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

"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/

Dwight Stewart wrote:


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

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