|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:51:36 -0600, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article et, "Dwight Stewart" writes: Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should focus on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the Republicans want cheap labor for big business. I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her own living. And, I believe the immigration laws are appropriate, although there is probably room for improvement in the areas of process and validation procedures. I think there are background checks in place as a matter of policy--they just aren't done or aren't done adequately enough. We can put all the laws and rules into place we want--it is getting them carried out that is the problem. Typical politically correct liberal open-border policy. This is written into the Democratic playbook. (pandering to minorities). |
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:07:43 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote: To save you the effort of further imagining, here is my position in three words. "Race is irrelevant." You seem to place great emphasis on race/ethnic background; ipso facto, you're a racist. You only say that because I'm white. If that were not the case, you'd be saying the same thing to Condoleezza Rice (Nat, Sec, Advisor), Colin Powell (Sec, of State), Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Mary Berry (Chair, US Com. on Civil Rights), and a very long list of other minorities who think race and race issues are very relevant in this country. Why should it be any less so for whites? In reality, your open criticism of whites who talk about race, without criticism of other races who do the same, only demonstrates your own racism towards other whites. Don't presume what Condi and Colin think just because of their skin color. The only ones who make race an issue are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom who've never worked a day in their life or set foot in a church. Condi and Colin are where they are in life not because they didn't shirk just to get ahead. On the other hand, in the civil rights circles, every leader (Jesse, Al, and Kweisi Mfume) has used the race issue to get where they are today, through tactics of intimidation and extortion. Does this make me racist? Hell no, it's the truth. Stacey/AA7YA |
-- "All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be construed." "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... : Again, I firmly believe the ONLY reason some people won't do some jobs is : because of the wages paid. There are people in this country (non-immigrants) : willing to walk into the containment chamber of a nuclear reactor if the pay : is good enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to walk 500 ft : high steel girders of a building construction site if the pay is good : enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to place their lives on : the line to protect you from crime if the pay is good enough. There are : people (non-immigrants) willing to lay their lives on the line to defend : this country if the pay is good enough. In other words, there are people : (non-immigrants) willing to do any job, no matter how bad or how dangerous, : if the pay is good enough. For you to now say otherwise, and instead insist : Americans just won't work because they're too lazy or too uppish (immigrants : workers are needed instead), is a slap in the face of every hard working : American. ¿Holy frijolé? ¿Are you saying that a resaranté dishwasher should be paid as nuclear reactor worker? I shall come to be on the next available transport! BGO |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... : : Only if in objecting they raise an alarm only over Hispanic, : Asian and African immigrants. : : : They're the primary immigrants today, Dave. When talking about : immigration, who would you rather I talk about - Aboriginal Australians? "There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on ******s, kikes, wops or greasers. Here, you are all equally worthless." ---Sgt. Hartman, Full Metal Jacket |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
In reality, your open criticism of whites who talk about race, without criticism of other races who do the same, only demonstrates your own racism towards other whites. No, it only shows my utter disdain for biggoted lowlifes, regardless of complexion. If the foo ****s...... Read my lips: Race is irrelevant. With warmest personal regards, de Hans, K0HB -- http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
(snip) There's folks like that, Dwight. Yep, you're right. There are folks who *will* do those jobs. But they are in the minority and how ironic. Because it is more the minority immigrant population that does those jobs than a lot of US citizens. I give up, Kim. You've convinced yourself American workers are garbage, and immigrant workers are God's gift to the working world, and absolutely nothing is going to change your mind. This fits right into the thinking of many liberals who feel Americans deserve to be poor for all the bad things they've done, while those poor, downtrodden, immigrants deserve all the wealth they can get. And, while we sit here debating, wages for low to medium income workers continue to decline while profits for big business continues to grow - neither immigrants or a growing number of working Americans can get decent paying jobs. At the same time, the factories moving overseas are forcing more and more middle-aged and older workers out of their jobs, adding to the numbers forced into lower paying jobs. And the situation only gets increasingly hopeless as more and more people begin to think like you. Where do you think this is all going to end, Kim? Do you honestly believe big business is going to stop their efforts to drive down wages at your doorstep - that this is never going to affect you or yours? Even small businesses are going to feel the crunch as fewer can afford to buy their products. If you can't see the inevitable outcome to all this, you're simply not looking or are too shortsighted to see. And, with that, I give up as I said before. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Hans K0HB" wrote:
No, it only shows my utter disdain for biggoted lowlifes, regardless of complexion. If the foo ****s...... Read the definition of bigot and then explain how the sentence above doesn't fit that definition, Hans. Bigot (n.) One whose attitude or behavior expresses intolerance, as because of race, religion, politics, etc. (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary) By the way, "bigoted" is spelled with a single "g." Read my lips: Race is irrelevant. Repeating that is not going to change anything, Hans. Race issues are everywhere in this country today and are not going to go away simply because you want to bury your head in the sand and act like they don't exist. While we're discussing definitions (and since you like to throw the word "racism" around so much). Racism (n.) An irrational belief or advocacy of the superiority of a given group, people, or nation, usu. ones own, on the basis of racial differences having no scientific validity. (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary) Kindly show me where I've expressed a belief in or advocated the superiority of a group in this discussion, Hans. Simply discussing a race-related issue in a newsgroup is not racism. As such, your charge of racism is as patently false as your charge of bigotry. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
The Grandious Vizard of South Carolina wrote:
Bigot (n.) One whose attitude or behavior expresses intolerance, as because of race, religion, politics, etc. (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary) Racism (n.) An irrational belief or advocacy of the superiority of a given group, people, or nation, usu. ones own, on the basis of racial differences having no scientific validity. (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary) Looks to me like Mr. Funk and Mr. Wagnall pretty much have you nailed dead on. With kindest personal regards, de Hans, K0HB -- http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote And Hans prefers to make sly comments about a spelling error instead of discussing the topic. I've stated my position, and you haven't persuaded me that I'm wrong. Nothing is left to discuss. In fact, every new post from you more eloquently makes my point than I possibly could myself. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
But its perfectly okay to pay some union bum a ton of wages for doing a repetitive task, (a skill that same 14 y.o. that passed a ham test could do) therefore jacking the cost of a product, lets say a car for this example, to a ridiculous price??? (actually both the fast food worker and the person on the line at the factory ARE BOTH doing repetitive tasks....) Hold on a sec.... "union bum"? The basic concept that Dwight is talking about is a "living wage" - meaning jobs that pay enough in wages and benefits to permit people to live above the poverty line *without* government help. Yes, paying a living wage makes products and services cost more, but it also removes people from the govt. support system. Some say "the marketplace" should set wages. But "the marketplace" is tilted by a bunch of factors, such as the exportation of jobs and the importation of workers. The "living wage" concept and reality are largely a result of organized labor unions leveling the playing field a bit by unifying the many workers in negotiating with the relatively few employees. The really smart employers learned to treat their workers well enough that they wouldn't unionize. Look at what working conditions were like in various industries 100-150 years ago, before organized labor had any real power. Believe it or not, there are alot more people out there trying to survive on the poverty level wages. Based strictly on my local region, that would be any job under 9-10 dollars per hour before taxes and if any, benefits. And unfortunately some of these people are NOT counted, in the unemployment or other job related statistics, if they are not participating in the various government programs like the employment security commision that Michigan has... (think its called MichiganWorks) Yep. $20,000/yr isn't much at all anymore in many parts of the country. Not to raise a family, anyway. As for the $15 burrito and coke at Taco Bell, think about this: At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains. One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers. So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: (snip) There's folks like that, Dwight. Yep, you're right. There are folks who *will* do those jobs. But they are in the minority and how ironic. Because it is more the minority immigrant population that does those jobs than a lot of US citizens. I give up, Kim. You've convinced yourself American workers are garbage, and immigrant workers are God's gift to the working world, and absolutely nothing is going to change your mind. This fits right into the thinking of many liberals who feel Americans deserve to be poor for all the bad things they've done, while those poor, downtrodden, immigrants deserve all the wealth they can get. And, while we sit here debating, wages for low to medium income workers continue to decline while profits for big business continues to grow - neither immigrants or a growing number of working Americans can get decent paying jobs. At the same time, the factories moving overseas are forcing more and more middle-aged and older workers out of their jobs, adding to the numbers forced into lower paying jobs. And the situation only gets increasingly hopeless as more and more people begin to think like you. Where do you think this is all going to end, Kim? Do you honestly believe big business is going to stop their efforts to drive down wages at your doorstep - that this is never going to affect you or yours? Even small businesses are going to feel the crunch as fewer can afford to buy their products. If you can't see the inevitable outcome to all this, you're simply not looking or are too shortsighted to see. And, with that, I give up as I said before. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ And I give up trying to explain to you that I am affected, Dwight. I work for and have worked for companies that export jobs out of the United States--and a good number of employees are people who are here on work Visas. But, Dwight--I don't have the same fatalist point of view that you do. This is something that, as I've said, been around for years. Nothing's changed...it's the ebb and flow of the corporate environment. And, you know what? Screw you for saying that I think American workers are garbage!!! Screw you!!! I think people who are fatalistic about the situation and want to make the situation 100% the fault of US Corporations and immigrants--illegal and not--are the ones who are garbage. Take that a smoke it, Dwight. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Hans K0HB" wrote: No, it only shows my utter disdain for biggoted lowlifes, regardless of complexion. If the foo ****s...... Read the definition of bigot and then explain how the sentence above doesn't fit that definition, Hans. Bigot (n.) One whose attitude or behavior expresses intolerance, as because of race, religion, politics, etc. (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary) By the way, "bigoted" is spelled with a single "g." Read my lips: Race is irrelevant. Repeating that is not going to change anything, Hans. Race issues are everywhere in this country today and are not going to go away simply because you want to bury your head in the sand and act like they don't exist. While we're discussing definitions (and since you like to throw the word "racism" around so much). Racism (n.) An irrational belief or advocacy of the superiority of a given group, people, or nation, usu. ones own, on the basis of racial differences having no scientific validity. (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary) Kindly show me where I've expressed a belief in or advocated the superiority of a group in this discussion, Hans. Simply discussing a race-related issue in a newsgroup is not racism. As such, your charge of racism is as patently false as your charge of bigotry. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ You have repeatedly heralded American workers at the expense of the immigrant population, Dwight--and irrationally so I might add. As a last word on this topic--because you seem incapable of a well-rounded discussion on it, let me say that the situation as it exists for *everyone*--not just employees but the corporations alike, in this country purely sucks. I say there's more likelihood that an non-US born person will do a crappy job; and you say there's more likelihood that a US-born person will do a crappy job. That given, Dwight, then *WHY* praytell are there so many non-US born people doing the jobs? You want to say it's "because of wages." DUH!!!!! I am speaking from the whole picture. We can all stand around all we want and say, "if the wages were raised, US-born people would do the jobs." It ain't gonna happen any time soon. You have been the one in this exchange that has been unreasonable, over judgmental, spiteful, hateful and quite impatient with the views of others--so much so that the gist of your whole contribution has been to condemn the way others believe while offering no real constructive contribution of your own. Have you offered any solutions? Have you reasoned any explanations for it being the way it is? Have you once, just once even *tried* to understand anything anyone else is saying? NO. You have done nothing but tell me that I think Americans are garbage. I have provided clear reasons for why I believe the statistics would show that US-born people would be less likely to perform the jobs that a current immigrant population will and are performing. You've rebutted with no evidence to the contrary of what I am saying. You have rebutted also with nothing but indignation and name calling--or very near it--but haven't provided anything substantial to tell me that those news reports, radio talk-shows, news magazine shows, Congress, and real-life conversations I've been involved with pertaining to this issue, don't exist. Like I said, we can be indignant all we want. But it won't change what's going on. We can whine all we want. But it won't change what's going on. All we can do is be mindful of the situation as it is and create contingencies for ourselves as we things get too close to home and we start being threatened. You act like I've never once been affected by the situation, Dwight. And, I have--a few times. But, each time I have done what I had to do to get through it. And, starting over again is not beyond me. It's become a sporting event for me now. Take your righteousness and shove it. Right where the sun don't shine. But, before you do...why don't *you* think of some constructive ways to deal with the situation instead of all the whining and finger pointing you've been doing. Kim W5TIT |
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net... "Dwight Stewart" wrote And Hans prefers to make sly comments about a spelling error instead of discussing the topic. I've stated my position, and you haven't persuaded me that I'm wrong. Nothing is left to discuss. In fact, every new post from you more eloquently makes my point than I possibly could myself. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb I absolutely agree, Hans. Kim W5TIT |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... But its perfectly okay to pay some union bum a ton of wages for doing a repetitive task, (a skill that same 14 y.o. that passed a ham test could do) therefore jacking the cost of a product, lets say a car for this example, to a ridiculous price??? (actually both the fast food worker and the person on the line at the factory ARE BOTH doing repetitive tasks....) Hold on a sec.... "union bum"? The basic concept that Dwight is talking about is a "living wage" - meaning jobs that pay enough in wages and benefits to permit people to live above the poverty line *without* government help. Yes, paying a living wage makes products and services cost more, but it also removes people from the govt. support system. Some say "the marketplace" should set wages. But "the marketplace" is tilted by a bunch of factors, such as the exportation of jobs and the importation of workers. The "living wage" concept and reality are largely a result of organized labor unions leveling the playing field a bit by unifying the many workers in negotiating with the relatively few employees. The really smart employers learned to treat their workers well enough that they wouldn't unionize. Look at what working conditions were like in various industries 100-150 years ago, before organized labor had any real power. Believe it or not, there are alot more people out there trying to survive on the poverty level wages. Based strictly on my local region, that would be any job under 9-10 dollars per hour before taxes and if any, benefits. And unfortunately some of these people are NOT counted, in the unemployment or other job related statistics, if they are not participating in the various government programs like the employment security commision that Michigan has... (think its called MichiganWorks) Yep. $20,000/yr isn't much at all anymore in many parts of the country. Not to raise a family, anyway. As for the $15 burrito and coke at Taco Bell, think about this: At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains. One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers. So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm out of it...speculation won't solve a thing and I choose not to be as depressed and bitter and hateful as others... Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
You have repeatedly heralded American workers at the expense of the immigrant population, Dwight -- and irrationally so I might add. (snip) I'm listening, Kim. Now explain how that is either racism or bigotry? And, before you make more of a fool of yourself, let me remind you American workers today (non-immigrants) include blacks, asians, hispanics, and people of just about all races, ethnic backgrounds, religions, and so on. Ignoring that, you and Hans decided to scream about racism and bigotry instead. Because you refuse to see the larger picture, you're the one incapable of a reasonable discussion. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: You have repeatedly heralded American workers at the expense of the immigrant population, Dwight -- and irrationally so I might add. (snip) I'm listening, Kim. Now explain how that is either racism or bigotry? And, before you make more of a fool of yourself, let me remind you American workers today (non-immigrants) include blacks, asians, hispanics, and people of just about all races, ethnic backgrounds, religions, and so on. Ignoring that, you and Hans decided to scream about racism and bigotry instead. Because you refuse to see the larger picture, you're the one incapable of a reasonable discussion. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ As any intelligent person will see, Dwight, Hans and I both commented from a perspective of balance. YOU are the irrational one for not being able to see that. YOU expressed bigotry--not us. Kim W5TIT Signing Off. |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... But its perfectly okay to pay some union bum a ton of wages for doing a repetitive task, (a skill that same 14 y.o. that passed a ham test could do) therefore jacking the cost of a product, lets say a car for this example, to a ridiculous price??? (actually both the fast food worker and the person on the line at the factory ARE BOTH doing repetitive tasks....) Hold on a sec.... "union bum"? Yep... there are a ton of them in this state..... collect a "phat" wage ($20 per hour or more) for a job a kid could do, brag about only working 2 of the 8 hours in a shift, and admit to stealing and other fraudulant practices..... .yeah, those are bums... Not all union workers are bums, but there are alot that are. The basic concept that Dwight is talking about is a "living wage" - meaning jobs that pay enough in wages and benefits to permit people to live above the poverty line *without* government help. Yes, paying a living wage makes products and services cost more, but it also removes people from the govt. support system. So.... basically, one way or another people have to pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or paying in taxes for a government program. Some say "the marketplace" should set wages. But "the marketplace" is tilted by a bunch of factors, such as the exportation of jobs and the importation of workers. Yes, that is what is called an idealism, but in reality it doesn't work that way. Let's look at my county for example..... Republican owners of businesses and places to rent charge considerably higher for products, services and housing. These are also in most of the cases the employers in the area. For example, on average, a single bedroom apartment cannot be found for less than $350-400. That does not even include utilities. The average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or minimum wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Now, do the math on that. The first of the normal 2 paychecks (paid every 2 weeks) each month barely even covers the rent, let alone the utilities. Factor in transportation of any means, and basic food needs, and that exceeds the second check. This does not include for any savings, clothing or medicine purchases and of course nothing in the "entertainment" category on the spreadsheet. That is why alot of people around here are forced to work two jobs. Problem there is, there is no time left over for family or even better, trying to take classes to get a degree to get out of the ruts. Typically in my area as well, certain market indicators such as milk, bread, gasoline etc, is at least 10-20 percent higher than surrounding counties. Basically they want you to work for as little as possible, but charge ya up the ying-yang for everything. Guess that is the American way eh? The "living wage" concept and reality are largely a result of organized labor unions leveling the playing field a bit by unifying the many workers in negotiating with the relatively few employees. The really smart employers learned to treat their workers well enough that they wouldn't unionize. Look at what working conditions were like in various industries 100-150 years ago, before organized labor had any real power. Just like they are for non-unionized labor now! hihi Believe it or not, there are alot more people out there trying to survive on the poverty level wages. Based strictly on my local region, that would be any job under 9-10 dollars per hour before taxes and if any, benefits. And unfortunately some of these people are NOT counted, in the unemployment or other job related statistics, if they are not participating in the various government programs like the employment security commision that Michigan has... (think its called MichiganWorks) Yep. $20,000/yr isn't much at all anymore in many parts of the country. Not to raise a family, anyway. Or for a single person either...... that 20,000 grand is PRE-TAX and PRE-BENEFIT (if any) and can quickly become as low as 13,000-15,000 dollars depending on the circumstances. As for the $15 burrito and coke at Taco Bell, think about this: At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains. One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers. So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim? \ I don't assume to have all of the answers, but I am sure that you can go through just about any company or organization and thin out the dead-wood. People who just are not returning equivalent value for the service they are supposed to provide as an employee. There is a case of 3 people who are "riding the clock out" in my full time employment place of work. And compared to the remainder of the department they are making more than twice our wages for similar/same work but just have been here a while. With those three people to finally retire or move on, that would allow for at least 4-5 more people to replace them, that will ACTUALLY WORK, and still allow for the rest of the department to get a $1.00 per hour raise, and STILL SAVE SOME MONEY on overall department wages. The math has been figured out here on this and it is true.... The other answer is for employers to finally see the value in helping the employee with training/education. If an employer is credible enough, the employee will stay with that employer with the new training they have recieved. Even though people want to believe otherwise, there are more and more people having to, and trying to survive on what were supposed to be considered "high school kid" jobs. -- Ryan KC8PMX Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t... Hey, you want a theory? How about an effort made to get African Americans (traditionally Democrat)to move back to the south to balance out the political leanings of the area? That's a little far-fetched... a conspiracy to get millions to move just for political reasons? Would you up and move all the way across the country, family and ALL, your entire LIFE change drastically, just so a ceratian politician will get 1 more vote? Clint KB5ZHT -- -- 45 Communist Goals for America http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm -- |
"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... But its perfectly okay to pay some union bum a ton of wages for doing a repetitive task, (a skill that same 14 y.o. that passed a ham test could do) therefore jacking the cost of a product, lets say a car for this example, to a ridiculous price??? (actually both the fast food worker and the person on the line at the factory ARE BOTH doing repetitive tasks....) Hold on a sec.... "union bum"? The basic concept that Dwight is talking about is a "living wage" - meaning jobs that pay enough in wages and benefits to permit people to live above the poverty line *without* government help. Yes, paying a living wage makes products and services cost more, but it also removes people from the govt. support system. Some say "the marketplace" should set wages. But "the marketplace" is tilted by a bunch of factors, such as the exportation of jobs and the importation of workers. The "living wage" concept and reality are largely a result of organized labor unions leveling the playing field a bit by unifying the many workers in negotiating with the relatively few employees. The really smart employers learned to treat their workers well enough that they wouldn't unionize. Look at what working conditions were like in various industries 100-150 years ago, before organized labor had any real power. Believe it or not, there are alot more people out there trying to survive on the poverty level wages. Based strictly on my local region, that would be any job under 9-10 dollars per hour before taxes and if any, benefits. And unfortunately some of these people are NOT counted, in the unemployment or other job related statistics, if they are not participating in the various government programs like the employment security commision that Michigan has... (think its called MichiganWorks) Yep. $20,000/yr isn't much at all anymore in many parts of the country. Not to raise a family, anyway. As for the $15 burrito and coke at Taco Bell, think about this: At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains. One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers. So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm out of it...speculation won't solve a thing and I choose not to be as depressed and bitter and hateful as others... Kim, I hope you weren't referring to me.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Clint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Hey, you want a theory? How about an effort made to get African Americans (traditionally Democrat)to move back to the south to balance out the political leanings of the area? That's a little far-fetched... a conspiracy to get millions to move just for political reasons? Would you up and move all the way across the country, family and ALL, your entire LIFE change drastically, just so a ceratian politician will get 1 more vote? Not if that was the direct approach, but people with agendas tend to approach things obliquely on occasion. I recall a few years back when some minorities encouraged lots of children so as to eventually become much less of a minority. I can think of some funny names to describe that process! 8^) Life is so strange..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
What does any of this have to do with BPL?????
Carl - wk3c "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Clint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Hey, you want a theory? How about an effort made to get African Americans (traditionally Democrat)to move back to the south to balance out the political leanings of the area? That's a little far-fetched... a conspiracy to get millions to move just for political reasons? Would you up and move all the way across the country, family and ALL, your entire LIFE change drastically, just so a ceratian politician will get 1 more vote? Not if that was the direct approach, but people with agendas tend to approach things obliquely on occasion. I recall a few years back when some minorities encouraged lots of children so as to eventually become much less of a minority. I can think of some funny names to describe that process! 8^) Life is so strange..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
What does any of this have to do with BPL????? Carl - wk3c This topic drifted a long time before I ever started posting on it. It's had a lot of racism accusations, a lot of work ethic comparisons, and even some thought on how the guv'mint should be run. Probably more of that than BPL. Chalk it up to topic drift. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Kim" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains. One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers. So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm out of it...speculation won't solve a thing and I choose not to be as depressed and bitter and hateful as others... Kim, I hope you weren't referring to me.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Oh goodness...no. I was specifically referring to Dwight... Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. .. Carl R. Stevenson wrote: What does any of this have to do with BPL????? Carl - wk3c This topic drifted a long time before I ever started posting on it. It's had a lot of racism accusations, a lot of work ethic comparisons, and even some thought on how the guv'mint should be run. Probably more of that than BPL. Chalk it up to topic drift. - Mike KB3EIA - Yep, and for me it's been more interesting... :o Kim W5TIT |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... The average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or minimum wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message . .. Carl R. Stevenson wrote: What does any of this have to do with BPL????? Carl - wk3c This topic drifted a long time before I ever started posting on it. It's had a lot of racism accusations, a lot of work ethic comparisons, and even some thought on how the guv'mint should be run. Probably more of that than BPL. Chalk it up to topic drift. - Mike KB3EIA - Yep, and for me it's been more interesting... :o Funny how some threads get better when this happens! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: What does any of this have to do with BPL????? Carl, this isn't a newsgroup, it's a CHAT ROOM for the regulars and their buddies. All can talk on anydamnthingtheywant because they got licensed as amateurs. One can only talk about actual amateur radio policy issues someplace else... :-) LHA |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: What does any of this have to do with BPL????? Carl, this isn't a newsgroup, it's a CHAT ROOM for the regulars and their buddies. Nope, not even the use of CAPITAL LETTERS makes this a chat room. It is still a newsgroup. All can talk on anydamnthingtheywant because they got licensed as amateurs. All can discuss any topic because it isn't outlawed. As you've been quick to point out, this is an unmoderated group. You've frequently gone quite far afield in your postings. We'll chalk this up as another "Do as I say and not as I do" comment. One can only talk about actual amateur radio policy issues someplace else... :-) What's it to you? You aren't ivolved in amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... The average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or minimum wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage. It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that. I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage. Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely sum of about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back then the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so much lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:
So.... basically, one way or another people have to pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or paying in taxes for a government program. Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan. However, it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most obvious is corporate profits today. Product quality is dropping (plastics), wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped much, but corporate profits have went through the roof. Perhaps a mechanism to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar question). I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors effecting workers). This will drive some marginal companies out of business (the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply. But, over a several year period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out of business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market. The second most obvious is the concentration of marketplaces. So, if the above isn't acceptable, perhaps this is the place to look. What I'm talking about here is larger corporations gobbling up whole market segments, driving smaller companies out of business. Lets take an example. Wal-Mart moves into a town offering a wide range of products. Of course, the new store doesn't offer a wide selection in any department, but it does carry the basics in each department - just enough to take away what local businesses call their bread-and-butter products (the products stores depend on to pay employees, rent, and so on). As that happens, local stores are forced to depend on the sale of high end products where sales are far less predictable. The inevitable result is that many smaller stores simply collapse. And this isn't just happening in the retail industry. It is happening in many industries (publishing, news, entertainment, manufacturing, transportation, and so on). The next most obvious is credit. In many markets, high prices are supported only by massive credit activity. For example, the automobile market. Prices have climbed sharply mainly because credit is much easier to get, in much higher amounts, than just a few decades ago. Put a regulatory cap on credit in this market and prices have to drop if companies want to sell cars. Of course, the same is true for other markets (home construction, consumer goods, and so on). The biggest danger to this solution is the tendency for companies to pass on any initial losses to consumers (lower quality products) and their own employees. The first will correct itself over time, but the second requires additional labor protections (wage increases, a cap on immigration, and efforts to prevent companies from moving overseas). Like I said, I certainly don't have all the answers. Even some of the problems are elusive. However, it is clear that even minor regulatory modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic impact. The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph requires more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the most negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust economy, perhaps parts of all three should be considered. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage. I thought the minimum wage was exactly that - the minimum a single worker needs to maintain even the most basic standard of living. If it isn't that, what is it supposed to be? The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower wages, is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare, food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: "Kim" wrote: I'm out of it...speculation won't solve a thing and I choose not to be as depressed and bitter and hateful as others... I hope you weren't referring to me.... Oh goodness...no. I was specifically referring to Dwight. Grow up, Kim. If you can't handle spirited discussion and debate, then you're clearly in the wrong place because most of these newsgroups were created for exactly that - not pleasant, dainty, little discussions that never offend your delicate, child-like, sensibilities. Regardless, if you post obstinate and contrary opinions in these newsgroups, then you should expect, and be prepared for, obstinate and contrary responses (without crying about it for days afterwards). Whatever the case, I wasn't put on this Earth to cater to your sensibilities, so will only consider that to a limited extent when responding to what you post (and it will be a cold day in Hades before I consider it at all when you attack me personally). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: "N2EY" wrote: "Kim" wrote: I'm out of it...speculation won't solve a thing and I choose not to be as depressed and bitter and hateful as others... I hope you weren't referring to me.... Oh goodness...no. I was specifically referring to Dwight. Grow up, Kim. If you can't handle spirited discussion and debate, then you're clearly in the wrong place because most of these newsgroups were created for exactly that - not pleasant, dainty, little discussions that never offend your delicate, child-like, sensibilities. Regardless, if you post obstinate and contrary opinions in these newsgroups, then you should expect, and be prepared for, obstinate and contrary responses (without crying about it for days afterwards). Whatever the case, I wasn't put on this Earth to cater to your sensibilities, so will only consider that to a limited extent when responding to what you post (and it will be a cold day in Hades before I consider it at all when you attack me personally). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Dwight in training for the Larry Roll Project... Kim W5TIT |
Dave Heil wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: What does any of this have to do with BPL????? Carl, this isn't a newsgroup, it's a CHAT ROOM for the regulars and their buddies. Nope, not even the use of CAPITAL LETTERS makes this a chat room. It is still a newsgroup. All can talk on anydamnthingtheywant because they got licensed as amateurs. All can discuss any topic because it isn't outlawed. As you've been quick to point out, this is an unmoderated group. You've frequently gone quite far afield in your postings. We'll chalk this up as another "Do as I say and not as I do" comment. One can only talk about actual amateur radio policy issues someplace else... :-) What's it to you? You aren't ivolved in amateur radio. Especially since the Carl's real intention behind his comment was based (I think) on my being some minor irritant to him, rather than a desire to keep the newsgroup pure and On Topic. "Approchamentus Obliqautum" - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote: So.... basically, one way or another people have to pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or paying in taxes for a government program. Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan. However, it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most obvious is corporate profits today. Hold on a sec, Dwight. "Corporate profits" are the basis of any capitalist system. Without 'em, our economy collapses. Product quality is dropping (plastics), In some areas, yes. But people still buy the products! wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped much, but corporate profits have went through the roof. How much corporate profit is excessive? If a company is worth $1 billion, and their profit is $100 million, that's a 10% return on investment. Is that excessive? Who decides? Perhaps a mechanism to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar question). But without the details it's a moot point. Suppose a company has a string of bad years and then a good year - should their profits in the good year be confiscated and a blind eye turned towards the bad years? I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors effecting workers). Price controls were tried in the late '60s and early '70s to "Whip Infaltion Now". Didn't work in the long term. This will drive some marginal companies out of business (the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply. At the very least. And the political and economic backlash will be overwhelming. But, over a several year period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out of business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market. Except that it may not be the most "streamlined" companies who survive. The second most obvious is the concentration of marketplaces. So, if the above isn't acceptable, perhaps this is the place to look. What I'm talking about here is larger corporations gobbling up whole market segments, driving smaller companies out of business. Lets take an example. Wal-Mart moves into a town offering a wide range of products. Of course, the new store doesn't offer a wide selection in any department, but it does carry the basics in each department - just enough to take away what local businesses call their bread-and-butter products (the products stores depend on to pay employees, rent, and so on). As that happens, local stores are forced to depend on the sale of high end products where sales are far less predictable. The inevitable result is that many smaller stores simply collapse. And this isn't just happening in the retail industry. It is happening in many industries (publishing, news, entertainment, manufacturing, transportation, and so on). Because the *market* (people who make the buying decisions) go to the Wal Mart instead of the local stores. That's where the real problem lies - people who do not think about the long-term economic results of their actions. The next most obvious is credit. In many markets, high prices are supported only by massive credit activity. For example, the automobile market. Prices have climbed sharply mainly because credit is much easier to get, in much higher amounts, than just a few decades ago. Put a regulatory cap on credit in this market and prices have to drop if companies want to sell cars. Do you know this for a fact? Car price increases also reflect the enormous investment in engineering and tooling to build cars using the latest technology. Remember when most cars fell apart before reaching 10 years or 100,000 miles? Of course, the same is true for other markets (home construction, consumer goods, and so on). As long as people are willing to pay the prices, the markets are driven that way. Supply and demand. What about people trying to get started as homeowners? Raising the price of credit makes it impossible for them to buy a first house. Some months back I refinanced the mortgage on this place. Took more than 5 years off the ultimate payback date *and* reduced my monthly payment by a few $$. Was that a good thing or a bad thing for me to do? The biggest danger to this solution is the tendency for companies to pass on any initial losses to consumers (lower quality products) and their own employees. The first will correct itself over time, but the second requires additional labor protections (wage increases, a cap on immigration, and efforts to prevent companies from moving overseas). Import duties. Like I said, I certainly don't have all the answers. Even some of the problems are elusive. However, it is clear that even minor regulatory modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic impact. The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph requires more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the most negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust economy, perhaps parts of all three should be considered. But you also have to consider that the companies will find ways around such limitations. If the govt. is going to seize my "excess" profits, I simply won't have any - I'll set up deferred-compensation programs for myself and other bigwigs, buy down debt and buy back stock, do massive capital programs that *reduce* employment, invest in things to carry my company over the lean years to come, etc. The big changes have to come from ordinary folks becoming educated and deciding how to spend their money. It's "voting with your wallet" and it's done every day. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... The average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or minimum wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage. It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that. I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage. Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely sum of about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back then the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so much lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway. 73 de Jim, N2EY And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour. It wasn't a living wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to support a family. Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years) that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child. No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so. Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it takes to buy something. The majority of items but not all take fewer hours of work to purchase than they did in 1976. The cost of electronics is down in terms of hours to buy. The cost of houses is about the same in terms of hours. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote: So.... basically, one way or another people have to pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or paying in taxes for a government program. Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan. However, it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most obvious is corporate profits today. Product quality is dropping (plastics), wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped much, but corporate profits have went through the roof. Perhaps a mechanism to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar question). I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors effecting workers). This will drive some marginal companies out of business (the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply. But, over a several year period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out of business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market. You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we started developing shortages. Other countries in the world have tried it too and also failed. Every where that has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So why try what has already been proven to fail. Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars, quote percentage of operating expenses. If expenses are say 100 trillion, then a profit of 1 trillion (1%) is so dangerously low that the company is on the verge of going bankrupt. Any company only making a 1% profit has difficulty getting investors, difficulty in getting expansion capital, and has no safety margin to ride out an economic downturn. On the other hand, let's take another case. If a small business has operating expenses of $100 and makes a profit of $1000 then that is an obscene profit since it is 10 times the operating expense. So you see just quoting a dollar figure doesn't tell the whole story. [snip] However, it is clear that even minor regulatory modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic impact. The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph requires more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the most negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust economy, perhaps parts of all three should be considered. However, history has proven that it is not possible to predict the results of these "minor" regulatory actions. At this point in time no one is knowledgeable enough to do so and it's better to let the system react to the free market principles. In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once that occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in Japan as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better to serve the US market with cars made in the US. The main drawback is the fact that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living matches ours. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage. I thought the minimum wage was exactly that - the minimum a single worker needs to maintain even the most basic standard of living. If it isn't that, what is it supposed to be? Only if you expect to live in a group setting (i.e. at home or with relatives or with roommates), have just barely enough clothes for work, eat basic foods (meat is NOT a daily item), and spend minimum on transportation (i.e. take the bus or have a junker car). It has never, ever risen to the level of allowing a person to support a family of four in their own home and own a moderately good car. It wasn't that high when implemented and has never gotten close to it. The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a single person with no dependents from starving and freezing if they are willing to settle for bare bones survival. It's never been higher than that. The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower wages, is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare, food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced. You are not supposed to stay in a minimum wage job. You get work experience, demonstrate your ability to be dependable, get recommendations (i.e "he/she is a hard worker") and move on. The solution is not to mandate a higher wage but to actively seek out these people and get them ready to move on to the better jobs by making training, etc accessible. When I was young (too long ago), I worked minimum wage jobs but I certainly knew that was not something I should consider doing lifelong. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we started developing shortages. Other countries in the world have tried it too and also failed. Every where that has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So why try what has already been proven to fail. As I recall it, wage and price controls caused some shortages because certain costs could not be controlled. For example, the wellhead price of natural gas was regulated but the cost of drilling wasn't, so a lot of folks either stopped drilling altogether, or, when they were drilling for oil but hit only gas, they'd cap the well and take the loss in one lump rather than put the well into production and lose money on every cubic foot of gas produced. Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars, quote percentage of operating expenses. If expenses are say 100 trillion, then a profit of 1 trillion (1%) is so dangerously low that the company is on the verge of going bankrupt. Any company only making a 1% profit has difficulty getting investors, difficulty in getting expansion capital, and has no safety margin to ride out an economic downturn. On the other hand, let's take another case. If a small business has operating expenses of $100 and makes a profit of $1000 then that is an obscene profit since it is 10 times the operating expense. So you see just quoting a dollar figure doesn't tell the whole story. It's actually even more complex than that. Operating expenses are only one metric - there's also return on investment, market volatility, stock prices, regulatory controls, and a bunch of other factors. For example, suppose a business with a total investment of $1 million has $10 million in operating expenses and $100,000 in profits. Profit is 1% of operating expenses but 10% of investment - is this company on rocky ground or not? If the operating expenses are fairly fixed, even a small drop in sales will put the company in the red. But if the operating expenses rise and fall in sync with sales, the company may be in a very solid position, profit wise. There are all sorts of other examples. Some industries are so cyclic that they *need* high profits in good times to carry them through losses in bad times. [snip] However, it is clear that even minor regulatory modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic impact. The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph requires more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the most negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust economy, perhaps parts of all three should be considered. However, history has proven that it is not possible to predict the results of these "minor" regulatory actions. At this point in time no one is knowledgeable enough to do so and it's better to let the system react to the free market principles. "Law of Unexpected Consequences" Look at the auto industry. Fuel prices were kept artificially low until the 1973 embargo, when they became artificially high, and the fuel itself became scarce. Because the market had become used to a semingly inexhaustible supply of cheap fuel, the US auto industry did not develop fuel-efficient cars, and transportation alternatives like transit died off (or were actively killed to get rid of the competition to the private auto). This shortsightedness set the stage for massive inroads in the US market by foreign carmakers who *had* developed fuel-efficient cars. In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once that occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in Japan as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better to serve the US market with cars made in the US. In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many Japanese companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the USA because it's cheaper! VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland, PA facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here instead of Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs (because it's cheaper to make them here!) The main drawback is the fact that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living matches ours. So what do we do until then? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... The average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or minimum wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage. It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that. I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage. Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely sum of about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back then the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so much lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway. 73 de Jim, N2EY And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour. Actually a bit more, as I recall. But in any event we're talking $3000/yr to $4000/yr, max.. It wasn't a living wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to support a family. Agreed - nor were they meant to. But it *was* possible for a person to live on them - probably more so than today. Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years) that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child. Pretty much the same here. No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so. 'adult male'....ahem..... Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it takes to buy something. Exactly! And you also have to take into account things like creeping taxation (even if the laws don't change, inflation causes people to pay more of their income in taxes) and increases in the number of 'necessities'. Taxes are a big part of the game, too. At one time the income tax rules were such that people on the bottom end who knew the rules could pay very little in taxes. I remember when: - *all* interest paid (not just home mortgage interest) was deductible. - *all* documented sales tax and *most* documented medical costs were deductible - the various personal and dependent deductions were larger *in infaltion adjusted dollars* The majority of items but not all take fewer hours of work to purchase than they did in 1976. In some cases, yes, in others, no. The cost of electronics is down in terms of hours to buy. True to a point - but on the other end of the scale, those electronics are often non-repairable, and have limited useful lives, so that they must be replaced more often. It it actually easier to restore ham gear that is 30-40-50 years old than much of the newer stuff, because parts for much of the newer stuff are simply unobtainable except from junker units. The displays in the popular TS-440S is one example - they are no longer made, and yet they are often one of the first major parts to fail, so your chances of lifting one from a junker are slim. The cost of houses is about the same in terms of hours. A lot of that depends on the interest rate and taxes. Interest rates in the '70s were double-digit, approaching 17% in some markets at times - for home mortgages! But since all that interest was deductible, the *effective* interest rate was less, depending on your tax bracket. Escalating home prices makes it harder to get started, though, because the size of the down payment keeps growing. And since many of the fees involved with buying and selling are a percentage of the price, the amount of cash a first-timer needs gets really high. Compare this to 40-50 years ago, when interest rates, taxes and down payments were low. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com