gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Brent P on 18 May 2007 15:42 In article <i0n3i.12249$j63.8686(a)newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Rudy Canoza wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> Brent P wrote: >>>> In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather, >>>>> the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum >>>>> wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that >>>>> the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what >>>>> the free market would pay. >>>> And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market, >>>> leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer). >>> But if there's work that needs doing someone will hire them and train >>> them. >> >> Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less > > And not when some alternative mix of inputs, such as > more capital equipment and/or a few > higher-skilled/higher-waged workers in place of a > larger number of low-skilled/low-wage workers, is feasible. Low wages kill automation. We could do with fewer people making more money each with less pressure on our infastructure by using automation. But instead illegal immigration is allowed to go on unchecked to keep labor costs down. The drawbacks from massive immigration are many and very significant to where the benefits are several times smaller than the drawbacks, it's just that the two aren't felt by the same people.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 18 May 2007 15:46 Rudy Canoza wrote: > > Brent P wrote: > > In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >> Brent P wrote: > >>> In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather, > >>>> the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum > >>>> wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that > >>>> the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what > >>>> the free market would pay. > >>> And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market, > >>> leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer). > >> But if there's work that needs doing someone will hire them and train > >> them. > > > > Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less > > And not when some alternative mix of inputs, such as > more capital equipment and/or a few > higher-skilled/higher-waged workers in place of a > larger number of low-skilled/low-wage workers, is feasible. > > What jeffy and others like him fail to understand is > that if it costs more to get the work done than the > revenue brought in by having the work done, it either > will be done by some other, economically viable means, > or it won't be done at all. > Welcome to why the tables in fast food restaurants aren't very clean but they still have the Dollar Menu. -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 15:50 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Rudy Canoza wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <134rmaf9jljvrb9(a)corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>> Brent P wrote: >>>>> In article <1179427123.321229.149360(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As to the minimum wage, there is no debate about having it. Rather, >>>>>> the debate is about the amount. There is no denial that the minimum >>>>>> wage results in some loss of jobs. But there also is no denial that >>>>>> the minimum wage increases wages for many people above and beyond what >>>>>> the free market would pay. >>>>> And prices some people too high for the lowest rung of the job market, >>>>> leaving them as dependents of the government (taxpayer). >>>> But if there's work that needs doing someone will hire them and train >>>> them. >>> Not when there is someone else (an illegal alien) willing to do it for less >> And not when some alternative mix of inputs, such as >> more capital equipment and/or a few >> higher-skilled/higher-waged workers in place of a >> larger number of low-skilled/low-wage workers, is feasible. >> >> What jeffy and others like him fail to understand is >> that if it costs more to get the work done than the >> revenue brought in by having the work done, it either >> will be done by some other, economically viable means, >> or it won't be done at all. >> > Welcome to why the tables in fast food restaurants aren't very clean but > they still have the Dollar Menu. Ha ha ha ha ha! Excellent point.
From: k_flynn on 18 May 2007 15:57 Rudy Canoza wrote: > k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: > >>> Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: > >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>>>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: > >>>>>>> On May 18, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On May 17, 11:00 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...(a)excite.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of > >>>>>>>>>> the common good." > >>>>>>>>>> -- Hillary Clinton, 2004 > >>>>>>>>> You do realize this quote is about letting Bush's tax cuts for the > >>>>>>>>> rich expire? > >>>>>>>> So? > >>>>>>> So putting a quote in its actual context is what we like to call > >>>>>>> "truthful." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> She wasn't talking about "taking" things away from society as a whole. > >>>>>> Yes, she was and is. > >>>>> Nope. You're lying. Look it up. > >>>> I'm not lying, punk. > >>> Yes. You are. > >> Nope. Not lying, thieving freeloading punk. > > > > Yes you are, > > Nope. I know everything about the quote... Then you really should stop lying about it since we can all see you doing so.
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 17:04
k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: > Rudy Canoza wrote: >> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: >>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>> k_flynn(a)lycos.com, thieving freeloading mooch, wrote: >>>>>>>>> On May 18, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...(a)excite.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On May 17, 11:00 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...(a)excite.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of >>>>>>>>>>>> the common good." >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Hillary Clinton, 2004 >>>>>>>>>>> You do realize this quote is about letting Bush's tax cuts for the >>>>>>>>>>> rich expire? >>>>>>>>>> So? >>>>>>>>> So putting a quote in its actual context is what we like to call >>>>>>>>> "truthful." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> She wasn't talking about "taking" things away from society as a whole. >>>>>>>> Yes, she was and is. >>>>>>> Nope. You're lying. Look it up. >>>>>> I'm not lying, punk. >>>>> Yes. You are. >>>> Nope. Not lying, thieving freeloading punk. >>> Yes you are, >> Nope. I know everything about the quote... > > Then you really should stop lying about Haven't lied, freeloading low-skill mooch. |