What about these gifts to Toyota

On Dec 14, 10:36*am, "Mark A" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > This argument is old and specious.
>
> The argument in current and quite to the point. The unions will not allow
> robots to take over their jobs.

That is a bold-faced lie. Grow up.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:40:55 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:25:42 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>>> To the contrary; we know that it's better to have people working than to
>>>> be asking the government for money.
>>>>
>>>> The L00ney Left can't seem to grasp that WORK is better than Welfare.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't generalize. When you read about state or local government
>>> giving
>>> some sort of incentive to a business in return for building a facility,
>>> it
>>> doesn't mean you have enough information to say it's a good idea.
>>>
>>> Locally, we've had a couple of projects that have gone bust in big ways.
>>> In
>>> one instance, a project created 30 jobs here and 200 in Mexico, but of
>>> course the sales pitch initially said 200-300 jobs would be created. Now,
>>> all such plans are being looked at with extreme scrutiny. In another, my
>>> town announced the construction of a 300 slip marina to address the needs
>>> of
>>> transient boaters. There was just one problem: No business plan of any
>>> kind.
>>> No need for the marina whatsoever. So, what made the town council so
>>> goofy
>>> about the project?
>>>
>>> Bribes.
>>
>>
>> Seems to me you just generalized.
>
> No. I described two specific projects and their final outcomes. If you think
> "bribes" is a generalization, you're wrong. It's too strong a word, but I
> interpret what actually happened as "bribery". One town council member
> received enormous (legal) contributions from a construction company, which
> expected something for its money after he was elected. The councilman gave
> the rest of the board the hardest sell imaginable. His sales presentation
> was based on lies, but apparently, that's not illegal.

But you're still mixing apples and bat guano here...

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:43:35 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> Your bass guitar question is attracting a myriad of interesting responses
> over in a.g.b.

I looked a little earlier. I'll go back...

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:29:42 -0500, Mark A wrote:

> "News" > wrote in message
> t...
>> I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
>> making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.
>
> Maybe that other Joe Blow didn't deserve to be making $40 per hour.

Ya think??!?!

This goes back to the days when Henry was paying $5 a day.

Problem was, he CONTINUED paying $5 a day.

GM stepped in and upped the ante, and then stayed at that price.

Then the unions came in, and really fu@ked things up...

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> Are you assuming that I think all public assistance to corporations should
> be eliminated?

You made the argument that because in your local community (or one community
you know about) the tax breaks were given because of bribery, that therefore
all tax breaks should be eliminated.

If one applies that same argument to other things where bribery has occurred
(to eliminate it because sometimes there is bribery involved), then it would
be obviously ridiculous.

If you had taken a college level course in logic (and understood it) then
you would see the logical fallacy of your original argument.

"Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:40:55 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:25:42 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>> To the contrary; we know that it's better to have people working than
>>>>> to
>>>>> be asking the government for money.
>>>>>
>>>>> The L00ney Left can't seem to grasp that WORK is better than Welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't generalize. When you read about state or local government
>>>> giving
>>>> some sort of incentive to a business in return for building a facility,
>>>> it
>>>> doesn't mean you have enough information to say it's a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Locally, we've had a couple of projects that have gone bust in big
>>>> ways.
>>>> In
>>>> one instance, a project created 30 jobs here and 200 in Mexico, but of
>>>> course the sales pitch initially said 200-300 jobs would be created.
>>>> Now,
>>>> all such plans are being looked at with extreme scrutiny. In another,
>>>> my
>>>> town announced the construction of a 300 slip marina to address the
>>>> needs
>>>> of
>>>> transient boaters. There was just one problem: No business plan of any
>>>> kind.
>>>> No need for the marina whatsoever. So, what made the town council so
>>>> goofy
>>>> about the project?
>>>>
>>>> Bribes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems to me you just generalized.
>>
>> No. I described two specific projects and their final outcomes. If you
>> think
>> "bribes" is a generalization, you're wrong. It's too strong a word, but I
>> interpret what actually happened as "bribery". One town council member
>> received enormous (legal) contributions from a construction company,
>> which
>> expected something for its money after he was elected. The councilman
>> gave
>> the rest of the board the hardest sell imaginable. His sales presentation
>> was based on lies, but apparently, that's not illegal.
>
> But you're still mixing apples and bat guano here...


Not really, if you think about it. If the councilman got LEGAL campaign
contributions, and in return, sold the project to the council, there had to
be something else in it for him, either while he was a councilman or
something expected in the future. I wonder what. It doesn't matter, really,
because publicity helped to hack his legs off at the knees, so to speak.

I got to the truth just by stopping into our town hall one day and asking to
see the business plan, which was mysteriously missing from the town's web
site. Some town planning droid told me the Army Corps of Engineers was
handling the business plan. Ding ding ding...WRONG! They don't handle that
kind of thing, which I already knew, but confirmed with a couple of phone
calls to the ACOE. I called another council member, who said "Yeah...there's
no plan, and the marina is about to die a slow death." Further inquiries
indicated that the council realized that publicity was about to make them
(accurately) look stupid, lazy, crooked or all of those things.

> wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 10:36 am, "Mark A" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > This argument is old and specious.
>
> The argument in current and quite to the point. The unions will not allow
> robots to take over their jobs.

That is a bold-faced lie. Grow up.

===========


Bald faced, I think, is the correct term, although it makes no sense, but
neither does "practice their love with women".

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:34:58 -0500, News wrote:

>
>
> Mark A wrote:
>> "News" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>
>>>I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
>>>making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.
>>
>>
>> Maybe that other Joe Blow didn't deserve to be making $40 per hour.
>>
>>
>
> How about you? Whatever you make, there's someone somewhere who will do
> a better job for less. Worried?

Yup. I've been 'scaled back' three times now.
I'm in the computer industry. I've remained stasis for 7 years now,
because the kids coming out of trade school are willing to do what I do
for less.

Where's my subsidy?

Every time I've been scaled out, I've learned something new and moved up,
but usually to the wage I was previously making. Luckily, I get by well on
that, as long as gas doesn't go up. So I drive Jap cars to get around that.

So, you're implying auto workers are stupid?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:18:43 -0500, Mark A wrote:

> "News" > wrote in message
> t...
>> How about you? Whatever you make, there's someone somewhere who will do a
>> better job for less. Worried?
>
> There are lots of people who "claim" to be doing my job for less, mostly in
> India. Those projects have a high failure rate and then they usually have
> hire me to fix them.

Yup! That's what I do, but I fix Chinese foul-ups.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:06:24 -0500, News wrote:

>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> News wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:07:26 -0500, News wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> How do you figure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Toyota is still turning a profit even though sales are down.
>>>>>> GM shows a loss on the auto business when cars are selling. They make
>>>>>> their money on financials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Toyota keeps people employed even when the plant is shutdown.
>>>>>> All that adds up to taxes coming in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and less taxes, less services, less disposable income, less
>>>>> charity, less, less, less, less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Why am I even discussing this with you?
>>>>
>>>> In some areas, all there were were minimum wage jobs. Toyota came in and
>>>> started paying wages competitive with some Union scale jobs.
>>>>
>>>> So, rather than making $6.75 an hour, Joe Blow is now making $19 an
>>>> hour.
>>>>
>>>> And he doesn't have disposable income?
>>>> Please...explain this one to me. I *REALLY* want to hear how you came up
>>>> with this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know this is difficult for you, but some other Joe Blow USED TO BE
>>> making $40/hr. Hence the race to the bottom.
>>
>>
>> If Joe Blow is making $40/hr to work on an assembly line, that is a
>> problem. That's $83,200 a year. That's certainly unsustainable when
>> plenty of people more skilled/educated aren't making that much. Hell, I
>> don't make that much, and housing prices etc. here are at least 4x here
>> what they are in Detroit. I didn't make that much as an engineer at a
>> Michigan-based auto industry supplier, either.
>>
>> Surely you are not suggesting that basically anyone with a high school
>> education and a little mechanical aptitude is *entitled* to 80K a year
>> plus benefits? Sure, it'd be sweet if we could do that, but we just
>> can't afford to. So you have a choice - get a living wage, or nothing
>> for the workers.
>>
>> Your "argument" has done nothing but bias me *against* the UAW, assuming
>> your numbers are factual...
>>
>> nate
>>
>
> Your bias is showing....
>
> The "race to the bottom" is a general theme. Applies widely, outside
> the auto industry. You see it everywhere outsourcing is involved. You
> see it when New Jersey subsidizes the move of Wall Street jobs across
> the river.
>
> Howe about YOUR job? Is it immune?


Yup! I fix what the Chinese screw up.