In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

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.

What you fail to point out is how much those retirees paid into the system
over several decades of their lives to help support their own retirement,
only to have the government now say their isn't any money available because
it was spent on something else.

It's important to remember that the Social Security system doesn't just support
retirees. Also, there is no "means test" - folks over a certain age get their
SS retirement benefits no matter how much income they have, whether it be from
investment or employment.

Another factor is that as our life expectancies increase, more and more people
outlive their SS contributions. If you're in an mood to do a search or
calculations, figure out the following hypothetical retiree:

- Current Age: 71
- SS contributions: Maximum required by law at the time, from age 22 to age 65
- Interest rate: 2.5%/yr

Figure out how much that person paid in over his.her working lifetime, and how
much it would all add up to 6 years ago, when that person retired.

Then see how many years it will take that retiree to use up all of the money
he/she paid in - with interest.

Then do the calcs agaib with an 81 year old.

The problem isn't the number of retirees -
it's the spending habits of this government.

Maybe. Some would say it't the taxing habits of the govt.

Now it's time for this
government to put that money back by cutting some of today's spending (a few
less military weapons should do it) instead of supposedly trying to gather
more people to collect taxes from.

You might want to look up where the military budget actually goes. A big
percentage of it is spent on pay and benefits to military personnel, retirees
and dependents.

And which weapons systems would you eliminate?

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, by having a ready supply of cheap labor to fill those jobs, employers
ensure those jobs are not worth much. Employment and wages are simply
matters of supply and demand, Dave. By creating a glut in the workforce,
employers are able to pay less wages and still find employees to fill those
jobs. After all, people have to work to survive and employers know it.

Yep. All true - but it's not the whole story. There are lots of other factors
besides immigrants, such as:

- The decline in the percentage of unionized workers has made it possible for
employers to ease off on wages and benefits. This effect goes way beyond union
employees, because many employers will pay decent wages and benefits in order
to avoid becoming unionized.

- The influx of women and minorities into the labor force increases competition
for jobs and education. But it's better than discrimination!

- Many jobs have been exported to countries where labor is cheaper. Some big
companies have moved their customer service centers to places like India, the
Phillippines and Singapore, to name a few. Look inside your computer and see
where most of the components were made - it ain't the USA!

- Technology has reduced the number of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, and
revolutionized the way much work is done.

When I first started in engineering, everything was drawn by hand, usually by
draftspeople who made a decent wage. Then came CADD systems, which at first
were very expensive and only used by large companies. Today hand drafting is
almost completely gone, and CADD systems are within reach of almost anyone with
a desktop. The draftsperson has been replace by the CADD operator, whose
productivity is much greater - meaning fewer of them are needed. Many CADD
tasks are done by designers and engineers themselves, too.

Today, while business profits are astronomically high, working families are
struggling to pay bills and cover their massive debts (while those business
owners buy yachts and huge homes for their families).

SOME business profits are astronomically high. Others are struggling to
survive. And don't forget ROI...

And now, to add insult
to injury, those employers financially support political candidates that
will pass legislation to enable millions of immigrants to enter the country,
creating an even larger glut in the workforce so business can pay even less
wages and make even higher profits.

And people vote for those politicians because they're "pro-business".

And if anyone objects to this massive
immigration, they're called racist.

That depends on how the objection is raised.

If someone says that we need to limit immigration across the board, I don;t
think anyone will call them a racist.

But if someone targets particular groups and points out that they have all or
most of another continent....

You can call me racist all you want - it
certainly isn't going to stop me from speaking out against this nonsense.

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. (snip)

They've done it in other places around the world. Europeans make decent
wages, pay no more taxes than here (when you add in ALL our taxes - local,
state, federal, and so on), and consumer goods are not that much more
expensive then here (gas prices in Europe are high solely because of
government efforts to control pollution). They've done the same in the
wealthy countries of Asia.

You might want to check into what the average person's standard of living is
like in many of those countries - particularly when it comes to how much a
house or car costs. Dave, K8MN has lived in many foreign countries...

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

It's not impossible - the question is, what do you want to give up? Or should I
Say - what are *we* willing to give up?

For example, tonight on NBC there is a popular half hour TV comedy whose 6 main
characters are paid 1 million dollars each - per episode! Are we willing to
give up the free market that makes such salaries possible?

Are we willing to give up low prices on imported goods and pay a lot more for
American made things? Drive a smaller car, live in a smaller house, walk more,
fly less, own fewer things, make things last and last because we can't afford
new ones?

Are we willing to have protectionist trade and labor policies and all that goes
with them?

Lemme relate this to ham radio for ya.

I recall a time when imported amateur radio equipment was very rare here in the
USA. Often it was disguised - the "Tempo One", sold by Henry Radio, was really
a Yaesu FT-200. Many "Lafayette" items were imports. But most US hams used
US-made ham gear.

And that equipment was expensive! Dig up an old catalog and see what a middle
of the line station cost 25, 35, 45 years ago - and then adjust those costs to
the income of an average family. Yes, there were hams with Collins gear - and
just as many with much, much less.

In the early 1970s, imported ham gear began to take on the American market. The
imported stuff was simply less expensive than USA-made equipment with the same
features. Some old line US manufacturers got out of the amateur market, others
fought on for a while, etc. One new manufacturer (Ten-Tec) made a go of it, but
lags far behind Ikensu in total sales.

Now we have far fewer manufacturers of amateur equipment in the USA than 30+
years ago, even though the number of US hams is far greater. In the mid '60s,
if you wanted a 100W class HF SSB transceiver that was "Made In USA", you could
choose from Collins, Drake, Hallicrafters, National, SBE, and Heathkit, to name
just the popular ones. Today you can choose Ten Tec or Elecraft.

Some say that American companies could not handle the transition to solid
state, but the success of SBE (solid state in the early '60s) Ten Tec and rigs
like the Drake TR-7 disprove that. The problem was simply economic - the
Japanese could make ham gear of a given level of performance for less money.

Should the USA have enacted heavy import duties on electronics to protect the
American manufacturers? Should American hams have simply refused to buy the
imported stuff, no matter how good it was and how little it cost?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

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


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


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


I thought a mayor is elected to represent the whole community, not solely
the "black issues in the community(ies) they represent." What about the
whites issues in the communities they represent? Why aren't those black
mayors getting together to discuss those? Since those black mayors won't,
who does address those issues? Absolutely nobody is the only answer. If a
white mayor, or any other politician (black or white, police chief to
president), expresses even a hint of concern for white issues, the word
"racist" is immediately thrown around. In the end, a concern for whites is
just about an ultimate sin in this government. And it is going to stay that
way until whites start demanding some representation for their issues in
this government.


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


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


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


And that justifies the intentional and specific exclusion of other races
in those pageants? Why would what you say not be true for whites, yet such
an event held by whites which specificially excludes other races is illegal.

And I'll add to JJ's examples. What about black colleges which exclude
other races? What about black owned businesses with not a single white
employee in the entire building (many in my town alone)? What about the
"Negro College Fund" which offers benefits only to blacks. What about "Black
Entertainment Television?" I could list more. The point is that it would all
be illegal (discrimination) if done by whites.


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


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


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


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

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


Nonsense, Kim. The reason most people aren't willing to do those jobs is
because the wages are so low. Offer decent wages and people will gladly do
those jobs. There are non-immigrant workers throughout this country busting
their butts in construction jobs, laborer jobs, crappy jobs, and dangerious
jobs. They do so because the wages are decent. My god, there are even people
willing to walk into a nuclear reactor if the pay is good enough. Offer
decent wages for almost ANY job and I'm fully convinced there will be plenty
of non-immigrant workers willing to do those jobs. I see nothing to even
suggest otherwise.


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


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


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


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?



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


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

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

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

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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

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

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL



That question came from the far left field. They can not comprehend the
capatalist system. And they deny being socialist. I guess they are just
confused.

Dan/W4NTI

"N2EY" wrote:

It's important to remember that the Social Security system
doesn't just support retirees. Also, there is no "means test"
- folks over a certain age get their SS retirement benefits
no matter how much income they have, whether it be from
investment or employment. (snip)


Many have wrestled with that for years. Some argue the wealthy don't need
the benefits. Others argue if everyone pays into the system, everyone should
collect later in life. In the end, if the goal is to provide a solid
parachute, the current system is not that bad.


Another factor is that as our life expectancies increase,
more and more people outlive their SS contributions.
(snip)


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


You might want to look up where the military budget
actually goes. A big percentage of it is spent on pay
and benefits to military personnel, retirees and
dependents.


That is less so today. Even though the military budget has continued to
climb, the number of active duty personnel has decreased(less than half what
is was twenty-five years ago). Likewise, benefits for dependents have also
decreased. For example, dependents used to receive free medical care. Today,
they pay fees for any medical treatment, with that treatment additionally
subsidized by a medical plan paid for by the active duty spouse.

There is also a built-in inefficency in the military system today. For
whatever reason, many of the jobs once done by active duty personnel (cooks,
clerks, admin, maintenance, recreation, and medical) are now done by
civilian employees, many earning much higher wages, benefits, and
retirement. Likewise, many technical jobs are now handled by contract
companies, whose employees also often earn much higher wages, benefits, and
retirement. As a result, it is now much more expensive to staff those jobs.

Some of the less skill oriented civilian jobs were once open to
dependents. Sadly, even this is rarely the case anymore. In many places
overseas, for example, dependents can no longer find work simply because
most of the jobs (especially the ones that pay fairly well) are reserved for
civilians (often local nationals). As a result, dependents are usually left
with the part-time jobs at the BX/PX, snack bars, fast food joints, or they
can bag groceries at the commissary.


And people vote for those politicians because they're
"pro-business".


People vote for those "pro-business" candidates because they're mislead
about what "pro-business" really means. If any candidate actually told the
truth and said he supports immigration because that would drive down wages
for everybody and employers like low wages, that candidate probably wouldn't
get more than a handful of votes (and most of those from business owners).
Instead, candidates talk about supporting business to help stimulate the
economy and create jobs. What is never said is that the only "economy" being
stimulated is the profits of big business and the only jobs being created
are low paying ones. Of course, since both political parties support big
business, voters don't have an alternative choice anyway.


You might want to check into what the average person's
standard of living is like in many of those countries -
particularly when it comes to how much a house or car
costs. Dave, K8MN has lived in many foreign countries...


Homes are expensive because there are a lot of people living in a
relatively small area. This happens anytime there are large numbers of
people living in fairly crowded conditions (New York, for example).
Apartment prices are not any higher. We pay more for our apartment now than
we did in Germany (and this one is smaller). As for the cost of
automobiles, I have no idea what Dave is talking about. Where I lived, car
prices were nearly the same as here. If anything, there is a greater
selection of lower priced models (our car prices are getting pretty darn
high).


It's not impossible - the question is, what do you want to
give up? Or should I Say - what are *we* willing to give up?


I've already answer that - "immigration" and "decent (not astronomical)
profits for business."


For example, tonight on NBC there is a popular half hour
TV comedy whose 6 main characters are paid 1 million
dollars each - per episode! Are we willing to give up the
free market that makes such salaries possible?


If it takes that to insure decent wages for all Americans, I'm certainly
willing. But I don't think it is going to take that. Instead, we can cut
immigration and take steps to prevent factories from moving overseas (one
way might be to require American companies that move factories overseas to
pay import tariffs and duties just like any other foreign business). We
could also put caps on corporate profits without much damage to the overall
free market system (Bill Gates, as an extreme example, can survive on a
little less money). Increasing the minimum wage to more realistic levels
might help. And, if companies don't get the hint and try to pass that on to
consumers while keeping profits extraordinarily high instead, we can start
regulating major consumer goods (with the idea in the beginning of driving
prices down). All this has been done, to some degree, in Europe and Asia
with no ill effects. By the way, taxes in Europe have nothing to do with
this discussion. If we continue to insist on no national health care system
and few government aid programs like those seen in Europe, taxes won't have
to be raised.


Are we willing to give up low prices on imported goods
and pay a lot more for American made things? Drive a
smaller car, live in a smaller house, walk more, fly less,
own fewer things, make things last and last because we
can't afford new ones?


That is a gross exaggeration and you know it, Dave. Nothing that drastic
will be required. I've already outlined some of the far less intrusive steps
we can take in the previous paragraph.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.


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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Kim W5TIT wrote:

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

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

You don't want him working in a Wal Mart, do you ;-)

One thing these low paying crap jobs teach to teenagers is that they should
go to college and graduate so that they can get good jobs that pay well.
Before I graduated college (BSEE) I was worthless on the job market.
Then when graduation was only months away, my value suddenly went
up. And except for the past year or so (I'm voting for the Democrat
candidate,
whoever that might be), my value has been pretty good.

Just be sure that your son majors in something employers want to hire
(not much market for "Ancient Greek Physiology") that makes the trip
to college worthwhile.


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

Well, I do mow my own lawn.....