| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#51
October 28th 03, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: (snip) Salaries are going up. Compared to the cost of living, salaries are going down. The minimum wage is a good example. To keep up with the cost of living increase over the last twenty-five years (to have the same spending power as 25 years ago), the minimum wage should be over $19 per hour. By the same token, a person earning $19 an hour twenty-five years ago should be earning well over $50 an hour today. Check it out yourself. Look at the minimum wage 25 years ago (or any typical wage 25 years ago) and increase it by the same percentage that living costs (rent, house payments, utilities, food, and so on) have increased over the years since. There are all kinds of indicators that both support and contradict your point, Dwight. But what I see is that the general trend is for some necessities (housing, medical costs, college education, insurance, *taxes*) to be increasing in price faster than wages, and for other items, mostly "luxuries" but some necessities (computers, electronics, energy, food) to be increasing slower than wages. So what you get are people who can afford a really sweet ham rig but cannot afford a house to put it in. The trend is further muddled by the increasing number of two-career-by-necessity families. People forget that 30-40 years ago a family of four could live a very nice middle-class lifestyle on one middle-class income - and you did not need a master's degree to get such a job. There's also the increasing number of things to spend money on. I can remember a time when, for most people, things like a second car, cable TV, a computer, and many other things were luxuries. Today they are almost essentials. I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and pay social security taxes so that you can retire and draw SS benefits. They also pay State and Federal taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals. Some are doctors. Some do computer design work. Some do menial labor which most American workers don't desire. Americans working at those jobs would do the same things (pay taxes and so on), Dave. Why do we need immigrants to do that? Some of those Americans are even bright. As for the "menial" jobs, the only reason those jobs are menial is because employers choose not to pay decent wages to do those jobs. And as long as employers continue to find cheap labor to fill those jobs, there is no incentitive whatsoever to increase those wages. If anything, a ready supply of cheap labor only drives down wages for other jobs, increasing the number of menial jobs and decreasing jobs that pay decent wages. The direct result is less well paying jobs for all working class Americans. Then what's the answer? Shall we eliminate all immigration, or just the illegals? Who gets to decide who should be kept out and who should be admitted, other than obvious threats to security? There's also an important factor being left out: Many of the "good" jobs of former eras are being exported. Try to buy a shirt or shoes or computer that's "Made In USA". If you think immigrant labor is cheap, look at what the wages are in the developing countries. Remember NAFTA? Remember the demonstrators at the GATT meetings? What do you think they're demonstrating against? How about this example: Almost 100 years ago, my grandparents came to the United States from Italy. They left in part because of the 1906 earthquake, but mostly because they wanted a better life than they could get in Italy at that time. They were admitted through Ellis Island, like millions of others. They wound up in Philadelphia, where they found jobs, learned the language, built businesses and lives, etc. I don't think any of them even had a grade-school education. They were from southern Italy, not northern or western Europe. They didn't speak English when they got here, and some of them never learned to speak it without an accent. They were Roman Catholics, a religion widely despised in the US for various reasons. They had to deal with all of the usual stereotypes applied to their ethnicity. Today their grandchildren all have college degrees, good jobs, successful lives, etc. Typical American dream stuff. Should they have been admitted to the USA or not? (I'm sure some folks here would be really happy if they had been kept out ;-) ) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#52
October 29th 03, 12:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry,
I'd gently remind you that there wouldn't be any citizens (well, very few - only the decendents of the original folks after the revolutionary war) at all under those rules. My great-grandfather and my grandfather (when he was 7) immigrated to the US in the late 1800s (my dads side). My mother's grandfather (my great-grandfather) immigrated from Canada. If their children couldn't become citizens, I wouldn't be one now. Heck, how could they hold a draft back in WWII with no citizens? Only draft foreigners? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA " |
|
#53
October 29th 03, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hans K0HB" wrote:
So let me make sure I understand your position...... Using your exact words, but interpolating your statement into US terms, it would read like this: "Since the US government (President, Vice President, Congress, the Judiciary) is clearly under white control, then black employees throughout the country should routinely be replaced by whites. After all, since the US belongs to the whites (the majority), they should obviously have the jobs, money, and power." Does that fairly represent your position? No, that's not what I said. That what racist liberals said about blacks (the majority) in South Africa. Now, let's see if I understand your position. As I see it, your position is that whites should NOT have the jobs, money, or power exactly because they are the majority - much of it should be transferred to minorities instead. Is that what you're trying to say? If not, what exactly are you trying to say, Hans? Where do whites fit into your grand vision of the perfect America? Where do the minorities fit into this vision of the perfect America? Are you sure the others races are going to agree and comply with your vision? Or do you think you just can whip them into submission by calling them racist when things don't go your way? Your amateurish attempts at social engineering are damn scary to me. You're assuming the minorities are just going to goose step to your views of a perfect world - that none have an agenda of their own (an agenda that may not be so rosy for whites in this country). Blindly following that belief, and ignoring the inherent racism of the single race cultures these immigrants often come from (they have no desire for multi-race cultures in their home countries), you're inviting millions into this country each year. Pardon me if this causes me concerns (concerns you call racism). Getting back to South Africa, liberals didn't like the white MINORITY having jobs, money, or power, in South Africa and they don't like the idea o f the white MAJORITY having jobs, money, or power, in this country. The only thing consistent about those contradictory views is a dislike of whites, minority or majority. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#54
October 29th 03, 07:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote:
Then what's the answer? Shall we eliminate all immigration, or just the illegals? Who gets to decide who should be kept out and who should be admitted, other than obvious threats to security? (snip) (snip) Almost 100 years ago, my grandparents came to the United States from Italy. They left in part because of the 1906 earthquake, but mostly because they wanted a better life than they could get in Italy at that time. Times change. Years ago, there were great open spaces throughout America just waiting for new immigrates to settle. Those shopkeepers, craftsmen, farmers, laborers, and so on, clearly benefited a new nation. The benefits today are subtle and the problems (job shortages and so on) more pronounced. Because of that, we have to cut back on immigration at some point. We can't have the entire world's population, or even a significant portion of it, living here. I think we've reached that point - the point where we cut back on immigration except for the very most extreme cases. And when I say extreme cases, I mean extreme cases. Economic considerations would not qualify. Those facing persecution or death in their home country would only be allowed to stay only as long as those threats exist, after which they must leave. To fill labor shortages here, we should retrain those already here. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#55
October 29th 03, 09:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote:
You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34 in 1861, but 18+11+3 = 32 The other states did not get involved. There were 18 Union States and 11 Confederate States. California and Oregon wanted nothing to do with the issue or the conflict. The four border states did not secede. But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was clear to see. As the West and Midwest developed, more and more free states would be added. (snip) The trend was not so clear. Certainly some of the Midwest states, dependant on farming, would want slaves. Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would secede and fight a war to keep them? You're looking for an easy answer to a very complex question. I suspect there were as many reason for the conflict as their were people involved. Some of the roots of the Civil War dates back to the Revolutionary War nearly a century earlier, where many Southerners did not want to break with England, sided with England during the conflict, and were persecuted for that afterwards. Others objected to the taxes and tarrifs on farm goods heading overseas, seeing that as similar to what the North objected to leading up to the Revolutionary War and reducing profits from their primary markets. Others saw the attempts for fix market prices on farm goods by Northern firms as a threat to free markets (and were angry the government did nothing to stop the practice). Others objected to what they saw as efforts by Northern States to limit the political influence of the Southern States. The list goes on and on (and I certainly don't have the time to go on and on here). No argument there - but where were most of the slaves? In the Confederate states! Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North. These were people purchased at slave auctions (blacks), or from poor families (whites), and given contracts to work for years in Northern factories to hopefully earn their eventual freedom. Ben Franklin and his maternal grandmother were both once apprentice workers. She married the man who held her contract. Ben Franklin escaped to Philadelphia (breaking his contract and the laws). The only differences between this and outright slavery were the legal papers and the idea of possible freedom some day. Of course, because of the working conditions, few ever lived long enough to be free. This practice continued long after slavery was abolished. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#56
October 29th 03, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#57
October 29th 03, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jim Hampton" wrote in
: Larry, I'd gently remind you that there wouldn't be any citizens (well, very few - only the decendents of the original folks after the revolutionary war) at all under those rules. My great-grandfather and my grandfather (when he was 7) immigrated to the US in the late 1800s (my dads side). My mother's grandfather (my great-grandfather) immigrated from Canada. If their children couldn't become citizens, I wouldn't be one now. Heck, how could they hold a draft back in WWII with no citizens? Only draft foreigners? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA " They can draft foreigners, who can then refuse to actually go on the ground of 'alienage'. This refusal is grounds to be refused a green card, but it seems, as far as I can tell, that an alien who already had a green card would not be affected in any way by refusing the draft. Also, an alien on a visa could stay as long as they had a current visa, even though refusing the draft would bar them from ever getting a green card. Bear in mind, also, that aliens who come here after age 25, like me, can never be drafted because we never get onto the selective service register. Of course, there is no draft at present, but all these rules kick in if it is ever reintroduced. |
|
#58
October 29th 03, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34 in 1861, but 18+11+3 = 32 The other states did not get involved. There were 18 Union States and 11 Confederate States. California and Oregon wanted nothing to do with the issue or the conflict. The four border states did not secede. They were involved to the extent that they supported the Union cause financially and politically. You previously claimed that "slavery was not threatened" because the free states could not get the needed 2/3 majority. I showed that was simply not true - it would have taken 23 states of the 34. It's not a coincidence that 11 states (34-23=11) seceded. But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was clear to see. As the West and Midwest developed, more and more free states would be added. (snip) The trend was not so clear. Certainly some of the Midwest states, dependant on farming, would want slaves. Not at all! Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois...all farming states back then, all free. The simple fact was that more free states than slave states were being admitted, and that as time went on the days of slavery were numbered - unless the Union were broken. Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would secede and fight a war to keep them? You're looking for an easy answer to a very complex question. I'm looking for the facts. Some of those facts may not be things anyone today is proud of. I'm not proud that the founders could "proclaim liberty" and say "all men are created equal" and then allow slavery to exist in their country. I suspect there were as many reason for the conflict as their were people involved. I'm looking for the facts. Some of the roots of the Civil War dates back to the Revolutionary War nearly a century earlier, where many Southerners did not want to break with England, sided with England during the conflict, and were persecuted for that afterwards. Others objected to the taxes and tarrifs on farm goods heading overseas, seeing that as similar to what the North objected to leading up to the Revolutionary War and reducing profits from their primary markets. The Constitution forbid tariffs and taxes on exports. Only imports could be taxed or tarriffed. This was obvious economic protectionism. Others saw the attempts for fix market prices on farm goods by Northern firms as a threat to free markets (and were angry the government did nothing to stop the practice). In very broad terms, the problem was that the North industrialized and the South stayed agrarian. The North rejected slavery in favor of immigration, while the South allowed slavery to grow to the extent that by 1860 in at least two states the number of slaves exceeded the number of free people. Others objected to what they saw as efforts by Northern States to limit the political influence of the Southern States. That game was played both ways. The original Constitution counted 60% of the slave population when allocating seats in the House of Representatives - but no slaves were allowed to vote! So the slave states had a built-in political advantage over the North, based on the illogical and immoral idea that a slave was not a human being when it came to rights, but *was* a human being - or rather 60% of a human being - when it came time to determine the political population. Was that fair in any way? The list goes on and on (and I certainly don't have the time to go on and on here). The point is simple: Slavery was at the bottom of all those causes. It was the root cause of the differences in economy, politics and culture that caused 11 states to secede. No argument there - but where were most of the slaves? In the Confederate states! Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North. Those were not slaves. These were people purchased at slave auctions (blacks), or from poor families (whites), and given contracts to work for years in Northern factories to hopefully earn their eventual freedom. They had *contracts* - BIG difference! Which is completely different from being enslaved *forever*, together with all of your children. Most indentured servants worked out their contracts and became free. Most slaves never did. Indentured and bound workers were (for the most part) working off debts. It was common practice for poor European immigrants to indenture themselves for 7 years to pay for their transatlantic passage. After that 7 years, they were free. Apprentices traded their labor for education, working a set number of years in order to learn a skilled trade. In most cases those workers entered into the contract *voluntarily*. And the contract had a definite time limit. Those contracts were valid because both parties got something of value. Slaves, on the other hand, were simply *stolen* from their homes by raiders and shipped off. They received *nothing* for their work and had no choice in the matter. There was no limit on their service. Ben Franklin and his maternal grandmother were both once apprentice workers. Were they dragged from their homes in chains and sent thousands of miles away, to work the rest of their lives in a strange place with little hope of freedom? Or was it a voluntary, temporary agreement for economic and educational reasons? She married the man who held her contract. How many slaves did that? Ben Franklin escaped to Philadelphia (breaking his contract and the laws). Yep - he stole a few years labor from the man who held the contract. I understand that later on he paid off the contract. The only differences between this and outright slavery were the legal papers and the idea of possible freedom some day. WRONG! There's also the fact that the apprentices were not stolen from their homes and dragged away against their will. Of course, because of the working conditions, few ever lived long enough to be free. This practice continued long after slavery was abolished. That's simply not true. Most indentured servants worked out their 7 years and were freed. In fact, indentured servants were used widely in the colonies before the revolution, but in the South the practice became unpopular because the plantation owners were always having to buy new contracts and the now freed indentured servants were setting up their own plantations using skills and knowledge learned while indentured. We still have contract labor today. Actors, athletes and executives, to name a few, sign contracts where they agree to work for a certain period of time and receive certain benefits. Both sides are legally bound by the contract. To equate the immoral horror of slavery with contract labor is simply not valid in any way. |
|
#59
October 29th 03, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: (my comments here snipped) I'm looking for the facts. Some of those facts may not be things anyone today is proud of. I'm not proud that the founders could "proclaim liberty" and say "all men are created equal" and then allow slavery to exist in their country. In very broad terms, the problem was that the North industrialized and the South stayed agrarian. The North rejected slavery in favor of immigration, while the South allowed slavery to grow to the extent that by 1860 in at least two states the number of slaves exceeded the number of free people. Blacks were obviosuly held as slaves in the South (nobody has denied that) and I've acknowledged that slavery played a role in the Civil War (the Emac. Proc. shows that). I simply don't agree slavery was the cause and have given some reasons why - which you've either ignored or tried to downplay. At the same time, you've pointed your finger at everyone else (the South, the founders, and just about anyone else you can think of) while ignoring or downplaying your own State's involvement in the slave trade. Above, you said the North rejected slavery. In another message, you said they did so before they were forced to do so. Both are true. But what you didn't say is that both are just barely true when it comes to your State. According to the Central Pennsylvania African American History Web Site (www.afrolumens.org/slavery/), quoting from the Pennsylvania State Archives (Harrisburg), slaves were owned in Pennsylvania as late as 1842, only 18 years before the Civil War. Seems like your State got out of the slave trade just in the nick of time - just in the nick of time for you to look down your nose at others today. Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North. Those were not slaves. It was simply slavery by a different name. Most were sold into indentured servitude (especially the very poor and blacks) and were held in that situation by force of law. Most blacks were sold into lifelong servitude. Indentured workers serving fixed terms were rarely paid, instead promised money or land afterwards. Of those who were supposedly paid, the money was often collected back to cover the costs of the employer. Their working and living conditions were horrible. Many, if not most, were abused by their employers and, because of working conditions or abuse, many died before completing their indenture. Of those who did serve out their terms, evidence suggests most remained poor afterwards, routinely deprived of the things they were promised. [Source: America, A Narrative History, pgs 118-121, Norton & Company Publishing, New York/London] They had *contracts* - BIG difference! See paragraph above. Indentured and bound workers were (for the most part) working off debts. It was common practice for poor European immigrants to indenture themselves for 7 years to pay for their transatlantic passage. After that 7 years, they were free. Yes, probably half the white settlers from England, Ireland, and Germany, entered the country using this method. But we're talking about blacks, not white settlers from Europe (the living and working conditions were rarely the same). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#60
October 29th 03, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: (snip) Salaries are going up. Compared to the cost of living, salaries are going down. The minimum wage is a good example. To keep up with the cost of living increase over the last twenty-five years (to have the same spending power as 25 years ago), the minimum wage should be over $19 per hour. By the same token, a person earning $19 an hour twenty-five years ago should be earning well over $50 an hour today. Check it out yourself. Look at the minimum wage 25 years ago (or any typical wage 25 years ago) and increase it by the same percentage that living costs (rent, house payments, utilities, food, and so on) have increased over the years since. Salaries are going up. Buying power for consumer items is up. TV's, VCR's, DVD players, computers, microwave ovens and the like are dirt cheap. Ham gear, in terms of hours worked to purchase it, is extremely inexpensive. Houses cost more but are generally much larger than in the past. I can think of one, Dwight. Those folks work and pay social security taxes so that you can retire and draw SS benefits. They also pay State and Federal taxes. Many of them are very bright individuals. Some are doctors. Some do computer design work. Some do menial labor which most American workers don't desire. Americans working at those jobs would do the same things (pay taxes and so on), Dave. Do some research on the number of retirees and the number of workers paying taxes to support those retirees. Why do we need immigrants to do that? Because there aren't enough Americans born to do it. Some of those Americans are even bright. ....and some aren't. Having been back in the U.S. for about 3 1/2 years, I've encountered quite a number who just aren't that bright. As for the "menial" jobs, the only reason those jobs are menial is because employers choose not to pay decent wages to do those jobs. No, that isn't correct. Moving dirt is menial work. Lifting boxes is menial. Clerking at a convenience store is menial. Employers choose not to pay folks in those positions more than the jobs are worth. And as long as employers continue to find cheap labor to fill those jobs, there is no incentitive whatsoever to increase those wages. If anything, a ready supply of cheap labor only drives down wages for other jobs, increasing the number of menial jobs and decreasing jobs that pay decent wages. The direct result is less well paying jobs for all working class Americans. So let's all make 30 bucks per hour and then wonder why the cost of everything skyrockets, huh? Americans want good pay and they want the price of everything to be dirt cheap. Tell us how to achieve both of those. Then explain why everything wrong with our economy can be laid at the feet of black, hispanic or Asian immigrants. I hadn't realized the extent of your racist views, Dwight. Maybe you have some insider knowledge of organized attempts by Africans or South Americans to take over "our" country through immigration. Obviously, if you twist what is said hard enough, you can call anyone a racist. No twisting was necessary. You laid it all out before us. I talked about expansion to this country, not "organized attempts" or "take over." Those were your words. For my reply to the charge of racism, see the last paragraph below. We aren't discussing my words, we're discussing your words. I lived in four African countries over a period of nearly ten years. In all of those places, I found thousands of whites who live in harmony with blacks. (snip) A few exceptions don't change the rule, Dave. What "few exceptions"? I wrote of thousands of whites in four African countries. With the exception of South Africa, there are few countries in Africa where large numbers of whites work in government, the military, or in black owned businesses. I submit that you don't know what you're talking about. In many cases, the whites build or operate a business employing hundreds of Africans in all kinds of jobs. In South Africa, whites (the minority) were loudly criticized for taking jobs, money, and power, away from blacks (the majority). Poppycock! For taking which jobs were whites criticized? For taking what money were whites criticized? The people leveling that criticism were not called racist - only those in the majority here are called racist for saying such things. You're making this stuff up. After blacks gained control of the South African government, white employees were routinely replaced with blacks throughout the country. That statement just isn't true. There was no criticism of this. After all, since South Africa belonged to the blacks (the majority), they should obviously have the jobs, money, and power. Of course, if a white (the majority) says that here, it is immediately called racism. There are large numbers of white-owned businesses and farms in South Africa. The white owners provide jobs for blacks. No one in South Africa seems poised to change that and to do a full "Robert Mugabe" ala Zimbabwe. Clearly, there is an absurd double-standard when it comes to the words "racism" and "racist." ....or there is a clear misunderstanding of what is taking place in Africa (both inside and outside of your only example, South Africa) by you. Dave K8MN |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
| FS Large LOT Of NEW Tubes | Boatanchors | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
| FS Large Lot of NEW NOS Tubes | Homebrew | |||
Linear Mode
