On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:35:13 -0500, Mark A wrote:

> "News" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less charity,
>> less, less, less, less.
>>
>> Enjoy your race to the bottom. First one there loses, big time.
>
> How can it be less? When there was nothing but farm land or undeveloped (and
> untaxed) land there is no real estate tax, no sales tax, no payroll, no
> economic development. If they don't get the tax breaks in the US, they will
> build cars offshore.

Wow. Usually I dont; have trouble with Pretzel Logic, but this one is
giving me a headache. Raising people's wages causes lower bottom line?

I suppose if you're dependent upon the government for everything this
would make sense, but as a working person, I can't see it. Go into an area
with minimum wage jobs with jobs that pay $19+ per hour, and it's a losing
situation?

Back in 1995 I was working for GE in their Help Desk for the Plastics
division. There was a guy in Mt Vernon IN that had gotten a job with
another company, going from Desktop Support to Network Admin.
I like working with my hands as much as with my brain, so I looked into
the position. He said he would give me a recommendation.

The job paid $16 an hour. Toyota had just opened a truck plant in
Evansville, 7 miles down the road, and was paying about $14. I work at GE,
my wife works at Toyota. Not only that, but nice 3-4 bedroom houses were
going for $50,000!!!

We didn't so it because my wife decided she didn't want to move that far
from her family. Shoot. $6,000 a month with a $50,000 mortgage? Sounds
like Fat City to me!


>
> Speaking of tax breaks for automakers, does that mean you are against a
> government bailout of GM and Chrysler?


That's not a tax break! That's just GIVING them the money!