsense. Anybody can look up the current federal budget and see that only a small portion of our current super-expenditures are directly related to the invasion of Iraq. Has Bush vetoed a single spending bill, yet? (As of very recently he had not.) Now here it gets a bit more confusing............... I remarked: High interest rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income from the average worker. and you replied: Hear hear!!! Was that because you failed to recognize the fiscal (phony tax cut) policy of the Bush Administration expressed in such simple terms, or because you don't support it? .......... Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close to conservative ideas. ;-) Dave It's a curve, not a straight line. When you get far enough out to the left you do begin to catch a glimpse of some of those folks on the extreme right, they're just coming around the same circle from the other direction. We extremists all have a common desire- we want the boot of government off our neck. Many of the righties would then hope to create a Norman Rockwell conformist religious utopia, while more of the lefties would rejoice in a new era of personal intellectual freedom and self sufficiency. |
Liberal Racist?
How is that different from an import tariff, as far as net effect?
It's putting up a fight vs. meek capitulation. "Oh well, it's inevitable. Might as well see our billioinaires become zillionaires as a result, though" |
Liberal Racist?
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:27:24 -0400, JohnH wrote:
Chuck, that shoots some emotion at Dave's argument, put it doesn't change what he stated. If our business go out of business, then no one will be working for the zillionaires. John, if they are not employing American workers, then they are not *our* businesses. Would you rather be working for a zillionaire or not working at all? It's called wealth redistribution, and many of Washington's policies are the root cause, not economic necessity. Our fathers fought hard for their economic gains and we are giving them all away. An interesting read: http://www.backlash.com/content/corp/2000/dbjs0300.html |
Liberal Racist?
I hope Chuck answers your rebuttal. It should be interesting.
John H I did. It wasn't, particularly. |
Liberal Racist?
The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one politician, you get a pass on that one. "Economic downturn"? Where did that come from. Yes, the economy was less robust in Clinton's final months, but we're discussing *government spending*. The president is not directly responsible for boom and bust, but he OKs every dollar spent by Congress during his watch. It *is* reasonable to hold politicians accountable for government spending during their terms. Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in wealth. Wake up, Dave. You're 50 years behind the times in your understanding of liberalism. |
Liberal Racist?
|
Liberal Racist?
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and compare to those vetoed and the reasons given. Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd get it, and easily. |
Liberal Racist?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and compare to those vetoed and the reasons given. Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd get it, and easily. Dave's senators have call-blocked his phone. |
Liberal Racist?
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:02:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and compare to those vetoed and the reasons given. Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd get it, and easily. Dealing with political offices is an exercise in frustration. It's probably easier to search on the web. Point being that there is little factual information here and lots of speculation. Dave |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com