gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Fred G. Mackey on 20 May 2007 01:31 Jeffrey Turner 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 > > > 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. > And how do you propose legitimate businesses determine if their employees are legal? If they pry too much, they face fines from the government. If they do everything they legally can, they are subjected to raids where their work-force is taken out from under them and they face multi-million dollar losses due to lost labor and training - and this happens to companies that pay wages well over the minimum required by law. > --Jeff >
From: Fred G. Mackey on 20 May 2007 02:16 Eeyore wrote: > > "Fred G. Mackey" wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> >>> >>>>There should be no minimum wage at all. It destroys >>>>employment and hurts poor people. >>> >>> >>>LMAO ! >>> >>>Yes, they'd be so much better off on $3 an hour ! >> >>That would be better than being unenmployed. > > > Could *you* live on it ? Not comfortably, but yes, I could and like I said, it would be better than being unemployed. > > > >>But, of course, many jobs pay more than minimum wage anyway. > > > That's not why it exists though is it ? > It exists because people are stupid. If you're willing to work hard, you can get more than minimum wage even if you're unskilled. Interesting thing - handicapped people were laid off in Arizona as a result of minimum wage increases. They WANTED to work, but the businesses could no longer afford to employ them. Great, huh? > Graham >
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 04:57 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Joe the Aroma wrote: > > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > > >> Eeyore wrote: > > > >> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >>Boeing competes for its military contract sales. > > > >> > > > > >> > Airbus describes them as 'pork barrel contracts'. > > > >> > > > >> Boeing has congressmembers on payroll, so they'll get contracts. > > > >> It took a huge dust-up in 2002 (?) to keep the gov't from leasing > > > >> tanker planes from Boeing when it was *much* cheaper to buy them. > > > > > > > > Exactly the kind of thing that Airbus means. There's a closer watch on > > > > that form of intrinsic corruption in Europe. > > > > > > No, in Europe they just directly give them cash. > > > > No. Airbus gets repayable loans on which they pay interest. It's an attractive > > rate of interest for sure that's less than they'd get from banks to be totally > > fair. > > So they are being subsidized with low interest government loans? Is that a subsidy ? Are Boeing's pork-barrel military contracts a subsidy ? Maybe Boeing should 'get a life' and move on and think itself lucky it has so much military income ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 04:57 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > >>but with Sarkozy in there things will likely get worse. > > > > > > What have you in mind ? > > > > I'm under the impression that he's in the Thatcher mold, and will be > > doing whatever harm he can get away with to social services. > > You should put everything in context, the dole in France is out of > control. So are the unions. How much do you actually know about the place ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 04:59
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > As far as medical care goes, in the UK, the 'socialist' National Health Service that > > gives care to everyone costs about �1200 ($2400) p.a. per head of population > which > is a heck of a lot less than US health care costs, yet the US is forever > resistant to > adopt such a scheme that has much lower costs and overheads. > > You keep ignoring that the people paying for higher levels of access in > America are spending the extra money *by choice*. It's also not like the > NHS is something to write home about. You can pay more for 'private' care in the UK too if you want to. Either by electing to have an additional insurance policy or by paying on an ad-hoc basis. It's simply not compulsory and most ppl go with the normal provision most of the time. Graham |