"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?

If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed
going
there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked
side-by-side
with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However,
because
of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do
some
those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few
farmers
in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for
the
fun of it.

Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.

The reason that this is "undesirable" work is simply because the
producers are allowed to get away with paying such low wages. If they
don't even pay minimum, how is a citizen even supposed to legally hold
the job?

Heck, even Wal Mart is doing it now. They've been caught using illegal
immigrant labor on contract for cleaning. (I can just hear Paul Harvey
"You couldn't have a better neighbor, I suppose *they* can't afford to
pay decent wages?

Why does WalMart have an obligation to "police" the pay scale of
a contractor's employees. As a homeowner, I "hire" contractors now
and then to do various jobs...it ain't my responsibility to know
how much Company X contractor pays its employees

People picked crops as citizens long before it became "undesireable"
work that could only be filled by illegal immigrants.

Heck, some folks PAY for the privilege of "pick your own" (enter
appropriate farm product name).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare
and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).

But those that are unwilling to work when they are able to,
shouldn't expect the handout (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.


But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare
and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



I get it....the federal government takes from the states, the states take
from its workers. The Federal government redistributes the monies received
from the state and the people back to the states, that now redistributes it
to the people.

Sounds like the failed Socialist system....just with one more step.

Sorry.....that ain't what is 'supposed' to happen in this country. Don't
get me started on that one.

Dan/W4NTI

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare
and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In
my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).

But those that are unwilling to work when they are able to,
shouldn't expect the handout (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK






In the beginning........there was Philadelphia.

It was decided to have a loooooose confederation of states brought together
under a weak Federal government. The purpose of which was to provide such
things as; common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to INTERSTATE commerce. And if needed to provide for the defense
of one, or all of the states.

What the hell happened?

Dan/W4NTI

"charlesb" wrote in message
y.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and
keep
market prices reasonable?

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL


I would like to add that very few companies make astronomical profits. Most
make just enough to manage to stay in business.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Another serious problem. It wouldn't have been so bad had the government
invested that money over the years so it could bring in a healthy return,
but they didn't. So what do we do now? First of all, money is available
without raising taxes. The government collects billions of dollars in taxes
each year. The question is where that money is spent. Do we buy new military
hardware and finance art shows, or do we provide for the elderly? If we want
to do all of that, we have to raise taxes. If we only want to do some of it,
and cut some, we don't need to raise taxes. Some say cut the benefits for
the elderly and keep the other stuff. I think we should cut some of the
other stuff and keep the benefits for the elderly.

If the government would stop the foreign aid to those countries where
that aid mainly supports little 2-bit dictators we would have enough
money to take care of the elderly.

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"charlesb" wrote in message
y.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and

keep

market prices reasonable?

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL



I would like to add that very few companies make astronomical profits. Most
make just enough to manage to stay in business.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It's the CEO's that make the astronomical profits in the form of
salaries, stock options, and other golden parachute benefits.

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:


OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?

If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed

going

there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked

side-by-side

with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However,

because

of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do

some

those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few

farmers

in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for

the

fun of it.

Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.

The reason that this is "undesirable" work is simply because the
producers are allowed to get away with paying such low wages. If they
don't even pay minimum, how is a citizen even supposed to legally hold
the job?

Heck, even Wal Mart is doing it now. They've been caught using illegal
immigrant labor on contract for cleaning. (I can just hear Paul Harvey
"You couldn't have a better neighbor, I suppose *they* can't afford to
pay decent wages?


Why does WalMart have an obligation to "police" the pay scale of
a contractor's employees. As a homeowner, I "hire" contractors now
and then to do various jobs...it ain't my responsibility to know
how much Company X contractor pays its employees

For the same reason they might want a contractors employees tested for
drugs. For the same reason you might not want to invest in an
organization that has practices you don't like. Wal Mart has
accountants, the accountants know - or should know - the hours needed to
do a certain function, therefore they should have an idea what it should
cost to contract out a service. If a bid comes in below what it should
cost, the contract company is either not doing the job it should, is
using illegal help, or is so incredibly efficient that the hiring
company should have the contracting company do some seminars on how they
got so efficient.

You might want to think about your practice of apathy toward
subcontractors. One way that they can charge lower prices is to not
carry insurance. I recently had tree work done, and we got several
quotes. We asked the lowest couple quotes to provide proof of insurance.
Guess what? No insurance. So I do want to know a few things about those
who I hire. YMMV. For myself I won't try to stand up for something illegal.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:


I would like to add that very few companies make astronomical profits. Most
make just enough to manage to stay in business.

You would think they would pay their CEO's a tad less then!

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

In the beginning........there was Philadelphia.

It's still here.

It was decided to have a loooooose confederation of states brought together
under a weak Federal government. The purpose of which was to provide such
things as; common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to INTERSTATE commerce. And if needed to provide for the defense
of one, or all of the states.

Yep - Articles of Confederation.

What the hell happened?

Simple - the founders discovered that the Articles simply didn't work. Without
a strong central (federal) government, there was no way to force any of the
states to work for the common good if they didn't want to.

Common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to interstate commerce and defense of one, or all of the states all
require a certain amount of central authority and funding. If New York's
legislature decided they didn't want to honor money from South Carolina at face
value, who was there to make them? Or if a ship from Maryland didn't want to
take orders from an admiral from Maine, what authority was there to require
them to do so?

And when it came to taxes.....

End result was another convention here in Philadelphia in 1787, when the
Constitution was written and ratified by representatives from all of the
states. Three did not sign - they refused to do so because there was no Bill of
Rights in the original Constitution. That was rectified by the first ten
amendments.

You may not like everyhting the Feds do - I know I sure don't! - but the
founders tried the loose confederation idea and it didn't work.

And when it was tried again (1861-1865, 11 states) it ran into the same
problems all over again.

In some ways the Feds have been moving towards a weaker central government, by
cutting domestic spending - and letting the states take up the slack. Of course
the Feds don't give up regulatory control, just funding....

What functions would you have the Feds turn over to the states?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
It behooves all of us to be just as indignant about
racism in any venue, regardless of ethnicity of the
racist.


But whites are often the sole receipient of that indignation, Kim. Show
me
a message anywhere in any of these newsgroups at any time where you've
expressed any indignation whatsoever about the racism of any other racial
group. If you're typical, I seriously doubt you can do so. Instead, you
attempt to explain away the racism of others like you've done below.



I doubt I am typical, Dwight. I also don't know if you'd find any posts
like you describe above. However, you're quite wrong about my being
indignant toward *any* form of discrimination. I am and always have been,
as far as I know. I remember even as a kid being offended by such things.
I am just as adamant about women bashing men as I am about anyone else
bashing based on gender, race, etc.


That having been said, I can understand some of the
seclusion each race enjoys from others, IF the purpose
is cultural. What is specific to a black mayors
conference are those things specifically related to black
issues in the community(ies) they represent. (snip)


I thought a mayor is elected to represent the whole community, not
solely
the "black issues in the community(ies) they represent." What about the
whites issues in the communities they represent? Why aren't those black
mayors getting together to discuss those?


Dwight, for goodness sake. I am not going to get into a huge idiosynchratic
dialogue with you about this issue. Suffice it to say that days like Black
Mayoral Conferences are set aside to deal specifically with, well, specific
things. I have no doubt that someone who is on the up and up about their
position in a community--regardless of who they are--is doing their job as
they should be. It sounds like it's an issue for you, though. Sorry I
don't buy into it.


Since those black mayors won't,
who does address those issues? Absolutely nobody is the only answer.


Then, I doubt they'll be in office long. It's as simple as that.


If a
white mayor, or any other politician (black or white, police chief to
president), expresses even a hint of concern for white issues, the word
"racist" is immediately thrown around.


Sure. By nitwits who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Do
you choose to listen to them, believe them, appreciate or agree with them?
I don't.


In the end, a concern for whites is
just about an ultimate sin in this government. And it is going to stay
that
way until whites start demanding some representation for their issues in
this government.


I don't know, Dwight. That sounds pretty serious to me...and I haven't
really witnessed such a thing. You point out behaviors that are certainly
around--I won't deny that. But, they are in the minority and displayed by
blithering idiots.



I am certain that if there were issues that needed addressing
in a "whites only" venue, then you'd see a white mayors
conference and, honestly, I am not so sure there isn't one.


Be serious, Kim. First, I suspect a conference like that would be
considered illegal by the Justice Department - minorities can but whites
cannot. Second, if such a conference were held, groups throughout the
country would be out outraged, demonstrations would be held, lawsuits
would
be filed, and people like you would be running around screaming your
indignation again.


"People like me"? People like me?! Describe a "people like me" won't you?
I'm quite offended by the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you
that.

The chaos you describe above is that of movies and books. I think this
country and the people in it have moved a little bit further ahead than the
concepts which you depict above. We're all still quite capable of senseless
rage once in a while--but, for the most part, we've become very civil in our
dealings with each other. Thank goodness for that. And, we have a long,
long way to go.


What we may find generally attractive in a representative for
the United States in a Miss America, is totally different from
what the Black/Negro/Colored (depending on the part of
society and geographical/historical perspective you come from)
find in a representative specific to Black America.


And that justifies the intentional and specific exclusion of other races
in those pageants?


Yeah. Probably.


Why would what you say not be true for whites, yet such
an event held by whites which specificially excludes other races is
illegal.


I doubt that quite seriuosly. Check out many clubs around this country and
let me know how many non-white members you see. Hell, there are probably
some golf courses Tiger Woods isn't allowed on, for goodness sake.


And I'll add to JJ's examples. What about black colleges which exclude
other races?


Are you as upset about gender specific schools? I gave some other examples,
such as women's sports, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Masons, Eastern Star--all
and many more of which are specific to "types" of membership, Dwight. I've
got pretty much no problem with them.


What about black owned businesses with not a single white
employee in the entire building (many in my town alone)?


Aw, c'mon. How many non-Chinese people are working at your local Chinese
restaraunt? Have *you* applied for a positoin at the company you mention,
above? Maybe no one's applied. Not saying they don't practice
discrimination. If they do, then they're as wrong as wrong can be. Do
something about it.



What about the
"Negro College Fund" which offers benefits only to blacks. What about
"Black
Entertainment Television?" I could list more. The point is that it would
all
be illegal (discrimination) if done by whites.


I think you're going way, way overboard. What about "SPIKE" TV? Ya upset
about that?



I don't see that a all male organization is necessarily
discriminatory, either. (snip)


If the goals of that male-only organization were to promote the
political
and/or social advancement of males, would you still hold that same
opinion?


Personally, I *hope* they *are* promoting the political and/or social
advancement of males. Seen the requirements of some finishing schools
lately?


What about a sports organization that won't allow women?


Based on physical strength, not racial, social, or ethnic,
considerations,
Kim. There is a huge difference.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Pah....there it is. Now, that is as discriminatory as you can get, Dwight.
And, I'm glad you walked right into what I was hoping I'd be able to
demonstrate. Based on your opinion of women as demure and refined (ok, I'm
going overboard there), you believe that sports organizations are keeping
women out for the reason of their weakness. That's crap. You don't think
there's women who could train and get pumped up enough to be on a male
basketball team? Football, etc.? Sorry, I've seen 'em in the Ladies' Room.

We are all people. I have every comfort in people feeling the need to
"separate" into their corners once in a while. It is when the separatism
becomes hateful that I have a problem...

Kim W5TIT

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..."

Yep. Which means to help those things along, not guarantee them.

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of result.

In my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).

I agree!

Now how should the govt. go about promoting that? We've already talked about
reducing immigration to increase demand for workers, thereby decreasing
unemployment and increasing pay/benefit packages.

The law of supply and demand says that higher prices will be the result of such
a move.

What else should be done?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Heck, some folks PAY for the privilege of "pick your own" (enter
appropriate farm product name).

But they get to keep what they pick.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Dwight, I don't know how it is where you are, but
here there is no one willing to do the work a lot of
our immigrant population are willing to do--and do.


Nonsense, Kim. The reason most people aren't willing to do those jobs is
because the wages are so low. Offer decent wages and people will gladly do
those jobs.


I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to be paying the price of your
philosophy noted above. Oh. And how dare you tell me "nonsense," Dwight.
I am relaying to you things from my own experience and you say to me,
"NONSENSE?" Do you know how much like Larry Roll you are sounding?


There are non-immigrant workers throughout this country busting
their butts in construction jobs, laborer jobs, crappy jobs, and
dangerious
jobs. They do so because the wages are decent. My god, there are even
people
willing to walk into a nuclear reactor if the pay is good enough. Offer
decent wages for almost ANY job and I'm fully convinced there will be
plenty
of non-immigrant workers willing to do those jobs. I see nothing to even
suggest otherwise.


And you'd better be ready to not be able to afford almost anything you buy
cheaply right now BECAUSE of things as they are.




I remember many times asking my teen-aged son to go
get a job and, when he'd retort with, "there aren't any
jobs," I would mention some of the things I knew were
avaiable: farm work (building fences, etc.); any fast food
chain, stock clerk, etc. He was indignant, at best, when
he thought his mother would suggest such a thing to her
own son...that was not work he was about to go do.


Why should he work? He's living at home with mommy where everything is
free and he's spoiled rotten.


Uh, I don't know what home you're talking about, but my kids were not
spoiled rotten. They got no car unless they bought it themselves. They did
NOT get any monetary support from me for any of their wants or needs in any
area except school and clothing. And, they were told they could either
spend my $200.00 on one outfit at Gadzooks for the whole schoolyear, or they
could go to Wal-Mart and get several pairs of Rustler Jeans and some shirts
and shoes.


When he is old enough, throw his butt out and
watch how fast his work ethic changes. In the meantime, sharply reduce the
money you give him (no car, no fancy school cloths, no expensive shoes, no
music CD's, no stereo, and so on) and tell him to get a job if he wants
those extras. After he throws a temper tantrum for a few months, wears out
of the stuff he has now, and realises you're serious, a job will look much
more appealing to him. He will have to do all this eventually anyway, so
now
is a good time to start properly preparing him for his future. Later, once
he has to start paying for them, he'll miss the free food you gave him and
the free shelter you provided.


Like I said. Don't know whose home you've been peering into, but it ain't
mine. My sons are long from teen-aged any more.


Now, I meet adults with the same attitude. I am very
thankful for that part of my community with people who
are willing to take on the immense task of the "physical
labor" jobs that many of us wouldn't be caught doing.
Very thankful indeed, for no one else would do them.


Like those other adults you mention, there are many jobs I will not do
today, Kim. I can't afford to do those low paying jobs if I want to feed
my
family, live in a decent home, and make the car payments. And I'm
certainly
not willing to live twenty to a hotel room or apartment like you see so
many
poor illegal immigrants doing today. And, lets face it, I just can't
physically do some of those jobs anymore. But none of that suggests for a
moment that I'm not willing to work. Likewise, none of that suggests there
are no younger non-immigrants willing to do those jobs if the wages were
decent.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Didn't say you aren't willing to work. And you're comments above about how
tough those jobs are for very little pay and how you wouldn't do them...just
highlights exactly what I was saying.

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?



If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed
going
there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked
side-by-side
with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However,
because
of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do
some
those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few
farmers
in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for
the
fun of it.


Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.


No, the damned rub is in how much our products would cost if the jobs
migrant and transient workers do were paid at much higher pay
scales!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that I want to see anyone suffering...

However, I doubt you'd find the workforce needed to do the jobs even *with*
a higher payscale... Physical labor is an art these days.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:


OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?



If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed

going

there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked

side-by-side

with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However,

because

of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do

some

those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few

farmers

in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for

the

fun of it.


Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.



No, the damned rub is in how much our products would cost if the jobs
migrant and transient workers do were paid at much higher pay
scales!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that I want to see anyone suffering...

But where do we stop? As I noted to Jim, there are new jobs "going away"
from America, like those in some IT fields. Don't expect it to stop
there. The companies can pay much less for the help in India, and I
guess we are to be happy that our software may cost less. I'd pay a
little more for tech help I can understand. Anymore, it is getting
really hard to make out what the tech help is telling me.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Dwight, for goodness sake. I am not going to get
into a huge idiosynchratic dialogue with you about
this issue. Suffice it to say that days like Black
Mayoral Conferences are set aside to deal
specifically with, well, specific things. (snip)


But there cannot be a white mayors conference to discuss, well, specific
things. There are laws against discrimination in this country which makes
such events illegal. But those laws don't apply to blacks and other
minorities. If it did, the Justice Department would have shut down the black
mayors' conference.


"People like me"? People like me?! Describe a
"people like me" won't you? I'm quite offended by
the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you
that.


"People like you" are those who accuse a person of racism without giving
that person an opportunity to explain anything you objected to. You did so
in the very first message you posted to this thread. "People like you" are
those who express indignation against one type of discrimination while
trying to justify or explain away another.


I doubt that quite seriuosly. (snip)


You doubt there are laws prohibiting discrimination? Where have you been
for the last few decades? A white oriented event or activity that
specifically excludes other races is, and has been for a number of years,
illegal. Yet there are events and activities throughout this country each
year (such as the black mayor's conference) that specifically exclude
whites. Openly allowing discrimination against whites while asserting court
litigation against whites who discriminate against minorities is patently
unfair. If you want one to be illegal, both should be illegal. And I simply
don't think that is a racist view.


Are you as upset about gender specific schools? I gave
some other examples, such as women's sports, Girl
Scouts, Boy Scouts, Masons, Eastern Star--all and many
more of which are specific to "types" of membership,
Dwight. I've got pretty much no problem with them.


Most of those are private organizations, not political or business
organizations, Kim. The courts say there is a huge difference. And I agree
there is a huge difference, which is why I've not mentioned a single private
organization (black or otherwise) throughout this discussion. Instead, I've
focused solely on business and political organizations.


Aw, c'mon. How many non-Chinese people are working
at your local Chinese restaraunt? Have *you* applied for
a position at the company you mention above? Maybe no
one's applied. (snip)


First of all, I don't work for others anymore. I own my own companies.
However, to address your specific point, the courts have ruled that the
simple absense of minority employees in a place of business can show a
"practice of discrimination." But, as I've already said, that doesn't apply
to black owned businesses which refuse to hire white employees - as far as I
know, there has never been a single successful case against a black owned
company for discrimination against whites.


I think you're going way, way overboard. What about
"SPIKE" TV? Ya upset about that?


What is there to be upset about? Are they excluding blacks in the
television programs they show? Most of the shows I've seen on Spike TV have
minorities in them.


Pah....there it is. Now, that is as discriminatory as you can
get, Dwight. And, I'm glad you walked right into what I was
hoping I'd be able to demonstrate. Based on your opinion
of women as demure and refined (ok, I'm going overboard
there), you believe that sports organizations are keeping
women out for the reason of their weakness. That's crap.
You don't think there's women who could train and get
pumped up enough to be on a male basketball team?
Football, etc.? Sorry, I've seen 'em in the Ladies' Room.


That's not what I think, Kim. Actually, since I'm not involved in sports
in any way, I haven't given it much thought at all. Regardless, as I
understand it, the practice is based on studies that have shown that women
are injured more when allowed to participate in extremely physical sports
activities with men. That was backed up by medical studies that have shown
that the typical woman's bone structure is not as strong as the typical
man's, no matter how much she pumps up her muscles in the gym. Where those,
and other physical differences, are significant, certain exclusions have
been allowed by the courts. Where it is not significant, exclusions are not
allowed.

Women participating in those sports activities seem to agree with the
courts. Since few of the top women weight lifters, for example, can lift as
much as a male in the same weight class, few have expressed any interest
whatsoever in competing directly with men. That seems to be the case with
most other similar sports activities.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a
lot of your views on race, you are spot on on this
thread sub-subject.


Few people always agree with others on everything, Mike. It would be one
darn boring world if we did, now wouldn't it?


The reason that this is "undesirable" work is simply
because the producers are allowed to get away with
paying such low wages. If they don't even pay
minimum, how is a citizen even supposed to legally
hold the job?


I agree. Coming from a semi-farm background myself, I certainly know a
little bit about the profits earned from farming and the business practices
(including labor practices) used throughout the industry. My grandmother and
I have talked about such things many times. Anyway, I've seen a slow decline
in the wages paid over the years. And I'm not talking about the small family
farms. Family farms don't hire that many outside workers. Instead, the
practice is seen most often on the large, corporate owned, farms - the farms
owned by industries generating billions of dollars in profits each year. And
nobody is going to convince me these corporations cannot afford to pay
higher wages. If my grandmother can do it and still make good profits, these
much more wealthy corporations can certainly do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

Y'know, it's interesting that so far nobody has directly
answered the question as to whether my grandparents
should have been allowed into the country...


Sorry, Jim, I didn't realize you expected a direct answer to that. In a
round about way, I did answer your question when I talked about how
immigrates years ago clearly benefited this country. Nobody is criticizing
past immigration. The issue is massive immigration today and where we go
with it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
But government was created exactly to "...promote the
general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for
ourselves and our posterity..." In my opinion, those
blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the
wealthy).

I get it....the federal government takes from the states, the
states take from its workers. The Federal government
redistributes the monies received from the state and the
people back to the states, that now redistributes it to the
people.

Sounds like the failed Socialist system....just with one
more step.

Sorry.....that ain't what is 'supposed' to happen in this
country. Don't get me started on that one.


No, you don't get it, Dan. There is nothing in my comment about the
federal government or state governments taking anything. Throughout this
discussion, I've only talked about government policies to stimulate fair
wages and reasonable business practices. The government has been doing that,
in some form or another, since just about the very first day this country
was created (though, IMO, has been doing a fairly poor job of it lately).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Family farms don't hire that many outside workers. Instead, the
practice is seen most often on the large, corporate owned, farms - the farms
owned by industries generating billions of dollars in profits each year. And
nobody is going to convince me these corporations cannot afford to pay
higher wages. If my grandmother can do it and still make good profits, these
much more wealthy corporations can certainly do so.


I'm a city boy, so I don't know much about farming, except for a vague
idea that farmers
grow stuff that gets converted to food sold at supermarkets. And that
there are massive
government subsidies for farmers. To make for cheap food in the USA.
Or something
like that........

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to be
paying the price of your philosophy noted above.
Oh. And how dare you tell me "nonsense," Dwight.
I am relaying to you things from my own experience
and you say to me, "NONSENSE?"


The nonsense was directed at your conclusions, Kim. How can you possibly
say "no one" is willing to do the work? As I said, the main reason most
people aren't willing to (and actually cannot) do those jobs is because of
the wages are too low, not because they're not willing to work. People are
willing to work if the pay is decent.


And you'd better be ready to not be able to afford
almost anything you buy cheaply right now BECAUSE
of things as they are.


I've already given several ways wages can be increased without
significantly increasing the costs of consumer goods.


Uh, I don't know what home you're talking about, but
my kids were not spoiled rotten. (snip)


Your kid was used as a metaphor for all kids in general. That should have
been obvious since it is clear I don't know your specific kid.


Didn't say you aren't willing to work. (snip)


Actually, you did pretty much say that, Kim. About me and all other
non-immigrant Americans. Your exact words were "no one is willing to do the
work a lot of our immigrant population are willing to do." Of course, that
simply isn't true (not even close).


(snip) And you're comments above about how tough
those jobs are for very little pay and how you wouldn't
do them...just highlights exactly what I was saying.


I said nothing about how tough those jobs are. Those jobs are the venue of
younger people without the aches and pains of older age. I did those jobs
when I was younger, but have since moved on to more substantial work over
the years to the point of owning my own businesses today. However, there are
plenty of young people today more than willing to work. But, as I said,
they're not going to be thrilled about working in jobs with wages so low
they cannot feed their families and have to live twenty to a hotel room or
apartment to help keep living costs down (like so many poor illegal
immigrants do today). If this overall trend continues, Americans in the not
so distant future, perhaps your grandchildren, are going to be living just
like people do in third-world countries. That's the real future we're
leaving future generations.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

That would be farm work, but not migrant farm labor,
Dwight. Migrant farm labor travels around the country,
following the harvest and the crops, and has to support
themselves on whatever they get paid.


There is no difference in the actual work done on the farm, Jim.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
But those that are unwilling to work when they are able to,
shouldn't expect the handout (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

This, I gotta frame!

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

No, you don't get it, Dan. There is nothing in my comment about the
federal government or state governments taking anything. Throughout this
discussion, I've only talked about government policies to stimulate fair
wages and reasonable business practices.

OH, I see! - You're talking about the government being intelligent enough
to keep it's hands off of the economy so that it can mature and grow! I
couldn't agree with you more. - And you have history on your side, in this
arguement. Every recorded instance of governmental meddling with the
parameters of the economy has resulted in fiasco, a net loss.

Keep swinging, Dwight! Let people out there know that trying to legislate
prosperity is nothing short of gross stupidity, right up there on par with
trying to legislate morality. Tell them that they might as well try to wrap
up a gallon of water with a sheet of aluminum foil.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

That would be farm work, but not migrant farm labor,
Dwight. Migrant farm labor travels around the country,
following the harvest and the crops, and has to support
themselves on whatever they get paid.


There is no difference in the actual work done on the farm, Jim.

Agreed! But there's a difference between doing it for a summer at a relative's
place, and doing it all year long at various locations all over the country or
all over a region. And there's a difference between doing it for a relative and
doing it for one's living.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Kim" wrote:

I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to be
paying the price of your philosophy noted above.
Oh. And how dare you tell me "nonsense," Dwight.
I am relaying to you things from my own experience
and you say to me, "NONSENSE?"


The nonsense was directed at your conclusions, Kim. How can you possibly
say "no one" is willing to do the work?

Dwight,

I think that when Kim writes "no one" in a context like that, she really means
"almost no one" or "hardly anyone" rather than the literal standard meaning
"not a single person" or "nobody at all".

Of course there's the economic concept, derived from supply-and-demand, that if
you have something nobody seems to want, you have to make it more attractive.
With a product, that can me a lower price; with a job, that can mean higher
wages/better benefits.

Just MHO

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
Dee D. Flint wrote:


I would like to add that very few companies make astronomical profits.
Most
make just enough to manage to stay in business.

You would think they would pay their CEO's a tad less then!

- Mike KB3EIA -


You would think so but then again, the CEO's salary is only a drop in the
bucket as a percentage of their operating expenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

In the beginning........there was Philadelphia.

It's still here.

It was decided to have a loooooose confederation of states brought
together
under a weak Federal government. The purpose of which was to provide
such
things as; common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to INTERSTATE commerce. And if needed to provide for the
defense
of one, or all of the states.

Yep - Articles of Confederation.

What the hell happened?

Simple - the founders discovered that the Articles simply didn't work.
Without
a strong central (federal) government, there was no way to force any of
the
states to work for the common good if they didn't want to.

Common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to interstate commerce and defense of one, or all of the states
all
require a certain amount of central authority and funding. If New York's
legislature decided they didn't want to honor money from South Carolina at
face
value, who was there to make them? Or if a ship from Maryland didn't want
to
take orders from an admiral from Maine, what authority was there to
require
them to do so?

And when it came to taxes.....

End result was another convention here in Philadelphia in 1787, when the
Constitution was written and ratified by representatives from all of the
states. Three did not sign - they refused to do so because there was no
Bill of
Rights in the original Constitution. That was rectified by the first ten
amendments.

You may not like everyhting the Feds do - I know I sure don't! - but the
founders tried the loose confederation idea and it didn't work.

And when it was tried again (1861-1865, 11 states) it ran into the same
problems all over again.

In some ways the Feds have been moving towards a weaker central
government, by
cutting domestic spending - and letting the states take up the slack. Of
course
the Feds don't give up regulatory control, just funding....

What functions would you have the Feds turn over to the states?

73 de Jim, N2EY

There has always been quite a debate over what the federal government should
do versus what the state should do versus what should be left up to
individuals. This is due to the fact that the Constitution has words in it
to the effect that what is not explicitly allocated to the federal
government is reserved to the states and what is not allocated to the states
is reserved to the people. So there has always been a tug of war between
those who want to see the federal government run more and those who think
they should run less. Those who want the federal government to do
everything are relying on the preamble's words about providing for the
common good and interpreting that to mean carte blanche overlooking the fact
that it is just a preamble and that the federal government's actual
responsibilities, structure, etc is spelled out the clauses of the body of
the Constitution, including the amendments.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

No, the damned rub is in how much our products would cost if the jobs
migrant and transient workers do were paid at much higher pay
scales!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do we really know how much a head of lettuce would cost if the farm workers got
better wages? Does anyone know how much of the cost of various food items goes
to those workers - and how much goes to the retailer, wholesaler,
transportation, processing, etc.?

Might be surprising.

Not that I want to see anyone suffering...

However, I doubt you'd find the workforce needed to do the jobs even *with*
a higher payscale... Physical labor is an art these days.

Which explains a lot of modern society's problems...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Robert Casey wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:


Family farms don't hire that many outside workers. Instead, the
practice is seen most often on the large, corporate owned, farms - the
farms
owned by industries generating billions of dollars in profits each
year. And
nobody is going to convince me these corporations cannot afford to pay
higher wages. If my grandmother can do it and still make good profits,
these
much more wealthy corporations can certainly do so.


I'm a city boy, so I don't know much about farming, except for a vague
idea that farmers
grow stuff that gets converted to food sold at supermarkets. And that
there are massive
government subsidies for farmers. To make for cheap food in the USA. Or
something
like that........

Right! Massive subsidies, a "wink and a grin" when it comes to hiring
workers that legally can't be hired, etc, etc......

I remember a few years ago, there was a Dem candidate for some
position, and it was found out that she and her husband had hired an
illegal immigrant as a housekeeper. There was enough outrage that she
withdrew herself from consideration for the position.

She was wrong to do what she did, of course. But was she more wrong
than the corp farmer that hires illegal immigrant help?

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Kim" wrote:

I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to be
paying the price of your philosophy noted above.
Oh. And how dare you tell me "nonsense," Dwight.
I am relaying to you things from my own experience
and you say to me, "NONSENSE?"


The nonsense was directed at your conclusions, Kim. How can you possibly
say "no one" is willing to do the work?


Dwight,

I think that when Kim writes "no one" in a context like that, she really means
"almost no one" or "hardly anyone" rather than the literal standard meaning
"not a single person" or "nobody at all".

Of course there's the economic concept, derived from supply-and-demand, that if
you have something nobody seems to want, you have to make it more attractive.
With a product, that can me a lower price; with a job, that can mean higher
wages/better benefits.

Sure! Corning Glass which recently closed in my town, had this
situation. The "hot" end of the building had work which was hot and
fairly dangerous, as working with molten glass is going to be. To entice
workers there, they were paid quite well. Simple supply and demand.

They are history now, and won't come back, as they can't compete with
the foreign sources. The foreign sources are so heavily subsidized by
their respective governments that it is just about impossible to compete.

I wonder what we'll do when the last manufacturing jobs are gone from
the US? Run up a white flag? (made in some other country, of course!)

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

What was his problem? Did he feel the jobs were "beneath his dignity"
or some such?

Yep. He was "better" than all that. And, his friends would see him!


I must be getting old. When I was a teenager, I cannot remember anyone I knew
thinking a job was "beneath their dignity". There were some jobs that some kids
did not want to do for personal moral/ideological reasons, (like working for
the IRS ;-)) but those jobs weren't open to teens anyway.

There are still plenty of young people willing to take "menial" labor.
My son worked all summer cleaning a warehouse and tearout and hefting
the new materials on flooring construction. There were other people his
age there too. His girlfriend has *two* jobs (which is way too much for
a high school senior, IMO)


What sort of work did he expect to do as a teenager without special
skills?

Kids want jobs behind computers these days...or at a minimum, with the least
amount of physical labor, and definitely "out of the elements."

Considering what the elements must be where you are in summer, I can understand
that part. But the rest I don't.

I think its a big broad brush the situation is getting painted with
here. I don't know enough about all kids to know what all kids want to do.

an aside: I have seen a few other cases where an unemployed person was
*above* the jobs available. In each case, the underlying problem was
depression. Not to sound alarmist, but you might keep an eye out for
that, Kim.


Remember the classic movie "A Christmas Story"?

"Mommy, Daddy's gonna kill Ralphie!" What a movie...

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Y'know, it's interesting that so far nobody has directly
answered the question as to whether my grandparents
should have been allowed into the country...


Sorry, Jim, I didn't realize you expected a direct answer to that. In a
round about way, I did answer your question when I talked about how
immigrates years ago clearly benefited this country.

OK, your answer is clear now.

Nobody is criticizing
past immigration.

I would point out that back in 1906 there were people criticizing the
immigration of those times. Particularly immigrants who weren't from the
"right" parts of northern and western Europe...

Every wave of immigration *was perceived* as a threat to those already here,
because:

- they would usually work for lower wages and benefits
- they brought with them strange customs, clothes, languages and religions
- once Americanized, they added to the competition for jobs, education, etc.

Immigration quotas were enacted early in the 20th century for all these reasons
and more.

Some folks feel that one reason slavery died out in the north was the northern
tendency to encourage immigration as a source of cheap labor. IIRC, there were
*antiwar* riots in New York City in 1863, in part because some folks (including
recent immigrants) were afraid that freed slaves would migrate north and
compete for jobs.

The issue is massive immigration today and where we go
with it.

I think that for the reason of national security alone, we have to:

- change the criteria for legal immigration
- reduce/eliminate illegal immigration and visa abuse
- work towards better labor practices through both government and marketplace
action

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:


OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?



If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed

going

there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked

side-by-side

with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However,

because

of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do

some

those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few

farmers

in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If
I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just
for

the

fun of it.


Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.



No, the damned rub is in how much our products would cost if the jobs
migrant and transient workers do were paid at much higher pay
scales!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that I want to see anyone suffering...

But where do we stop? As I noted to Jim, there are new jobs "going away"
from America, like those in some IT fields. Don't expect it to stop
there. The companies can pay much less for the help in India, and I
guess we are to be happy that our software may cost less. I'd pay a
little more for tech help I can understand. Anymore, it is getting
really hard to make out what the tech help is telling me.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Well, the fact that jobs are moving away from this country is not new--it's
been going on since I was in High School. And, while I don't like it, I'm
not going to get all bent out of shape over it--because there's not a damned
thing that's ever been done about and there will never be. The only way to
stop it from happening is to have the "rest of the world's" standard of
living raised. Or, ours lowered. It seems to me that as jobs have moved
out of this country (industries, we should say); they are slowly replaced by
others. That is to say that it seems almost a natural transition that has
been happening for at least two generations now. Sure, there are great
numbers of people displaced by the practice--but the economy and job markets
have recovered in every instance.

Personally, I could never figure out why the computer industry was as it was
in this country. When one considers that the technology of computers and
its resulting industry can literally be transported over phone lines, how in
the world is it that there was such a glut of computer, and telecom for that
matter, in this country? Some tech support person from across the ocean can
access my computer and help me fix it.

Consider this. I've been toying with the idea over the last few years that
it will the "menial" (as was put by someone else--I don't agree with the
term) jobs that will gradually grow to the higher paid jobs in this
country...because there will be less and less people who *will* do them.
The "services" of a migrant worker or a fast food person, or a municipal
worker or construction worker will become so highly needed, that they will
be able to demand a pretty penny for their work. Everyone will want the
sit-down-in-the-AC jobs and no one will want to work outside--where the meat
of our lives comes from.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:


"People like me"? People like me?! Describe a
"people like me" won't you? I'm quite offended by
the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you
that.


"People like you" are those who accuse a person of racism without giving
that person an opportunity to explain anything you objected to. You did so
in the very first message you posted to this thread. "People like you" are
those who express indignation against one type of discrimination while
trying to justify or explain away another.



And you rolled me up into your neat littlle "people like you" package,
Dwight. And, I don't think I've accused you at all of being a racist. I am
so sure of this, I won't even look back on the older posts from me.

So, forget about dialogue...we both know where the other stands.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
Personally, I could never figure out why the computer industry was as it
was
in this country. When one considers that the technology of computers and
its resulting industry can literally be transported over phone lines, how
in
the world is it that there was such a glut of computer, and telecom for
that
matter, in this country? Some tech support person from across the ocean
can
access my computer and help me fix it.


What I object to is that they put people in customer service who speaks the
language so poorly that their help is worthless. I had this happen while I
was trying to cancel one of those "free internet trial subscriptions." It
took at least 15 minutes to get them to understand that I wanted it totally
canceled.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

No, the damned rub is in how much our products would cost if the jobs
migrant and transient workers do were paid at much higher pay
scales!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do we really know how much a head of lettuce would cost if the farm
workers got
better wages? Does anyone know how much of the cost of various food items
goes
to those workers - and how much goes to the retailer, wholesaler,
transportation, processing, etc.?

Might be surprising.

Not that I want to see anyone suffering...

However, I doubt you'd find the workforce needed to do the jobs even
*with*
a higher payscale... Physical labor is an art these days.

Which explains a lot of modern society's problems...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yep. You got it.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Consider this. I've been toying with the idea over the last few years that
it will the "menial" (as was put by someone else--I don't agree with the
term) jobs that will gradually grow to the higher paid jobs in this
country...because there will be less and less people who *will* do them.
The "services" of a migrant worker or a fast food person, or a municipal
worker or construction worker will become so highly needed, that they will
be able to demand a pretty penny for their work.


And when this happens your taco and a coke at Taco Bell will cost you $15.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
Personally, I could never figure out why the computer industry was as it
was
in this country. When one considers that the technology of computers
and
its resulting industry can literally be transported over phone lines,
how
in
the world is it that there was such a glut of computer, and telecom for
that
matter, in this country? Some tech support person from across the ocean
can
access my computer and help me fix it.


What I object to is that they put people in customer service who speaks
the
language so poorly that their help is worthless. I had this happen while
I
was trying to cancel one of those "free internet trial subscriptions." It
took at least 15 minutes to get them to understand that I wanted it
totally
canceled.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


You and I both, Dee. I consider myself an above-average patient person.
However, many times the communication barrier between myself and who is on
the phone to help far exceeds the frustration from the cause of my call!

Kim W5TIT