# First 100 days



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Well I see some things they are promoting I like.....raising the minimum wage,national health insurance and better ethics rules.

Minimum wage....no one can make it on minimum wage especially if they have to pay a babysitter

national health insurance.....I'm tired of paying $6-7,000 a year for a policy because 40,000,000 million are uninsured and the rest of us cover them.Negotiate drug prices.....tired of doctors,hospitals,and drug companies making big bucks off the rest of us.

ethics revisions.....no more accepting gifts of ANY kind form lobbyists.
_________________


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken, I think you will find the devil in the details. Here is my prediction:
Today's minimum wage is paid to some people who are worth more, and that isn't right, but many receiving minimum wage are not worth half of what they get. Minimum wage is for entry level high school kids who have not yet developed a work ethic. So now businesses have to pay a higher wage. Will they loose money? Not if they want to stay in business, they will simply keep people at that minimum wage for five, six, ten years. If you're a loyal hard worker that has been at a business for five years, kiss your raise good by, because your employer needs that money to pay the kid next to you who can't find his rear end with both hands.
National health insurance will change nothing. Through your taxes you will still be paying for the losers that don't want to work. I have no problem with those that truly need help, but today we more often pay for freeloading than actual need. They system is abused, and this is simply government program addiction developed to keep you on the government string, i.e. "vote for me or no health care".
When it comes to ethics, the liberals certainly are not in a position to hold themselves up as the ethical party. I feel it is quit the opposite. What this will turn into is no money from business, but perfectly legal from non profit organizations like unions. The democrats wouldn't be for this if they had not found an avenue to exploit the system. 
Did the news also mention that cut and run was also on their agenda. 
You want to know where these liberals are coming from? Listen to the news and read between the lines. They don't get to concerned about Muslims beheading people, but they sure were concerned that one of our soldiers put a pair of underwear over a prisoners head. They also didn't get to upset about Saddam gassing 50,000 Kurds, but they are worried now that someone may have taunted Saddam before he was hung. How can anyone respect this barrage of bull dung. I have lost nearly all respect and trust of liberal politicians.
Ken, do you, yourself actually pay that much for health insurance? I thought you were a school teacher. My brother was a school teacher for 41 years and insurance was part of the package. I remember because he was peeved when he got taxed for that benefit.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

No I don't....yet.....I have 9 months left....then both my wife and I have to pay all our insurance.....and when we checked it would be around $7,000 per year.As for freeloading on insurance....we are paying for that now.No one gets turned away from a hospital insured or not.

Drug costs are going out of sight.Yet other countries pay much less for the same drugs.I seem to have read somewhere we are the only civilized country who doesn't have national health insurance....they can't ALL be wrong.

I didn't say Republicans are the only ones with ethics problems,but they don't seem to care.....at least the Democrats are talking about doing something.II don't think Americans care who does reform.They are just tired of it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

they (congress) are all crooks, I didn't use to think so but I do now...

the minimum wage is a gimmee to the unions the pigs in congress don't give a rip about poor people, many union contracts are tied to minimum wage, if it goes up the unions pay scale goes up.

Ken can't you run across the border and get medicine cheaper?

I'm not being my usual wise guy :wink: I'm just curious if its doable.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Not without a Canadian doctor's prescription.Plus as of now BC-BS pays part of the cost.Even at that it is expensive.

At least the Democrats are going to try to do something.We'll see how far they get.GWB can still veto what he doesn't like and they would probably be sustained.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Govt makes it more expensive.

What other form of insurance is related to your job is auto, house ect??? nope it isn't and if health insurance wasn't it would be much cheaper because of market forces.

Unfortunately market forces are something Democrats in govt dont believe in because they are mostly socialists.

My point is unless its not linked to jobs and not covered up in govt regs it will never get better.

And heres the kicker the govt (especially the dems but the repubs are just as bad) doesn't want it to get cheaper, in fact just the opposite.

Why?? because when the price gets prohibitive they will then be able to get everyone on board for universal govt healthcare which expands Congress's power. We will need them uke:

This will destroy the greatest healthcare in the world and make it mediocre like england, Canada ect.

It will happen though, its inevitable, this country is full of idiots that believe the govt is the answer not the problem.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As for freeloading on insurance....we are paying for that now.No one gets turned away from a hospital insured or not.


Oh, I totally agree. I just see it as smoke and mirrors and more of the same.

On the minimum wage, I really don't know how to handle that. Entry level people sometimes are worth near nothing, and don't deserve a higher salary. What worries me is that because a company has to pay a yet incompetent worker a higher wage, he will just recover that loss by not paying a fair salary to a good worker. This is a no win situation and kicking up the minimum wage will often reward the incompetent at the expense of a good worker.
I don't know how to solve the drug problem. Government will only screw up health care so I don't like them involved. The thing that really gets me is these drug companies are American companies and the charge us (their next door neighbors) more than they charge any other country. Drugs in Mexico are also very cheap, and they are American made drugs I am speaking of. The pharmaceuticals sure are exhibiting a lack of respect for their fellow citizens. I wouldn't be in favor of government directly controlling the price of drugs, but I would be in favor of a law that would not allow them to charge us more than Canadians or Mexicans. They certainly are greedy low lifes. 
Ken, check into getting your insurance through something like the credit union or somewhere else. I know you can make a substantial savings going through some organization that gets insurance as a group. I think groups like American Lutheran Brotherhood, or Trivent can also give you a break. It might save you one to two thousand dollars. 
I think the ethics changes they will propose are as I described. I think they have found a way to financially ham string the republicans while still bringing in money to the national democratic committee. Poor ethics in itself. 
So Ken, are you retiring? My last day at work was yesterday. Retirement hasn't soaked through to me yet it just feels like another day of annual leave. It might take a couple weeks.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Watched some of the swearing in today. Saw the new speaker as she proudly claimed that congress will now become a pay as you go congress. Sounded pretty good. Who wouldn't be for that. But................. as said, the devil is in the details. Anyone watch the new house rules debate? seems a few changes were made. Such as it now only takes a majority vote in the house to raise taxes instead of the 2/3 vote under the Republicans. Seems the also don't like the recorded votes for all to see who voted on what under the Republicans so now votes are not recorded for public view. Pay as you go............. right.............code words for now that we have the majority we will raise taxes is what they really mean. Ken all the things you mentioned came right out of the Democrat committee room without a hearing or Republicans allowed to amend anything. Does that really sound like a new congress you want to put your trust in? And good old Barney Franks announced today he wants to put a cap on what a CEO can be paid. So I guess now the Democrats intend to run the private sector also. All this in the first 4 hours of their much advertised first 100 hour campaign. Wonder what they have in store for us the next 96 hours.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I have two close personel friends. One lives in Canada and his wife was diagnosed with Breast Cancer a few years back. Their Socialist health care system told this couple they would have to wait about 4 to 6 months for treatment........ They left the next day drove to Fargo and began treatment the following day and paid for it themselves. .....Sounds like a great government system. NOT.

The other was a Canadian couple he and I worked together for 3 years here in the good ole US of A while his wife was finishing up her docterate at UND. They both said DO NOT let the government take over health care similar to back home (Canada).

Both are true stories.

Plainsman


> Today's minimum wage is paid to some people who are worth more, and that isn't right, but many receiving minimum wage are not worth half of what they get. Minimum wage is for entry level high school kids who have not yet developed a work ethic. So now businesses have to pay a higher wage. Will they loose money? Not if they want to stay in business, they will simply keep people at that minimum wage for five, six, ten years. If you're a loyal hard worker that has been at a business for five years, kiss your raise good by, because your employer needs that money to pay the kid next to you who can't find his rear end with both hands.


Very, very True........ We hire entry level seasonal workers with no experience but trainable and have a good work ethic for 2.5 to 3 times the present minium wage. We can generally determine in 2 to 3 days if they fit or not. Only about 1 out 3 or 4 have any kind of work ethic, math or science skills. They just passed thru the system but that's a whole nother thread.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Would someone please explain to me who these 40,000,000 people are who don't have health coverage?

The way I see it, if you have nothing to loose and no money to pay, you get access to almost all of the best healthcare in the world, at absolutely no cost to you.

Same goes for those who choose to buy it or get it as part of their employment package.

If you're old and on a fixed income, Medi-care/Medic-aid is supposed to pick up the tab.

So the only people who don't have coverage are the ones who don't get it at work, and chose to buy a more expensive car instead of buying health insurance.

So please tell me why the rest of us are supposed to care!

What in the hell am I missing? PLEASE!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

She is a real Sweetheart.......... uke:

From NewsMax.com

Pelosi is one of the most liberal members of the House, receiving a 95 percent "liberal quotient" from the Americans for Democratic Action based on her support for the liberal position in key votes.

The Speaker supported a bill requiring a 72-hour background check for persons buying weapons at gun shows - and opposed a bill strengthening the enforcement of immigration laws.

Pelosi's Hypocrisy

But a look behind the scenes exposes Pelosi as a Democratic leader who passionately fights for liberal policies, yet goes to great lengths to avoid applying those policies in her personal life.

Best-selling author Peter Schweizer's book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" first revealed the glaring contradictions between Pelosi and other prominent liberals' public stances and their real-life behavior. [Check out our free offer for this book. Go Here Now.]

Pelosi claims to be a staunch union supporter, and along with her husband has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers Union, notes Schweizer.

Unions are, in her words, "fighting for America's working families" and battling "the union-busting, family-hurting" Bush administration. But Schweizer uncovered that a $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop!

Pelosi's hypocrisy doesn't stop there.

The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles.

But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif. The hotel has more than 250 employees, but once again, Schweizer found, it is strictly a non-union shop.

The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees.

"But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests or preparing food," Schweizer wrote in NewsMax Magazine.

"As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door."

Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment. "With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue - it's an ethic. It's a value."

That's what she says. Schweizer exposed what she does: One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif.

To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage.

But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private - and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment!

"The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes," says Schweizer.

"But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy."


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I'd like to point out that raising minimum wage doesnt get anyone any more money. In fact, it takes people like my wife and I down a notch.

If Mc Donalds spends X% of its gross profits on salary, a raise in minimum wage wont make them pay out a larger %, they will simply raise prices to make up the difference. Same with Grocery Stores, factories, Malls, and every other job thatutilizes a mostly unskilled labor force. That increase in pricing will be spread through the nation, in effect doing nothing more than contribute to the falling value of the American dollar.

The simple thing that no one in support of raising the minimum wage ever sees, is that money HAS to come from somewhere. Companies will not shrink their profit margins in order to pay more for labor.

The same people that arent making it at todays minimum wage will STILL not be making it on a larger minimum wage. Why? Because those stuck at minimum wage jobs are their because they either lack the ability or motivation to better themselves. Those that lack the ability, like the lost kid at McDonalds that cant get a simple order right, are not suddenly going to be better off by a higher minimum wage. As for those with the ability, but no motivation, well quite simply its not my responsibility to help those who wont help themselves. I dont care how callous it sounds. If you're life is that crappy, and you wont put the effort into improving it, then live in your mess and hopefully, just hopefully you wont spread your ideology to your many children.

And Ken, I dunno how many people are on your insurance policy, but my wife and I have a pretty good policy covering us and our 2 boys, 1 of which with known extensive medical problems, and we pay roughly $3800 a year. This is a private insurance policy, as we both worked for smaller companies that dont offer insurance. Sounds to me like you might need to shop around a bit, or quit telling the insurance agent you like to parachute while drinking, smoking and defusing bombs


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Oh, almost forgot. I agree some ethics improvements must be made, but to be honest, I dont see democrats changing that anymore than republicans. They are both a group of greedy schmucks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I dislike people who are so pig headed they can't admit when they are wrong. So not to be hypocritical like our gal pal Nancy I have to fess up. There are some things about the pharmaceutical industry and drug prices that I was overlooking.
First off doctors (or drug companies) in socialist nations don't know what malpractice is (enter the cost of insurance passed on to consumers). We live in not only a litigious society, but watch and behold the new Washington agenda. The newly elected and majority in Washington will demonize anyone who makes a profit. They will also make pharmaceuticals and nearly anyone who makes a profit jump through numerous hoops, all of which will cost them.
It is much like the political *****ing about Wal*Mart. The liberals don't like Wal*Mart because they don't pay their employees enough. If Wal*Mart pays their employees more they raise prices to survive. What happens then? The liberals ***** that Wal*Mart is shafting the customer. So what is the solution.? Socialism I suppose. 
I would encourage everyone to look into this further and lets see what we can learn. If you know anyone with some knowledge of this situation talk to them. Boy I hate it when I sucker for liberal bs. Sorry.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You know it is funny that you mention WalMart and the *****ing about them from the left. Fact in point........ WalMarts starting salary is already $1.50 above minimum wage and that is to entry level first time employees that are the one's that stock the shelves at night and the senior citizens that greet you at the door and this is with health insurance. Within a years time their salaries have usually moved to the $9-$10 slot. Those with any sales or cashier experience will start out at about $10.00 an hour or more and with health benefits. My sister recently went to work for a WalMart in her town and started at $11.50 working in the deli. This includes health benefits. Eight days after she started to work my mom passed away and my sister was given 3 days time off, and with pay. At the funeral was a large arrangement of flowers with condolence sent from Walmart. This was for an employee that had only been with them eight days. WalMart is not union......... the left can't stand that.

On the same subject of min wages, a 2004 study determined that 67% of American workers were on hourly wages. Only 2.5% of those were at or below min wages. Of the 2.5% only half were adults. The 1.25% that were not adults were young people living at home and most were from affluent families who really didn't need the work. Of the 1.5% that were adults, half of those were discovered to be someone working a second job for extra income and seldom worked over 20 hours a week. Bottom line.......... only .75% of the work force is dependent on min wages for a living.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> So Ken, are you retiring? My last day at work was yesterday. Retirement hasn't soaked through to me yet it just feels like another day of annual leave. It might take a couple weeks.


Yes,I am retiring the end of May.Supposedly our house should be ready to move into the end of Aug.We will have to get together sometime. 

Congrats on your retirement. :beer:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I worked in Retail Management for twenty years ... I can tell you with certainty our "Budgeted Payroll Percent" was NEVER increased due to payroll hourly increases.

If it cost more per hour for payroll you simply did with less hours. Which in turn means a tougher, more demanding work environment for those who are employed. It magnified the incentive to have "part time" employees because that is one way to reduce the cost of benefits and benefits is a part of payroll on the P&L.

Less hours of staffing combined with the heavier work load increased "Shrink" due to customer theft not to mention employee theft (because they thought the company "owed" it to them for their undercompensated efforts.)

All of the above translates to "Higher Prices" on the shelf.

Not that running a business needs to be a cakewalk, but "compelled" higher wages ... rather than wages based on "merit", do little to help anyone ... or so it seems to me.

And I can promise you if minimum wage were repealed we would NOT have employers paying folks 50 cents per hour in any environment I worked in.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

A way to bring taxation to a screeching halt would be this.

No more witholding! Everyone is required to write a check or pay online each month. People don't really think about it, it's just money that was never there. If required to "write the check" each month we'd see MAJOR reform of nearly every gov't expenditure. I'd be for a trial period of say, 6 mo.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Well I see some things they are promoting I like.....raising the minimum wage,national health insurance and better ethics rules.


National health insurance. What a joke. I would actually like to get health coverage today instead of waiting in line for months.

Raising minimum wage. :lol: No skills and no motivation means you don't get paid that much. I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets paid minimum wage. I put myself through undergrad and graduate school with low paying jobs and came out of school with no debt. You can do whatever you want in this country if you have some motivation.

Drug costs - What do you think motivates those drug companies to make all those wonderful drugs that improve your life. Profits. What would you rather have? Lower drug costs or be dead because the drugs were never developed?

People need to understand incentives and then they will see why socialism that many on here preach will never work.

I can only shake my head in disgust.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > So Ken, are you retiring? My last day at work was yesterday. Retirement hasn't soaked through to me yet it just feels like another day of annual leave. It might take a couple weeks.
> ...


Congrats on your upcoming retirement. Jamestown is less than an hour west so we will have to get together fo some hunting or fishing, or both. If I can find two days, I will have my ice house built.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Ken good on you for working with those who can't help themselves.

I think much of the heated debate happens when we start attempting to acertain who can't help themselves and who WON'T help themselves.

I can't say that I know anyone personally who'd refuse help to someone who NEEDS it. That said I have great disdain for those who take help because they WON'T help themselves.

Here is a hypothetical that I think applies. I'm 32 (true) and I work for a company that offers a pension to folks who have at least 5 years of service and are at least 50 years old. So I've been working for this company since I'm 25, and say I am one of the few who works for this company until I reach the age of my personal retirement goal, say it's 55. Now, say that company does away with the pension benefit when I'm 40 and 55 comes and goes, I can't afford to retire, 62 comes and goes, still can't afford it, 65 I'm forced to retire, although I can't afford it. Should I be eligible for some sort of help because in 40 years of working for the same company I couldn't figure out how to support myself in retirement? I had 20 years to figure it out after they did away with the pension, do I still deserve some help? I used this example because it's not the usual subject matter/debate you hear about when discussing govt assistance, therefore folks will have to think through their answers and not go down the list of either party's bullet points.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

What you fail to see Ken, Is where that money comes from.

Its very nice to think, "Hey, lets pay the unfortunate more money so they are no longer unfortunate!"

It doesnt work that way. The Money will come from somewhere. And since the only place it could come from and not immediately cause a shift upward in pricing (for everything)is the companies net profit, which just inst gonna happen.

Lets say a person today makes basic minimum wage, and the cost of living eats up a full 100% of his earnings. We give him a roughly 20% increase in his pay by raising the minimum wage a dollar. This will be a gain that wont last a year. By the next year companies will have restructured thier pricing and now that same poor shclub at mimium wage is still right where he was a year ago.

BUT!!! The folks like my wife and me, making a decent living at 10-12 bucks an hour, have just been kicked in the teeth. Without a raise in our foreseable future, we've basically taken a 10% hit to our payroll. Now we have to get raises in order to be right where we were a year ago.

Remember Burger Kings 99 cent whopper deal? You could get a bag full of large, delicious whoppers for the measely price of 99 cents each. Then, in 1996, Minimum wage was increased. Within a few months, those Whoppers were no cheaper than 1.29. All the burgers n the ever cheap 99 cent menu today...They were 59-69 cents 10 years ago.

Im sure there are other factors involved, but the lagest reason for this inflation is payroll increases.

To put it simply, Minimum wage = instant inflation. The value of the American dollar falls, and we become even more indebted to foreign nations.

Now if you can tell me how to pay the poor more money, without any of this happening and without the folks at minimum wage having to expend any more effort on their own parts than they are now, Im all ears.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Gun Owner said:


> To put it simply, Minimum wage = instant inflation. The value of the American dollar falls, and we become even more indebted to foreign nations.
> .


Ding ding ding What do we have for him Johnny!!!  If you gave evry man woman and child 1 million dollars what would happen? Thats right a million dollars would be worth nothing. Ask a liberal if they would give 1 million to all people if they could. Its a fun way to catch someone who thinks with their heart and not their head!!!


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Here is a hypothetical that I think applies. I'm 32 (true) and I work for a company that offers a pension to folks who have at least 5 years of service and are at least 50 years old. So I've been working for this company since I'm 25, and say I am one of the few who works for this company until I reach the age of my personal retirement goal, say it's 55. Now, say that company does away with the pension benefit when I'm 40 and 55 comes and goes, I can't afford to retire, 62 comes and goes, still can't afford it, 65 I'm forced to retire, although I can't afford it. Should I be eligible for some sort of help because in 40 years of working for the same company I couldn't figure out how to support myself in retirement? I had 20 years to figure it out after they did away with the pension, do I still deserve some help? I used this example because it's not the usual subject matter/debate you hear about when discussing govt assistance, therefore folks will have to think through their answers and not go down the list of either party's bullet points.


Should the public help you out? No

Anytime you put your future in someone elses hands then you should assume the risk. I don't feel sorry for people who have all their retirement egg in the company they have worked for all their life and then the company goes bust. That's just poor risk management.

People are no different than animals. We scratch and claw and fight for resources. Back in days gone by you could kill people and take their stuff. Now days you can't kill them but you can still take their stuff. Now we just kill each other economically.

It's nothing to feel bad about. It's just the way it is and always will be.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Yup, get rid of all those government programs that help anyone who for some reason can't make it on their own and get rid of the minumum wage it is a rotten concept from the get go! To hell with anyone who can't make it because of misfortune and besides that most of them are lazy anyway. They all deserve there own demise and if they have any children to support to hell with them, too! Screw the whole bunch they get what they deserve no matter what their upbringing. Even if they are born into poverty or run into health problems they should be able to rise above their own misfortune. It is all government waste and then the rest of us who are hard working and come from good stock can have more. After all this is the American way!! After reading some of the above posts I get a really bad taste in my mouth. You guys are something else!!!


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

DJRooster said:


> Yup, get rid of all those government programs that help anyone who for some reason can't make it on their own and get rid of the minumum wage it is a rotten concept from the get go! To hell with anyone who can't make it because of misfortune and besides that most of them are lazy anyway. They all deserve there own demise and if they have any children to support to hell with them, too! Screw the whole bunch they get what they deserve no matter what their upbringing. Even if they are born into poverty or run into health problems they should be able to rise above their own misfortune. It is all government waste and then the rest of us who are hard working and come from good stock can have more. After all this is the American way!! You guys are something else!!!


Having to write a check for all your taxes once a month (instead of having it withheld) would have the taxpayer screaming for the sort of oversite that we should have in place. If a program is good and is working, more resources may flow that way. If a program turns out to be a "feel-good" or pork project that is in-effective it could be scrapped more quickly.

ACCOUNTABILITY would again become part of our collective vocabulary.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> Yup, get rid of all those government programs that help anyone who for some reason can't make it on their own and get rid of the minumum wage it is a rotten concept from the get go! To hell with anyone who can't make it because of misfortune and besides that most of them are lazy anyway. They all deserve there own demise and if they have any children to support to hell with them, too! Screw the whole bunch they get what they deserve no matter what their upbringing. Even if they are born into poverty or run into health problems they should be able to rise above their own misfortune. It is all government waste and then the rest of us who are hard working and come from good stock can have more. After all this is the American way!! After reading some of the above posts I get a really bad taste in my mouth. You guys are something else!!!


Rooster, no one said anything like what you have read into this. No one is against helping those in need. We see some of these things hurting those needy you are talking about. Go back and read our posts again.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Geez, you sure fooled me!!

On minimum wage:



> many receiving minimum wage are not worth half of what they get.





> Minimum wage is for entry level high school kids who have not yet developed a work ethic.





> If you're a loyal hard worker that has been at a business for five years, kiss your raise good by, because your employer needs that money to pay the kid next to you who can't find his rear end with both hands.





> Entry level people sometimes are worth near nothing, and don't deserve a higher salary.





> Because those stuck at minimum wage jobs are their because they either lack the ability or motivation to better themselves





> If you're life is that crappy, and you wont put the effort into improving it, then live in your mess and hopefully, just hopefully you wont spread your ideology to your many children.





> I'd like to point out that raising minimum wage doesnt get anyone any more money. In fact, it takes people like my wife and I down a notch.





> No skills and no motivation means you don't get paid that much. I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets paid minimum wage.


On Health insurance:



> National health insurance will change nothing. Through your taxes you will still be paying for the losers that don't want to work.





> So the only people who don't have coverage are the ones who don't get it at work, and chose to buy a more expensive car instead of buying health insurance.


Oh, no, I read a lot of compassion in this discussion for those who work for minimum wage or do not have health care coverage. You are right Plainsman![/b]


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Rooster, you Are simply not grasping the big picture of a minimum wage increase.

that money has to come from somewhere, that place is price increases. If you suddenly make more money, but then everything costs more, HOW DOES THAT HELP?????


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

DJROOSTER, We have governmental healthcare in place now. It's call Medicare and Medicaid. How many people do you know have to buy supplemental plans because Medicare is so bad? This is a topic I know alot about since I work in medicine. Soicialized Medicine is so bad that Canadians will come to the states for care and pay for it out of their pocket.

As for medicines their is no defense totally for the outrageous costs but in Mexico and Canada they do not have Lawyers running TV adds trolling for lawsuits. Next time you pay $20 for a Levaquin tablet thank John Sakolov and his buddies. Doctors are closing their practices due to the cost of malpractice insurance. Everytime someone wins a $2million lawsuit against a drug company medicine costs go up.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

It is simply NOT the place of the Federal Government to see to the welfare of individual Americans.

A few quotes from those archaic thinkers we call the Founding Fathers

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." 
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

"the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I am afraid that some of you have things *** backwards. Minimum wages need to go up because of inflation. Inflation is a result of so many more things than the cost of minimum wage labor. Most people don't even work for minimum wage so this increase is an insignificant contributor to the rate of inflation. Look at the ******* things that have entered this discussion:



> Quote:
> many receiving minimum wage are not worth half of what they get.
> 
> Quote:
> ...


No skills and no motivation means you don't get paid that much. I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets paid minimum wage.


> On Health insurance:
> 
> Quote:
> National health insurance will change nothing. Through your taxes you will still be paying for the losers that don't want to work.
> ...


These are some of the most idiotic statements you could find on any of our forums. And people try to validate their positions with this garbage!!


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

DJ, please share your views on this scenario.

There are two workers at a store. The minimum wage is $10/hr (for easy numbers). One worker makes $10/hr (worker A), the other makes $12/hr (worker B). Minimum wage is increased to $15/hr. Both employees get a raise to $15/hr in accordance with federal regulations.

That' the scenario.

Here's how I see this working:

Before the new law took effect worker B made 20% more than minimum wage, now even though his pay is higher (by about $6000/year based on a 40hr work week), it won't take long for prices to adjust for the increased min wage and he'll be further behind than he was at $12/hr. In a perfect world what should happen is worker B gets a raise to $18/hr, because he was at one time worth 20% more than minimum wage and $15/hr+20% is $18/hr. There is a possiblity however that the raise in minimum wage up to $15/hr has put him in a position where he now owes taxes instead of receiving a refund, because the tax code wasn't adjusted accordingly.

DJ please share your views.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Well that's nice............. first you want to insult those that disagree with you by calling them a *******. Then you use a term that is generally associated with the very people on welfare or minimum wages. Always refreshing to know there are those that somehow consider others peoples status is below their own dignity level. Oh well...............


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

There is a complete lack of acknowledgement here on DJRooster's part that employers will and in fact must pay competitive wages to those who it values as principle workers in its operation.

Employers must do so or else those principle workers will go elsewhere to find an employer who values their services more highly.

Those at a lower pay scale will work their way up that scale according to their motivation and skill ... the value of their work will be compensated over time and if it's not quick enough they too are free to go elsewhere.

A compelled minimum wage coupled with the difficulty in eliminating "dead wood within the operation" (presented by Government mandated laws regarding supposed discrimination of sorts) do nothing to make the system work better.

It all goes back to my previous post ... the welfare of individual Americans was NOT the point of the Constitution.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Here is another gem of ignorant rational that seems to pop up all the time in discusions concerning labor:



> A compelled minimum wage coupled with the difficulty in eliminating "dead wood within the operation" (presented by Government mandated laws regarding supposed discrimination of sorts) do nothing to make the system work better.


You can't fire "dead wood" because they are protected by laws. Geez, you mean we actually have constitutional rights in the United States. If an employer can't fire a worker it sure as hell isn't the workers fault or the fault of the law it is the employers own ignorance.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Like I said, a minimum wage increase is not a major factor when it comes to inflation because it is a very small part of the equation. So to say minimum wages should never be increased because they contribute to inflation is a very weak postion. If it was such a big deal Greenspan and the Federal Reserve would have lowered the minimum wage and not raised interest rates to combat inflationary pressures. I will repeat, inflation is the reason why minimum wages should increase and not a reason why they should stay the same.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon said:


> Well that's nice............. first you want to insult those that disagree with you by calling them a *******. Then you use a term that is generally associated with the very people on welfare or minimum wages. Always refreshing to know there are those that somehow consider others peoples status is below their own dignity level. Oh well...............


I often encounter this when arguing a point with liberals. It's surprising too, because they are normally the ones that say things like "if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all". I don't hold it against Rooster, it just appears so hypocritical to me. 
On the other hand I will admit I am intolerant of many things, but then tolerance is just a kind way of saying you stand for nothing. I guess I will just be my old intolerant "*******" self, and continue to point out the intolerance of the "tolerant".

Rooster, as for saying some of these people are not worth half of what they are paid that was being kind. Some are worth less than nothing until they have some training. Is there anyone who doesn't understand that. Look at college, we pay for that to become competent at the profession we choose. Many of these people start with no experience, and some are even detrimental to the business until the learn the ropes.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Dj,
It is not the governments job to regulate wages in a free market economy. Let the markets decide what people are worth. As Decoy Dummy explained, those individuals that have skills and motivation will be rewarded with increased wages.

How much as a society are we supposed to guarantee? Should we guarantee people a car? How about a computer and cell phone?

I happen to work where I can watch, each and every day, people come to the social services building to apply for various forms of "assistance". Let me give you the usual scenario.

Drive up in car (usually a much better car than I have). 
Talk on cell phone untill getting to the door.
Finish cigarette outside before going through the door.

Now, is it my job to guarantee that people have enough money to drive a car, smoke cigarettes and talk on a cell phone?

I sure don't think so.

Why do these people get assistance? Because people like you don't think that minimum wage is enough to buy them cigarettes, a cell phone and a car. Minimum wage will cover living expenses but not much more and in my opinion that is the way it should be.

If I offend you with the way I think. I make no apologies.

On the other side of the coin. Today I will be working with an intern here at our office. She is willing to work so that she can gain skills that will in the future get her a good job. In the mean time she goes to school full time and has another job to support herself.

I will make damn sure she learns the things that will help her 1) land a job and 2) be successful at it. Why? Because she is motivated to have a better life.

Show me motivation and I will show you all kinds of people that will help out others. I am sick and tired of paying people for sitting on their azz.

I might add that if you have a legitimate problem where you can't work that is one thing, and I am willing to help, but otherwise tough crap.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gandergrinder,

Exactly, and if we could eliminate the freeloaders we could give more money to the poor fellow living on welfare who fell off a ladder, broke his back, and can't work anymore. He tried, he was productive, he should live a better life. Think how we could help these people if the parasites would get off the government handout. What irritates me more than the poor use of my tax dollars is the fact that these freeloaders become a burden to people who deserve more.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

DJRooster

You have "my" typed words in front of you and you intentionally say something different pretending it represents what I typed to further your Moronic side of a debate.

You need to GO BACK AND RE-READ what I typed.

It is Intelectually Dishonest folks like you who make these debates meaningless.

Edited by Plainsman for content.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

The welfare of "individuals in need" should be handled at the State level ... through Religious Institutions ... And the vast number of 
Charity Organizations across the Country and of course "Family Responsibility."

Nothing in the Constitution grants anyone anything other than basic protection and an "Equal Starting Line" ... or ... "Level Playing Field"

It was designed with the primary intent of "Not Impacting Individuals Lives" Great measures were undertaken to convince folks that they could trust in that ... Infact that was the entire meaning of "The Federalist Papers."

What we see today is little more than the Raping and Pilaging of the Truths and Aspirations our Founding Fathers struggle so hard to put in place.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

DJ, I posted a scenario towards the bottom of page one of this thread. I also gave my opinion on the scenario. I'd like to know your's.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Yeah, and while you're at it, answer my question, too.

You've quoted me twice, but have thus far refused to answer the question.
And it WAS a question, not a statement. Who are these people who don't have access to healthcare?

I think I know why you choose this venue to debate. Judging by your style and propensity to twist words, I'd say debating in person has led to a few lost teeth.

I'm going to assume that means you're a quick learner.

Now put down your Audubon Society magazine and answer our questions, PLEASE!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If you guys have so much empathy for people who work for minimum wage or for those that lack health care let me hear about it. Everything that I quoted was said verbatum by the same people that now are telling me they are compassionate people. That's great! Tell me how these programs benefit those in need not how a bunch of moronic, crooked, freeloading cheats always try to milk the system. This just indicates to me where your bias is in respect to these programs. I have shown my bias and will be called a liberal because I believe in what the fundamental basis for justification of these programs stands for and for this I will not give any apologies. Now, show me your position contrary to what the bias of your posts indicate. Convince me of your sincerity!


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

DJ, how about you post your opinion regarding the scenario I posted on page 1 of this thread. There is my straight question. Can you give a straight answer?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, I am sure you're an intelligent person, so I can only assume you choose not to understand. I don't know if your liberal or not, but your rhetoric is liberal. With that in mind another liberal (self proclaimed) value, is an open mind. Your is definitely closed, because you refuse to understand what so many have clearly explained. 
To stick with one subject, for the purpose of clarity, I refer you to the many explanations about minimum wage. Many have explained that minimum wage will not help the poor, and will hurt the next step up in the salary ladder. It is a fact of life when we live in a capitalistic economy, but perhaps that is what you don't like. However, capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, and I wouldn't suggest giving them up in favor of a socialistic society. 
If for a second we can look at this in simple terms. Lets say there are ten salary grades, one through ten, one being the lowest of course. If we raise the minimum wage of salary one, and it hurts the standard of living for salary grade two, what have we gained?
If this would indeed help the poor all but the cruel would be for it. The problem with liberal thinking is it is so shallow, and doesn't look at the whole picture. They do things to make themselves feel good, not help others. Your anger is not based on our lack of compassion, but your perception that we are standing in your way of doing something to enhance your own self image within your own mind. Many have handed you economics 101 on a silver platter and you refuse to even taste it.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

DJRooster

For a taste of where "compassion" should come from. You need do nothing more than read my previous post ...

That is the point with you, you have typed words in front of you in this debate and you choose to IGNORE the debate and make this silly Emotional Pleading that has little to do with anything other than ignoring the fact that the Federal Government was never intended to deal with any citizens "Individual Welfare."

Simple accounting and basic economics show that if someone is forced to fork over cash without regard to whether they have it or not either the cash comes form someplace or the operation crumbles ... take a quick review of Social Security to see years of that process in action.

Plainsman ... sorry for the "lapse" on the top post of this page, thanks for setting it straight.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Minimum wages are only guidelines recommended by the Federal government. Each state can set there own minimum wage. Washington has a wage of $7.93 and Kansas has a minimum wage of $2.65. So each state can figure out what they want to set as their standard. So if you are concerned about a raise call your congressman.

Plainsman, you say:



> Many have explained that minimum wage will not help the poor, and will hurt the next step up in the salary ladder.





> If we raise the minimum wage of salary one, and it hurts the standard of living for salary grade two, what have we gained?


First of all I don't believe this and second of all if you talk to grade 1 he will say it helped a little. The only way it will hurt grade two is if he takes a cut in salary because of grade 1. Your logic would suggest that grade 2 should never get a raise because it will hurt grade 3, and grade 3 should never get a raise because it will hurt grade 4 etc....Economics 101 by Professor Plainsman is a bunch of illogic. Your logic suggests that we should just eliminate all raises because when someone gets a raise it hurts everyone else and that is simply not good logic and a very weak argument against raising the minimum wage. A freeze on all salaries because it just hurts everyone. Hmmmm, seems like I get it, but you.....



> The problem with liberal thinking is it is so shallow, and doesn't look at the whole picture.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Funny that you should pick out Kansas. Of all 50 states, only Kansas has a minimum wage law on the books lower than the federal minimum law. Actually some states don't even have a minimum wage law on the books. Why? Because under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) states that set a state minimum lower than the federal rate must pay the higher rate to anyone covered under FLSA. That would be everyone that is a American citizen except for those under the age of 20 years old who may be paid the lower wage for the first 90 days of employment. What would be the use of congress setting a minimum wage if stated did not have to comply with it.....just common sense.



> The only way it will hurt grade two is if he takes a cut in salary because of grade 1. Your logic would suggest that grade 2 should never get a raise because it will hurt grade 3, and grade 3 should never get a raise because it will hurt grade 4


Grade one gets a raise by advancing to grade two. Someone new is hired to fill the spot at the lowest wage grade one. Grade two receives a raise when he advances to grade three and so on up the line. If it is a booming successful business you may very well see most employees sitting in the higher grades, very content with their jobs until the employer is forced to stop advancements to pay for mandated grade one rookies. Is it really that hard to understand?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Do you really believe this when only 1% of the jobs are minimum wage jobs??? This employer will have some serious morale problems if he uses this logic while negotiating with his employees. It is a hypothetical example to the extreme and the benefits to the majority of minimum wage workers far outweigh these hypothetical examples that you are using to terrorize and create paranoia amongst the masses. A tweak in the minimum wage is not going to cause mass bankruptcy and send inflation out of control as some on this forum would have you believe, nor will it steal our raises because the minimum wage worker got everything the company had to offer. The minimum wage means so little to the average worker and it is not a big event but it is a big event to those that are working for minimum wage. Next topic??


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> negotiating with his employees


Negotiating with his employees? What employer negotiates with their employees other than unions which start out well above the minimum wage to start with. And who said there would be mass bankruptcy and inflation would be out of control? You sure have a knack for exaggeration. Try a dose of reality............. you'll be surprised how smooth it goes down.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Speaking of next topics? Health care? Wow, what a monster? I wish that was as easy as a little minimum wage hike!! Believe it or not, I don't have an answer for this one!! All I know is it is costing me plenty!!


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> The minimum wage means so little to the average worker and it is not a big event but it is a big event to those that are working for minimum wage. Next topic??


This statement very clearly illustrates to all of us what you are. At the very best you are a socialist and at very worst a communist.

You know why I dislike you and your ilk so much? Because you keep trying to chip away at other people's pockets and justify it by saying that it doesn't mean that much to the average worker. "It's just a little out of your pocket."

Except that you will never stop at one thing. There is always some other problem that can be fixed by taxing or creating another law. 
uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Just to start a more civil conversation:

Does minimum wage raises help or hurt? IMHO a definite maybe.

Should 30 year old workers supporting a family of 4 make more than minimum wage? IMHO yes, but as stated before the devil is in the details.
Why are they not making more than the minimum and how many are there? Haven't seen any data on this one. 
IMHO, lack of education is the one cause. Anyone younger listening -- quitcher *****ing and take advantage of all the free programs the liberals put in place to get ahead that the conservatives and all us old timers ***** about. (My favorite 3 miles through the snow with no shoes lecture to my daughters)

Should the 18 year old at Burger king make more than minimum wage?
IMHO, that depends. When I was 18 at McDonalds, as a store manager, making my monster $1.25 per hour which was a 0.10 higher than the workers, I was able to pay my college tuition and my rent working 60 hours per week while taking enough credits to graduate from college in 3 years (at least it was better than the $1.00 per hour I got working in the hardware store). 
Does the same minimum wage now provide the same possibility?
IMHO a definite NO when looking at tuition, fees, book prices and the increases in those costs that formerly made it possible for me to get ahead. Who do those colleges think they are? an ivory tower?

To small business on the coasts, quitcher *****en. All the data I have seen from states with higher minimum wage show no job losses compared to adjacent states, and even including in those states without minumum wage laws, a large majority of jobs are already paying above minimum wage and the actual number who will get a raise is very small.
Be more worried about the Terminator Ahnold and the other Republican govenors that are forcing universal health care on small business. Even though it will take 10 years to get to the middle of the country, it is coming.

On a more cheery note, which I haven't seen, congrats Plainsman on your retirement. Sorry to let the cat out of the bag. (I mean Fox/Coyote) and all the small animals that now tremble in fear.

Nuff for now


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

indsport, you are correct that education is the key to higher wages. When I see some of the posts by the younger generation in this forum I sure don't have warm fuzzy feeling about that though.

One thing a lot of people fail to realize is a minimum wage requirement doesn't hurt someone like a McDonalds where you worked. They can always raise the price of a burger a penny and gain profits. The ones that get hurt is the small business person that may have a idea for a service or product and starts out in a garage operation. These people are just getting started and may need the help of one or two people but they don't have the luxury of special tax write off like a McDonalds. They pay taxes on this small start up operation as a single individual so high wages in the beginning is a killer for them. If they are successful that will all change. There are tens of thousands of these small businesses that start up ever year. Some make it, most don't but they are the one that makes this economy boom simply with their collective numbers. The bill just passed by the Pelosi group does not contain a tax break for these small businesses. If the Senate does not add one then I feel confident that Bush will veto the bill. If he signs it without that protection I'm sure going to be disappointed in him.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Gandergrinder,

Don't stop now! I would like nothing more than to watch someone less than half DJ's age "rip him to shreds" on topics like this.

Then we could call you the "Roostergrinder"!

Rooster,

I can't hold my breath any longer waiting for you to explain who these people are that don't have access to health care.

Aside from my lack of arrogance, I think the main difference between you and I is my ability to separate the people who can't help themselves from those who WON'T. Since you have lumped me into a group you've referred to as "********", and by your choice of words that followed, clearly inferred that those in that group were idiots, and possessed a character totally devoid of compassion, I think anything I say fom this point forward is justly deserved.

Since I've got better things to do than waste my time on knuckleheads like you, this will most likely be the last time I speak directly to you, so I'll be as clear as I know how to be.

I have NO compassion for people who refuse to help themselves, and I stand by my inference that the vast majority of those without healthcare coverage lack it by choice....choosing instead to spend their money on other things.

And not that it matters to you, but let me show you I believe in putting my money where my mouth is. I was one of those "less fortunate" that some here think need to be carried by the Federal government. I made mere pennies over min. wage, and my wife made only slightly more than that when we got married in 1983. On that meager living, we managed to buy a house, keep vehicles operable, pay our taxes, and be good neighbors. We did all that while NEVER taking money from anyone else, family or government.

Since, as even you might expect, min. wage jobs seldom include healthcare in their benefit package, we also had to pay for our private healthcare. So, when we were blessed with our first child 2 years later, and the second a year after that, we were able to pay our bills. You should be comforted in knowing you paid none of them for us.

So if you're wondering why I may not seem too sympathetic, that should answer it for you. Even you should be able to understand how much better we could take care of those truly in need if the others would get off their lazy azzes and take care of themselves. But why should they when there are plenty of intellectual blockheads like yourself to fight for their "right" to be a burden on the rest of us?

Keep on talking about how the min. wage doesn't hurt anyone. Hell, follow it up with how printing more money will erase the federal debt. There are way more than enough people here to keep your points in check. That's what keeps us ALL coming back here...good natured debate, with more knowledge for all involved being the best result.

But most here are able to do it without making it personal, and never lose respect for the ones arguing the other side of the topic. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to do that. So with that in mind, and also being careful to not lose sight of the fact you are totally comfortable calling me names, along with others, I would like to close with this.

I don't know what DJ stands for. And since I don't, I wouldn't remember it for long if you told me. But I DO know what D.H. stands for. And since DJ cannot possibly fit you better than DH, I will think of you as Rooster, the DH from now on. I won't have a problem remembering that.

Hopefully I've been clear enough, and blunt enough, that not even you will have to resort to quoting me out of context, or feel the need to "read between my lines". C


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

My comments: data from US Dept. of Commerce shows that over 90% of all small business startups fail. Always has always will. 
Support Rooster, most people without health care can't afford it and it is a choice between food/housing and health care. Where we work, and employees pay about 1/4 of the cost, the total for basic coverage with Blue Cross is $356 every two weeks and that is for a very large group policy.

Now on to the article.

January 11, 2007
For $7.93 an Hour, It's Worth a Trip Across a State Line
By TIMOTHY EGAN

LIBERTY LAKE, Wash., Jan. 9 - Just eight miles separate this town on the Washington side of the state border from Post Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.

Nearly a decade ago, when voters in Washington approved a measure that would give the state's lowest-paid workers a raise nearly every year, many business leaders predicted that small towns on this side of the state line would suffer.

But instead of shriveling up, small-business owners in Washington say they have prospered far beyond their expectations. In fact, as a significant increase in the national minimum wage heads toward law, businesses here at the dividing line between two economies - a real-life laboratory for the debate - have found that raising prices to compensate for higher wages does not necessarily lead to losses in jobs and profits.

Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise their wages to compete.

Business owners say they have had to increase prices somewhat to keep up. But both states are among the nation's leaders in the growth of jobs and personal income, suggesting that an increase in the minimum wage has not hurt the overall economy.

"We're paying the highest wage we've ever had to pay, and our business is still up more than 11 percent over last year," said Tom Singleton, who manages a Papa Murphy's takeout pizza store here, with 13 employees.

His store is flooded with job applicants from Idaho, Mr. Singleton said. Like other business managers in Washington, he said he had less turnover because the jobs paid more.

By contrast, an Idaho restaurant owner, Rob Elder, said he paid more than the minimum wage because he could not find anyone to work for the Idaho minimum at his Post Falls restaurant, the Hot Rod Cafe.

"At $5.15 an hour, I get zero applicants - or maybe a guy with one leg who wouldn't pass a drug test and wouldn't show up on Saturday night because he wants to get drunk with his buddies," Mr. Elder said.

For years, economists have debated the effect that raising the minimum wage would have on business. While the federal minimum wage has not gone up for 10 years, 29 states have raised their wage beyond the federal minimum.

These increases, according to critics like Brendan Flanagan of the National Restaurant Association, are a burden on the small, mostly family-run businesses in fast food and agriculture that employ workers at the lowest end of the pay scale.

"We see the political momentum for this," said Mr. Flanagan, a vice president at the association, "but we cannot ignore what our members are telling us, which is that it will lead to job losses."

But the state's major business lobby, the Association of Washington Business, is no longer fighting the minimum-wage law, which is adjusted every year in line with the consumer price index.

"You don't see us screaming out loud about this," said Don Brunell, president of the trade group, which represents 6,300 members.

"It's almost a no-brainer," Mr. Brunell said, that the federal minimum should go higher. Association officials say they would like to see some flexibility for rural and small-town businesses, however.

Washington's robust economy, which added nearly 90,000 jobs last year, is proof that even with the country's highest minimum wage, "this is a great place to do business," Mr. Brunell said.

During a recession five years ago, the same group had argued that Washington's high minimum wage law would send businesses fleeing to Idaho. The group sent out a news release with a criticism of the law from John Fazzari, who owns a family-run pizza business in Clarkston, Wash., just minutes from the Idaho town of Lewiston.

But now Mr. Fazzari says business has never been better, and he has no desire to move to Idaho.

"To tell you the truth, my business is fantastic," he said in an interview. "I've never done as much business in my life."

Mr. Fazzari employs 42 people at his pizza parlor. New workers make the Washington minimum, $7.93 an hour, but veteran employees make more. To compensate for the required annual increase in the minimum wage, Mr. Fazzari said he raises prices slightly. But he said most customers barely notice.

He sells more pizza, he said, because he has a better product, and because his customers are loyal.

"If you look 10 years down the road, we will probably have no minimum wage jobs on this side of the border, and lots of higher-income jobs," Mr. Fazzari said.

Job figures from both states tend to support his point. While Idaho leads the nation in new job growth, it has a far higher percentage of minimum-wage jobs than Washington. Minimum-wage positions make up just 2.4 percent of the jobs in Washington, while about 13 percent of the jobs in Idaho pay at or less than the proposed federal minimum wage, according to a study done for the state last year.

Part of the difference could be accounted for by a lower cost of living in Idaho and the higher percentage of technology, manufacturing and government jobs in Washington, economists say. Still, it is hard to find a teenager in Idaho who lives anywhere near Washington who is willing to work for $5.15 an hour.

"Are you kidding? There are so many jobs nearby that pay way more than minimum wage," said Jennifer Stadtfeldt, who is 17 and lives in Coeur d'Alene, which is just a few minutes from Washington. She pointed out that Taco Bell, McDonald's and other fast-food outlets in her town were posting signs trying to entice entry-level workers with a starting pay of $7 an hour.

The House today passed a bill increasing the minimum wage, and about 13 million workers would see a pay raise if the Senate and President Bush approve it. Mr. Bush has said he would approve the wage increase so long as concerns of small-business owners were taken into account; the Senate has not yet taken up the bill.

Several studies have concluded that modest changes in the minimum wage have little effect on employment. A study two months ago by an economist at Washington State University seemed to back the experience of Clarkston and other border towns in Washington. The economist, David Holland, said job loss was minimal when higher wages were forced on all businesses. About 97 percent of all minimum-wage workers were better off when wages went up, he wrote.

But other business groups argue that an increase would hurt consumers and workers at the low end.

In a survey released on the eve of the November elections - in which voters in six states considered raising their minimum wages - the National Restaurant Association said restaurants expected to raise their prices and eliminate some jobs if the voters approved the measures. The initiatives all passed.

Here on this border, business owners have found small ways to raise their prices, and customers say they have barely noticed.

"We used to have a coupon, $3 off on any family-size pizza, and we changed that to $2 off," said Mr. Singleton, of Papa Murphy's. "I haven't heard a single complaint."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here on this border, business owners have found small ways to raise their prices, and customers say they have barely noticed.

I think that falls in well with what we said. We said business will fail, or raise prices. They raised prices. So everyone at minimum wage gets a raise, then business raises their prices, and minimum wage retains the same purchasing power. One other way to survive is for business to keep everyone at minimum wage. The guy there five years gets no raise. 
If it makes liberals happy double their salary. Business will raise their price accordingly and the minimum wage employee will still have the same buying power. The funny thing is the guy making five dollars more an hour didn't get a raise so his buying power is less. 
This whole thing is just the democrats buying votes with false economics. It gets the vote of the unskilled, and anyone who wants to feel good. The problem many on here have with our conservative theory is it robs you of the warm fuzzy feelings you were having.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Well, it passed by quite a few votes with about 80 republicans voting for the increase in the recommended and I repeat recommended minimum wage. Gandergrinder, I am not a communist just because my views are different than yours. If anything you would be that because I don't believe they allow free thinking in a communist society. I was pretty smart when I was 25 years old too and I used to know everything but now I seem to know less than I thought I did when I was your age. I also used to think that I was going to live forever but with a bad knee a sore back a bad elbow I also know that I am mortal. Communist, not I because I know what the word communist means. For some, if you are not republican you are a ........ Sorry but that kind of arrogance has gone the way of your president.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Sorry DJ you better look up the definition of communism. In a true communist society there are no classes everyone is equal to the other. Each person is paid the same doctor and janitor. Each person has the same say in decisions. The world has never had true communism. The "communist" countries we have known are really socialistic not communistic. The hippies of the 60's and 70's wanted eutopian societies they were true communistic thinkers.

Thanks for showing us the ignorance that we see daily from the liberals in your post.

I guess I'd rather be arrogant and know what I'm talking about than ignorant and just talk.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Gandergrinder, I am not a communist just because my views are different than yours.


No, you are a socialist or communist because of YOUR beliefs. It has nothing to do with us having different views. I'm not a republican in the political sense. Republicans today do not represent less government and fiscal responsibility. But in terms of social theory, I do lean to the right.



> I was pretty smart when I was 25 years old too and I used to know everything but now I seem to know less than I thought I did when I was your age.


I get this arguement all the time from people older than me. I personally don't put much stock in the being older makes you smarter theory. Age might give you more experience but it has nothing to do with your ability to examine that experience and understand how it relates to other aspects of life.

So here is an examination of this experience. Debating these issues is a waste of my time. But just to get you started here is the definition of socialism.

socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Do you see what you espouse and how it relates to this definition?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Sorry Swifty, if you read what I said I spoke of free thinking in a communist country and I don't think free thinking was allowed in the old communist countries of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba etc. although it is getting to be more common as they are evolving under new leadership. There was so much more to living in a communist country than believing in the communist form of government and free thinking was not a part of the communist form of thought. If you were a free thinker and expressed your views you were pretty much commited to the Gulag. Gandergrinder called me a communist because I didn't agree with his views. A person who believes in democracy would not use the word communist so freely. And I should not say that because I know he believes in democracy as much as you and I. I do find it a little weird that I have been called a communist by others in these forums who are a little more conservative in their views but that is more a result of their insecurity than my position. Oh well, so much for semantics. It passed and I am not a communist anymore than you or Gandergrinder! If that is the case we must have 300+ communists in our legislature because they voted the same way! More important than the minumum wage issue is the health care issue and the social security issue and George W and the republican majority said they were going to hit these problems hard about 6-7 years ago on the campaign trail and well....[/i]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, both parties for years have said they will fix social security. I couldn't keep track of the number of times Gore used the term "lock blox", but neither party will fix it. Regan saved it for a while, but the public wasn't aware that he just prolonged the inevitable, and maybe made it worse in the long run. What he did was rob the federal employees fund. Federal employees have their money invested and he shouldn't have been able to touch it. Upon retirement a federal employee no longer drew from the general fund, but their own system. There was to much money there tempting Regan so he stole it to save social security. I believe that was about 1986. He then had to revamp the federal retirement system. It had been number one in 1970, but no longer rates in the top 1000 retirement systems. It is essentially a reduced social security, and they will match up to 6% of your savings. That and about 2% of your salary. 
There is nothing left to save social security the next time it heads down the tubes. Taxes go up, or benefits go down, or?????
The minimum wage, I think, only passed the house. I see GW said he would sign it with some provisions if the Senate passes it. In the end it's simple feel good. Many of us will not notice the price increases it causes, but the minimum wage person will only notice his raise for a short time. The only person really hurt is the worker making slightly more than minimum wage. He will be back on the bottom again. Liberals feeling good at the expense of others. 
As far as gander grinder calling you a communist, it isn't like name calling and it isn't his insecurity. You have it turned 180 degrees (again), it is because of your position. Government control of salaries, more taxes, but only for the rich (redistribution of wealth). I would say that 80 percent of liberals have socialist leanings ranging from mild to very strong, and the democratic party uses tax money to buy those votes by making people addicted to handouts. Have whatever views you want, but have the intestinal fortitude to admit to yourself what you are, and that is some level of socialist.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Rooster,
Which branch of Government are you employed by.? :eyeroll: 
I deliberatly did not use the words "work for" :lol:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Sorry DEEEG but non of the old communist countrys were COMMUNIST. They were socilalists. Free thinking communists are hippies living in utopian cults


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Maybe we should refer to Rooster as a Marxist? ITs the same as a communist in most of our eyes, but he might see enough distinction to realize were not insulting him by calling him communist, but rather simply that since he is obviously not a capitalist, he has to be something else.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Gun Owner said:


> Maybe we should refer to Rooster as a Marxist? ITs the same as a communist in most of our eyes, but he might see enough distinction to realize were not insulting him by calling him communist, but rather simply that since he is obviously not a capitalist, he has to be something else.


So then all far right conservatives will now be called Nazi's????

Sorry couldn't resist k:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I simply call it "Socialist" ...America is a mitigated ... Socialist Country ...

Many truly and undeniably Socialist aspects of our Society are commonly viewed by the masses as things they have a "Right" to have provided to them.

We clamour to be defined by what our Constitution created, but we want to mitigate it's intention in order to have things we did not work for.

A quote I have posted previously ....

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Ken explain yourself. Nazi's believed in a superior race. The right aren't trying to exterminate races. Again an Ignorant liberal comment.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Swift,

It's entertaining getting to know people on here. I would bet a months wages that Ken doesn't think the right are Nazi's. Ken might be bored and decided to entertain himself. 
Left/Right??

Far left = Marxist
Far right = I don't know I have heard people call them fascist. 
So we perhaps have in order left to right:
Marxist, current communists, Socialism from the extreme of France to slightly like the United States, (democrats and republicans would both fall in here), fascists are as far right from republicans as communists are left from democrats. 
On a scale of one to ten (ten most socialist) republicans on a national average would hit a ----maybe 3 while the average democrat may be at about a 5. GW at a 2 and the last presidential hopeful Kerry at about a 9.

That's how I see it anyway.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Plainsman you have a good post there. I wanted Ken to state his case because his previous posts have showed he is a left wing liberal. And listening to him justify enabling the takers from society is entertaining.


----------



## FallsGuy16 (Oct 4, 2006)

I see the minumum wage as a must have. And increasing it is crucial. If you got rid of all minimum wage requirements I think companies would exploit the workers. If you don't think so, then why are so many manufacturing jobs being sent overseas? So they can pay workers $1/day for working 12 hours/day, 7 days a week. These places have no labor practices or minumum wage laws. Look at the exploitation of the workers at the start of the 19th century. These people worked in sweat shops and dangerous work conditions for very little pay until the Fair Labor Standards Act was put into place. Too much gov't regulation is a bad thing, but we can't leave it soley up to business to do the right thing.

Just like the Gov't needs to be held in check, so do businesses.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

FallsGuy16 said:


> I see the minumum wage as a must have. And increasing it is crucial. If you got rid of all minimum wage requirements I think companies would exploit the workers. If you don't think so, then why are so many manufacturing jobs being sent overseas? So they can pay workers $1/day for working 12 hours/day, 7 days a week. These places have no labor practices or minumum wage laws. Look at the exploitation of the workers at the start of the 19th century. These people worked in sweat shops and dangerous work conditions for very little pay until the Fair Labor Standards Act was put into place. Too much gov't regulation is a bad thing, but we can't leave it soley up to business to do the right thing.
> 
> Just like the Gov't needs to be held in check, so do businesses.


I'll admit you do have a point. They will also charge as much as they can, especially if they think you have to have it. I just put over $2000 into one tooth. I had to save it or I wouldn't be chewing. 
You made a point that jogged my thought. With the minimum wage hike, how many more jobs will go over seas.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

My question would be ...

If all those jobs were not going over seas ... who would be working at them??

We have only about 4.5% unemployment ...

There was a time when anything at or under 5 to 6% was considered "FULL EMPLOYMENT."

When you figure a large portion of that 4.5% are chronicly unemployed or unemployable ... America literally does not have the work force available to do those jobs...

We need those jobs going over seas so Americans can focus on other more "modern" type jobs.

Or so it seems to me.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Remember someone saying the devil is in the details. Well it seems that someone on the Democratic side inserted a provision that American Samoa was exempted from the minimum raise hike. Oh..... did I mention that Del Monte was the largest employer on the island. And did I mention that Del Monte headquarters are in San Francisco.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

swift said:


> Ken explain yourself. Nazi's believed in a superior race. The right aren't trying to exterminate races. Again an Ignorant liberal comment.


Swift....so then I can call the above comment a conservative ignorant comment???

Just responding to calling DJ a communist becaise he is on the left....if that is true then as Plainsman says....far right conservatives are Fascist=Nazis.


----------



## FallsGuy16 (Oct 4, 2006)

> We need those jobs going over seas so Americans can focus on other more "modern" type jobs.


I would ask all the people that lost their jobs about how much we NEED those jobs being sent overseas and see what they think. The companies that send manfacturing jobs overseas are not doing anyone a favor! I don't have proof, but if I had to bet on the motive for sending jobs overseas it is NOT because the companies are trying help the US so we can focus on more modern jobs. They are doing it soley for a bigger profit. They might cut wage expenses by 200%, but they are not changing how much they charge for their product...i.e. Nike shoes still cost $100+. I am not against a company making a profit, but don't say that we NEED jobs shipped overseas when we have millions of people without jobs here. Not everyone in this country can be a skilled worker, just like Judge Smails said, "the world needs ditch diggers too."


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

How many jobs do you suppose have gone over seas?

Just a rough (reasonably researched) guess should be fine.

And BTW ... I'm not sure "Ditch Digging" qualifies as a "Manufacturing Job."


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

FG 16
Last time I checked with my construction buddies Ditch Diggers are paid around 15 bucks per hour. The trick is finding someone that wants to do that job.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Obviously there are Service jobs which by definition must be done "On Site" ... those jobs have always and will always exist.

But America has always had a progressive economy ... the days of the "Blacksmith" and "Buggy Whip" disappeared as newer technology evolved ... Railroads aren't what they once were ...

America doesn't have a problem employing all who want to work ... but technology and the workplace are constantly changing/upgrading ... folks who don't recognize that and continue moving forward with it will be left by the wayside ...

And that folks has always been and will always be the case.


----------



## FallsGuy16 (Oct 4, 2006)

My point was in response to the comment 


> We need those jobs going over seas so Americans can focus on other more "modern" type jobs


. . 
The US NEEDS work here for ALL people, white collar, blue collar, ALL jobs. Not eveyone can be a doctor, laywer etc... I'm not claiming to have an answer, but I'd rather see jobs stay in the US vs being sent somewhere else.

Here is some info that I found on jobs being shipped overseas:

Shipping Jobs Overseas: How Real Is the Problem? 
Print


> Since 2001, the nation has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs and more than 850,000 professional service and information sector jobs. No one knows for sure how many of these jobs have been lost due to increased import competition and shifts in production abroad, since no comprehensive official data are collected. Various independent estimates indicate the number of white-collar jobs lost to shipping work overseas over the past few years is in the hundreds of thousands and millions are at risk in the next five to ten years. But the number of jobs lost need not be overwhelming in order to concern policymakers: increased overseas outsourcing also undermines wages and working conditions in those jobs left behind and threatens the long-term health of the economy.





> The numbers are startling: 3.3 million jobs in less than 15 years. That's the number of U.S. jobs expected to be lost overseas by 2015 according to a recent report by Forrester Research. But the sheer size of the exodus isn't what's worrying analysts the most - it's the type of jobs. Some critics are worried that this time it's the corporate main office is getting ready to shut down and head out of the country, packing up cubicles and all. As reported on NOW, a new wave of jobs are leaving U.S. shores: software development, customer service, accounting, back-office support, product development and other white collar endeavors.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> You made a point that jogged my thought. With the minimum wage hike, how many more jobs will go over seas.


I was going to bring this up but I was having so much fun I didn't want to change the subject. I would guess that some jobs will go over seas.



> They are doing it soley for a bigger profit. They might cut wage expenses by 200%, but they are not changing how much they charge for their product...i.e. Nike shoes still cost $100+.


Companies don't answer to employees, they answer to shareholders. As an investor I think that is the way it should be. I'm risking my capital to create the business, shouldn't I be the one that benefits from that risk?

Answer me this. How many of you have retirement accounts? Would you be willing to have less money in retirement if it meant that you could keep a few more jobs in this country? Then you should also be willing to buy only american products?

I'll be honest with you. I buy the best products given the price. I don't care where they are made. The money that I save I invest. Those investments create more money (at least they should), that in turn gets invested. You know what happens to all that money? It gets used to create more jobs. Jobs in the US or someplace else.

Why do I do it? Because I believe that we are all better off when I do what I do best and you do what you do best and then we trade.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

FallsGuy16 ... and anyone else reading this stuff ...

We see and hear all these "patented" arguments reagarding things like "Jobs Going Over Seas" and we get everyone buying into the notion just because it sounds so "Off the Cuff Obvious" that it MUST be a problem, when in reality there are many other dynamics going on we are unaware of, fail to think about or refuse to acknowledge ... Just because that "patented" argument seems logical (in an off the cuff sort of way) and is repeated ... we never stop to examine it.

My point is simply ... assuming we have a labor force of about 140 million (and that's pretty close) with an unemployment rate of 4.5% it means we have approx 6.6 million umemployed. Taking your numbers and deducting them from the 6.6 Million we end up with 3.2 million unemployed.

That would be assuming all those jobs plus the jobs the ecomnomy has created on it's own were all filled.

That would put our unemployment rate at about 2.5% ... Considering the lowest it's been since 1996 is 3.8% which was right at the end of the Dot.com bubble and the Enron/Worldcom era of corruption ... back during a time when folks had jobs (along with most eveything they had worked years to accumulate) that they did not yet know did not exist!

I just don't see an unemployment rate of 2.5% as reasonable when you consider how many folks are chronicly unemployed or unemployable. 
Our ecomnomy demands there be a pool of unemployed folks there ready to fill the next job opening.

Also ... Jobs are not like an undesireable birthday present that an employer can just stuff in the closet til someone walks along that might like it.

Eutopia I believe is a little car ride at Disneyland ... not part of the real world economy.

Also ... Labor costs are not the major reason American industy moves off shore.


----------



## FallsGuy16 (Oct 4, 2006)

> Our ecomnomy demands there be a pool of unemployed folks there ready to fill the next job opening.


If we need unemployment for a healthy economy so we have a ready supply of workers, but we do not want to give handouts to people without jobs, how do we keep the 6.6 million unemployed people around to wait until they have a chance to work?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Written by Walter B. Wriston , former chairman & CEO of Citicorp/Citibank. A few years old but as Paul Harvey says.... the rest of the story.

"For better or for worse, we all live in Marshall McLuhan's "global village" and Chicken Little runs through our living room on every hourly newscast. This does not mean that there are not real problems in the world. There are. What is relatively new is that today one politician can command coast-to-coast attention by repeating some assertion over and over -- a power not given to an absolute monarch a few years ago.

But in a world where the war on terrorism is the central problem of our time, it is ironic to hear some politicians and the mainstream media whipping up a perception that we have a major problem of exporting a lot of jobs to faraway places and receiving nothing but increased unemployment in return. This situation, we're told, is the dark side of globalization. Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that American CEOs whose companies outsource jobs should be censured or fired. This lament would make more sense if it came from countries around the world that are outsourcing their jobs to the U.S. in huge numbers.

The balance of jobs we import from abroad greatly exceeds the jobs we export abroad. Every time a foreign company decides to build a plant or opens an office in the U.S., Americans are put to work to man these facilities. Examples abound. Honda increased its U.S. manufacturing last year by 15%. And it is not only manufacturing that is attracted to our shores, but also intellectual capital. Novartis is moving its huge world-wide research and development operation from Switzerland to Massachusetts. Texas is the beneficiary of a $500 million investment from Samsung to build a new semiconductor plant. In some cases -- described in this paper recently as "the second wave of Nafta" -- Mexico is now able to invest abroad, and that investment is creating "thousands of jobs" for U.S. workers. Many countries with ample capital have poured a steady stream of job-creating investment into the U.S.

The Organization for International Investment keeps track of the number of jobs that are outsourced by other countries to the U.S. While we are exporting some jobs to other countries, the greatest beneficiary of outsourcing is the U.S. itself. We are importing many more jobs than we export. Indeed foreign companies of all kinds from all over the world are attracted to our stable political environment, our relatively low corporate tax rate and the huge growth in productivity by American workers. Many foreign companies trying to compete in the global market carry the cost of the residual socialism found in some European countries, and they look to the U.S. as a far more salubrious business climate.

The latest figures show that as German and Japanese auto makers, foreign drug companies and banks outsource to the U.S., some 6.4 million American jobs were created in 2001, up from 4.9 million in 1991. Contrary to the political static, some 34% of these imported jobs are in the manufacturing sector of our economy. These foreign companies operating in the U.S. are creating more jobs for Americans than homegrown U.S. companies. In the heartland, where the drumbeat against "exporting jobs" is the loudest, data shows that Ohio has imported 242,000 jobs; Indiana has attracted 163,000; and in Michigan some 244,000 jobs, about 6% of the workforce, are imported. And the list goes on. Sometimes the loudest laments originate from the states that have imported the most jobs.

In addition to creating jobs for Americans, many of the U.S.-based foreign companies also export products. Indeed, these exports now constitute about 22% of all American exports. At a time when some worry about our trade balance, this is not an insignificant achievement. Because of globalization, which is currently under attack in some quarters, it should be noted that in addition to the annual payroll of $350 billion flowing to American workers, American investors benefit by owning 20% of the common stock of the largest of these foreign companies. These job-creating foreign investments in the U.S. are "win-win" situations for all concerned".


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

FallsGuy16 said:


> [how do we keep the 6.6 million unemployed people around to wait until they have a chance to work?


It is the responsibility of the unemployed to match themselves with a suitable job if they truely want one ... it has nothing to do with "WE"

It appears (based on that question) you have bought into the Socialist scheme ... "Hook Line and Sinker"

Oh Gohon ... nice post, I had let that aspect completely slip by in my consideration of the subject ... thanks.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Gohon, I guess the whole country has their heads in their butt's, except you! Evrything is A ok , American outsorcing of jobs is not hurting us. Just remember when you call customer service and someone from India ansewers the phone that is one job an American does not have. When Ford and Chevrolet started opining car plants in Canada that did not hurt American workers either.

Fact for the first time in a while the next generation can look forward to a lifestyle less affluent than the last! Two incomes are needed to get by but that is another story.

But after we win the war in Iraq and the American Economy is booming, I would gladly buy you a beer and sit in the corner with a dunce cap on!!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

As a side note ... the economy has produce (just under) 1 million new jobs in the past siix months.

And When I went to McDonalds two days ago they gave me the wrong sandwich and did not get the fork in my bag for the Cinnimon bun I ordered. So I don't think the million new workers were in there making sure things were happening to perfection.


----------

