gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Rudy Canoza on 18 May 2007 23:42 jeffy turner, statist ideologue, blabbered: > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> jeffy turner, statist ideologue, blabbered: >> >>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>> >>>> jeffy turner, statist ideologue, blabbered: >>>> >>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> jeffy turner, statist ideologue, blabbered: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jeffy turner, statist ideologue, blabbered: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 $30 an hour, say if the CEO >>>> makes >>>> millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value >>>> of your labour, you are being exploited? >>> >>> >>> There may or may not be. >> >> >> There is no such thing as "exploitation". Your use of the word relies >> on some undefined and undefinable notion of "fairness", so you're just >> begging the question again. You do that a lot. >> >> >>> Some reinvestment is always necessary. But >>> profits and sacrifices should be shared >> >> >> Who says they should be? According to whose formula? Ah, yes, of course >> - according to the formula of the self-anointed visionaries! The >> tyrants, that is. > > Does it get tiring lugging all that ignorance around? Evasion noted. >>> and everyone should have some >>> say in how things are done >> >> Who says they should? Based on what? > > Only the bossman should, based on the divine right of money. Weak, sophomoric sarcasm noted. >>> based on their own expertise. >> >> Gobbledygook > > Nah, Yep.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 19 May 2007 01:39 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Brent P wrote: > >>In article <i0n3i.12249$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? > > That is a big problem with "free trade." Eventually the bulk of > everyone has the standard of living of the poorest nation. Or > Mississippi. > Or the poor people become better off and move up the economic ladder. -- "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 19 May 2007 01:40 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: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>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? > > We don't have anything close to representative democracy in a company. > Everything is top down. > We separate the owners of the company from the workers. They can be the same people but they are separated for purposes of deciding who gets to control what the company does. -- "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: Jeffrey Turner on 19 May 2007 11:21 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > 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: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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 $30 an hour, say if the CEO makes >>>>>>>millions. Don't Communists think that if you don't get the entire value >>>>>>>of your labour, you are being exploited? >>>>>> >>>>>>There may or may not be. Some reinvestment is always necessary. But >>>>>>profits and sacrifices should be shared and everyone should have some >>>>>>say in how things are done based on their own expertise. >>>>> >>>>>So everyone gets to be CEO for a day? >>>> >>>>Well, I'm not sure which god appointed one CEO, but I was thinking more >>>>of a collaborative effort. If democracy is good for countries, it >>>>should be good for businesses too. >>> >>>Actually, pure democracy isn't that good for countries. It turns out >>>that some people are better at running things than others. In fact, some >>>people are better at running certain things and others are better at >>>running other certain things. So that means that democracy where >>>everyone decides everything in a vote isn't probably a good way to run a >>>government. And we have representative democracy, you should note. Also >>>that is tempered with a constitution which adds in a tension of >>>stability. So how does that work for a company again? >> >>We don't have anything close to representative democracy in a company. >>Everything is top down. > > We separate the owners of the company from the workers. They can be the > same people but they are separated for purposes of deciding who gets to > control what the company does. But they don't always have the same interests, why shouldn't they implement democracy? --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Jeffrey Turner on 19 May 2007 12:01
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >>>Brent P wrote: >>> >>>>In article <i0n3i.12249$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? >> >>That is a big problem with "free trade." Eventually the bulk of >>everyone has the standard of living of the poorest nation. Or >>Mississippi. > > Or the poor people become better off and move up the economic ladder. Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often leads to prosperity. --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt |