gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Jeffrey Turner on 18 May 2007 19:05 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>> >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>That's not why it exists though is it ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due >>>>>>>>>to some misguided altruism at other's expense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The explanation is organized labor. >>>>>> >>>>>>Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity and the growth >>>>>>of the middle class, anyway. But you'd prefer something Malthusian, I >>>>>>suppose? >>>>> >>>>>It's an infringement on the employer and employee relationship. It is >>>>>also monopolistic when it is across entire industries. You wouldn't let >>>>>a company control everything without oversight but you'd let a union. >>>> >>>>Not entirely, but your system didn't have a very good track record. An >>>>infringement of the employer's ability to exploit the employee isn't a >>>>bad thing. >>> >>>What does "exploit" mean? For some definitions of that, there is >>>"exploitation" even if you pay someone $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes >>>millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value >>>of your labour, you are being exploited? >> >>There may or may not be. Some reinvestment is always necessary. But >>profits and sacrifices should be shared and everyone should have some >>say in how things are done based on their own expertise. > > So everyone gets to be CEO for a day? Well, I'm not sure which god appointed one CEO, but I was thinking more of a collaborative effort. If democracy is good for countries, it should be good for businesses too. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Jeffrey Turner on 18 May 2007 19:09 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 Way to change the subject. Of course businesses will generally break the laws if they can get away with it, that is why they need to be policed more closely. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: * US on 18 May 2007 19:15 On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:06:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza(a)excite.com> wrote: >Yes, I am, freeloading cocksucking do-nothing punk. You sure are. You want everyone else to have to pay for your irresponsibility.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 18 May 2007 21:31 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> > >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>> > >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>That's not why it exists though is it ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Why minimum wage exists? No one can explain why that exists except due > >>>>>>>>>to some misguided altruism at other's expense. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Just because YOU can't understand the explanation, Bill... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The explanation is organized labor. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Well, organized labor explains wide American prosperity and the growth > >>>>>>of the middle class, anyway. But you'd prefer something Malthusian, I > >>>>>>suppose? > >>>>> > >>>>>It's an infringement on the employer and employee relationship. It is > >>>>>also monopolistic when it is across entire industries. You wouldn't let > >>>>>a company control everything without oversight but you'd let a union. > >>>> > >>>>Not entirely, but your system didn't have a very good track record. An > >>>>infringement of the employer's ability to exploit the employee isn't a > >>>>bad thing. > >>> > >>>What does "exploit" mean? For some definitions of that, there is > >>>"exploitation" even if you pay someone $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes > >>>millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value > >>>of your labour, you are being exploited? > >> > >>There may or may not be. Some reinvestment is always necessary. But > >>profits and sacrifices should be shared and everyone should have some > >>say in how things are done based on their own expertise. > > > > So everyone gets to be CEO for a day? > > Well, I'm not sure which god appointed one CEO, but I was thinking more > of a collaborative effort. If democracy is good for countries, it > should be good for businesses too. > Actually, pure democracy isn't that good for countries. It turns out that some people are better at running things than others. In fact, some people are better at running certain things and others are better at running other certain things. So that means that democracy where everyone decides everything in a vote isn't probably a good way to run a government. And we have representative democracy, you should note. Also that is tempered with a constitution which adds in a tension of stability. So how does that work for a company again? -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 18 May 2007 21:32
Brent P wrote: > > In article <i0n3i.12249$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. > If you don't keep labour costs down, everything will be imported from some place with low labour costs. Duh. Or do you want to block trade? |