The REAL Reason You're Broke

"SpammersDie" > wrote in message ...
> >> >And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
> >> >whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
> >> >while corporations ship your jobs overseas, leaving you to find
> >> >other jobs that pay 1/2 to 1/3 your old wages.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here. Just in
> > the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
> > an increase in the minimum wage,
>
> So the way to reduce the market share growth of foreign labor is to make
> domestic labor artificially more expensive?

Who said that? What you do, and what nearly all industrialized
countries do (other than the U.S.) is simply tax income from
foreign production. Remove (or at least minimize) the incentive
for corporations to export jobs. This is what was proposed
back in 1981, and this proposal is what was dropped at the
insistence of then-president Reagan. The exodus of U.S.
manufacturing jobs began shortly thereafter.

> The mind boggles.

Try cracking it open a bit.

> wrote in message
. net...
> "SpammersDie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >> >And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
>> >> >whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
>> >> >while corporations ship your jobs overseas, leaving you to find
>> >> >other jobs that pay 1/2 to 1/3 your old wages.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here. Just in
>> > the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
>> > an increase in the minimum wage,
>>
>> So the way to reduce the market share growth of foreign labor is to make
>> domestic labor artificially more expensive?
>
> Who said that?

The one that responded to a line like "who've refused to lift a finger while
corporationjs ship your jobs overseas" with "Sorry, [that] doesn't apply
here. [Congress has just increased minimum wage]".



> What you do, and what nearly all industrialized
> countries do (other than the U.S.) is simply tax income from
> foreign production. Remove (or at least minimize) the incentive
> for corporations to export jobs.

Don't tell it to me - tell it to those who are praising the increase in
minimum wage as a bone to those suffering from offshoring.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> Middle class people are making $20 - $40 an hour - factory workers, etc.
> Politicians of both parties don't like these people, in spite of what they say,
> because they can fend for themselves, and don't need a handout from Uncle Sam,
> so therefore can't be manipulated as easily.

People in the middle class can be manipulated easily in terms of what
they think and so forth, but they cannot be controlled as easily as the
poor and are more apt to fight back. A slim and insignifcant differences
for the purpose of your point, one which I share.

The policies of both parties have consistantly been to keep poor people poor
and make middle class people poor. I don't see this trend ending until
the Ds and Rs are kicked out on their ass wholesale.

The minimum wage indeed does little or nothing for the middle class. It
used to help labor unions by making inexperienced workers too expensive
for their productivity. However, now companies just close the doors and
go to China instead. And that's what the minimum wage really does, it
acts to diminish hiring on the first rung of the job ladder. A great way
to keep people poor.

I cannot believe people forget their first job experiences. With mine, when
wages went up (either by law or union contract) the company would find
ways to tweak the schedual so that the same work got done for the same
amount of money. Less people, more done in the same amount of time,
whatever it took.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:16:55 -0800, Scott en Aztlán >
wrote:

>Dave Head > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>Hey, you being a car guy, you gonna come down to Tucson and run any of the SCCA
>>National Road Rallies the 1st weekend in March?
>
>Not bloody likely - I hate Tucson, even in March (when the weather is
>actually pretty decent).

Aw, its run out in the countryside anyway... pretty scenery, and I think one of
the rallies may be going to Tombstone, maybe... fun, something to do. I'm
running all 3 days - Fri, Sat, Sun.

Dave Head

"SpammersDie" > wrote in message ...
>
> > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "SpammersDie" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >> >And most importantly, you can vote out of office the corporate
> >> >> >whores sitting in the White House who've refused to lift a finger
> >> >> >while corporations ship your jobs overseas, leaving you to find
> >> >> >other jobs that pay 1/2 to 1/3 your old wages.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here. Just in
> >> > the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
> >> > an increase in the minimum wage,
> >>
> >> So the way to reduce the market share growth of foreign labor is to make
> >> domestic labor artificially more expensive?
> >
> > Who said that?
>
> The one that responded to a line like "who've refused to lift a finger while
> corporationjs ship your jobs overseas" with "Sorry, [that] doesn't apply
> here. [Congress has just increased minimum wage]".
>
>
>
> > What you do, and what nearly all industrialized
> > countries do (other than the U.S.) is simply tax income from
> > foreign production. Remove (or at least minimize) the incentive
> > for corporations to export jobs.
>
> Don't tell it to me - tell it to those who are praising the increase in
> minimum wage as a bone to those suffering from offshoring.

In absence of treating the disease, treating the symptom is
preferable to no treatment at all.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:23:24 GMT, > wrote:

>Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here. Just in
>the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
>an increase in the minimum wage, and also proposals to lower
>interest rates on college loans, etc etc.

I don't know why I insist on replying to you morons.

I have not heard about any increase in the minimum wage, but if there
is, that hurts people. See, companies budget only so much, so an
increase leads to layoffs - of those least able to afford it. The
president of the company still gets his bonus.

Further, unless the minimum is raised to a living wage, not the
"living wage" bull**** the dimocrats try to push off on you, it won't
matter. As people I used to work with used to say - 10% of nothing is
still nothing.

>And in any case, mostly empty promises are still much preferable
>to utter contempt, which is all Republicans have had for America's
>middle class for the past 25 years.

Wow. You mean how I lost my job under clinton, but found one under
Bush? How my income increased under republican leadership, and fell
under clinton? Or do you mean how I now pay no taxes under Bush, but
was getting ****ed by clinton? Any way you slice it, the economy
failed due to clinton, and did much better every other year in the
last 25 when he was NOT in office.

Did I mention I hate replying to morons?

In article >, DTJ wrote:

> I have not heard about any increase in the minimum wage, but if there
> is, that hurts people. See, companies budget only so much, so an
> increase leads to layoffs - of those least able to afford it. The
> president of the company still gets his bonus.



> Further, unless the minimum is raised to a living wage, not the
> "living wage" bull**** the dimocrats try to push off on you, it won't
> matter. As people I used to work with used to say - 10% of nothing is
> still nothing.
>
>>And in any case, mostly empty promises are still much preferable
>>to utter contempt, which is all Republicans have had for America's
>>middle class for the past 25 years.
>
> Wow. You mean how I lost my job under clinton, but found one under
> Bush? How my income increased under republican leadership, and fell
> under clinton? Or do you mean how I now pay no taxes under Bush, but
> was getting ****ed by clinton? Any way you slice it, the economy
> failed due to clinton, and did much better every other year in the
> last 25 when he was NOT in office.

I'll cancel out your metric with my experience... Clinton was still in
office the year I made the most money. In 2007, I might just have worked
my way back up that figure. Since shrub took office I've lost two jobs
because of companies that were doing poorly. As you know, I have no love
for democrats, just pointing out it is a flawed metric.

As to taxes, one of the kill-the-middle-class things that Bush did was to
cause a ton of people to not pay taxes. Creating a voting block that
doesn't pay taxes is very dangerous. That voting block doesn't have a
problem raising taxes on those who still do.

And lastly, the AMT still hasn't been fixed. As inflation marches us all
towards what would have been a very high income in the 1960s.

Of course then there are all the flaws with the whole income tax system
as whole and how it should have never been.

"DTJ" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:23:24 GMT, > wrote:
>
> >Sorry, "ultimately don't lift a finger" doesn't apply here. Just in
> >the first week of taking control of Congress we've already seen
> >an increase in the minimum wage, and also proposals to lower
> >interest rates on college loans, etc etc.
>
> I don't know why I insist on replying to you morons.
>
> I have not heard about any increase in the minimum wage

Where on earth do you live, a ****ing cave?

wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message news
> > In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >
> > > Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
> > > jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
> > > you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.
> >
> > So when competition that uses slave labor comes into your marketplace and
> > sells product below their cost and drives you out of business that's
> > what exactly?
>
> The "free" market.
>

Yep, the "free" market that uses slaves. > Examples abound all over
the world, esp. In the garment, chocolate and sugar industries. I hope
for those at the top that know, condone and participate in these
practices that selling their soul was worth their 30 peices of silver.

Dave Head wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:49:46 -0800, Scott en Aztlán >
> wrote:
>
> >"Fred G. Mackey" > said in rec.autos.driving:
> >
> >>They're not shipping my job overseas. They're just hiring contractors
> >>from half-way around the world, expecting us to teach them how to do our
> >>jobs for 1/3 the money and will fire us (or lay us off) once we've done
> >>it - and it's all "legal".
> >>
> >>Those of you who say you don't have a problem with "legal" immigrants
> >>should really like your next job which will entail asking if the
> >>customer wants fries with that.
> >
> >Real wealth has always come not from HAVING a job but from CREATING
> >jobs. As long as you are just an employee, you are vulnerable. Once
> >you take the risks and become the boss, no one can outsource your job.
>
> The boss's job is pretty secure, alright, but that doesn't make it desirable.
> The bosses of these companies are essentially indespensible, and tend to work
> 12, 14 hrs a day, usually 6 days a week if not 7, and can't just take off for a
> vacation while he's got 20 employees depending on his day-to-day presence.
> Yeah, I've seen some businesses just close for a week or 2 while the boss takes
> the kids to see Yellowstone, but that was 30 years ago. I suspect that the
> environment is too competitive nowadays for that.

Absolutely correct.

My boss did that for the first 5 years he owned the company. 12-14
hour days, 6 days a week. Broke his marriage.

He is FINALLY to a point where he isn't required for the day-to-day
operations of the company. He plans on getting out, taking a $3M
payout, and being done with work. He's 45, looks 60, and has nothing
but his toys.

I wouldn't trade him places for $30M.

E.P.