wow... something to erally think about

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sk:

trickle down economics is a load of crap... what I am most sad about is the dissapearance of the middle class.

---

Then explain why the '80's produced such incredible wealth and raised income levels in ALL classes, and produced an incredibly high level of charitable giving.

The middle class has "disappeared" because the liberals have reclassified someone who makes $50,000 as "rich"; It's a smoke-and-mirrors thing.

 

Greg W

 

Page top on a Monday, Wahoo!!

 

[ 09-09-2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Greg W ]

[Peter_Puget]

DRU - Exactly what happens to a "rich" person's money when it is saved?

[sk]

from where I sit 50,000$ a year IS rich. I am not an expert, all I know is that durring the 80's I saw a tramendous amount of RESESSION going on. sure by the mid 90's things were "bull market" again, but here in oregon there were too many adults working minimum wadge jobs so as a teen it was difficult to find work. I don't remember alot of giving going on in the 80's. I remember people spending on credit and the poor getting poorer. prices getting astranomicly higher and wadges Not keeping up. for instance, in 1978 my parents bought a 3 bedroom house for roughly 60,000$ that same house sold in the late 90's for 150,000$. explain it to me greg, cause I realy want to know why economicly it is LIKE this.

 

I love this happy monday!

[allison]

I recommend that anyone who thinks it's easy to rise above poverty read the book Nickel and Dimed. I think Barbara Eisenrath is the author.

 

She goes 'undercover' as a poor person to see if she can support herself in a few different cities, and with a few different jobs. Pretty fascinating read, and a very easy way to understand how hard it can be to go from poor to not poor.

 

And FWIW I am not a big TV watcher. Do they talk about rising from poverty on TV a lot?

[chucK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chucK:

This is far above current minimum wage.

---

Please explain how that enters into your reasonong.

---

OK. I assumed that if it was easy to get any job, it would be easy to get a minimum-wage job. Maybe not the best logical support for my belief that steady 50 hour/week 10$/hour work is not easy to come by.

 

Fence Sitter,

Why don't you just do 60 hours per week at 18 $/hour, then you can show everybody should be able be making more than 50k/year! Those with a degree of course, and not high-school students.

[Stefan]

There are poor people in the San Francisco area. Read the newspaper. They even have college degreees. They were in the "internet" era and I bet they were worked their asses off.

 

Ever been to Pakistan? Those porters carry 50lb packs from 10K to 16K in plastic shoes and flip flops on glaciers. They sure as hell aint lazy and guess what? They are poor even by Pakistani standards.

[Peter_Puget]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chucK:

[QB]Maybe not the best logical support for my belief that steady 50 hour/week 10$/hour work is not easy to come by. QB]

---

Agreed.

 

I think that most of those earning minum wage desire to work less than full time. Ansd I believe that is the case throughout US Canada and Western Europe.

 

Fence sitter isn't $10/hr for one year at 50hrs/week closer to $26K?

 

PP

[Greg_W]

Allison - funny that people did it before being a bum ("homeless" to you PC folks) was socially acceptable.

 

Chuck - Fency's modest $10 premise is a good one. Here's why I think so: A $10/hr semi-skilled construction laborer with a little ambition can move up to a 2nd or 3rd level carpenter making $14-16, after a few years he can make 1st level making $18-22. Beyond that there are foreman and supervisory roles. This example comes from my company (non-union concrete construction) where I have seen this take place. Guys start out knowing nothing, show some promise and drive, and move up.

 

Greg W

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefan:

Ever been to Pakistan? Those porters carry 50lb packs from 10K to 16K in plastic shoes and flip flops on glaciers. They sure as hell aint lazy and guess what? They are poor even by Pakistani standards.

---

Pakistan is not the United States, Stefan. We have the richest "poor" in the world.

[chucK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

---

I think that most of those earning minum wage desire to work less than full time. And I believe that is the case throughout US Canada and Western Europe.

 

Please explain the reasoning behind this "belief".

[Peter_Puget]

Read it somewhere recently If I can fish out the reference I will.

[allison]

Ah, Greg's a scab. Now it all makes sense.

 

I've been accused of being a name-caller before, which I haven't. NOW you can call me a name-caller.

 

Here's to scab construction labor:

 

PS. Petey, you know I love you to pieces, but that's also a load of horsedukey. A lot of employers are requiring employees to work less than FT so that they don't get near overtime, and so that they don't qualify for other benefits such as vacation, health care, and retirement.

 

[ 09-09-2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: allison ]

[Peter_Puget]

Allison pleae stop picking on Greg!

[Stefan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefan:

Ever been to Pakistan? Those porters carry 50lb packs from 10K to 16K in plastic shoes and flip flops on glaciers. They sure as hell aint lazy and guess what? They are poor even by Pakistani standards.

---

Pakistan is not the United States, Stefan. We have the richest "poor" in the world.

---

Sure we have the richest poor in the world. I have seen it. I was just trying to show that a community anywhere in the world will have poor/rich/middle class regardless of how hard people work or how much education they have.

 

Most people are not poor by their own choice no matter where you live in the world. Most people haven't had the opportunities or don't have access to monetary capital. I believe most people want to work hard. Only a few people are truly lazy......

[Cobra]

I think some may "want" to work hard until the work is in their face. Then they just get lazy or blow it off. My guess is that 1 out of ten will show the desire to excel and work hard for promotion. Most of the others may likely just work well when it is convenient for them to try to make themselves look good.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison:

Ah, Greg's a scab. Now it all makes sense.

 

I've been accused of being a name-caller before, which I haven't. NOW you can call me a name-caller.

 

Here's to scab construction labor:

 

PS. Petey, you know I love you to pieces, but that's also a load of horsedukey. A lot of employers are requiring employees to work less than FT so that they don't get near overtime, and so that they don't qualify for other benefits such as vacation, health care, and retirement.

---

Allison, you union bitch. Union labor/extortion is the reason cars are so expensive and road improvement costs so much. Okay, how that the namecalling is out of the way. Actually, many small employers cannot afford the excessive payroll taxes and other costs of doing business (especially in the state of Washington). An individual has the right to move to a different employer if he wants more money, better benefits, etc.

 

Greg W

[allthumbs]

In Hamlet, Polonius counsels Laertes "Neither a borrower nor a lender be!" If more people heeded this advice, much of our current financial chaos might be avoided.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra:

I think some may "want" to work hard until the work is in their face. Then they just get lazy or blow it off. My guess is that 1 out of ten will show the desire to excel and work hard for promotion. Most of the others may likely just work well when it is convenient for them to try to make themselves look good.

---

You just proved why 10% of the citizens have 80% of the wealth, as Dru said.

[allison]

Union labor sets the wage standards for all workers. The fact is that the wage rates the union boys make directly affect what you make. Particularly when the evil 'prevailing wage' issue comes up. Essentially the fact the I pay my union dues makes your life better. Unions have been instrumental in creating safety laws that affect all workers. And of course, everyone's favorite: the 40 hour work week. Unions did that one too.

 

Believe me, I'd rather be called a b*tch than a scab. Any day of the week.

[chucK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

An individual has the right to move to a different employer if he wants more money, better benefits, etc.

---

Ah, but there's the rub, the crux of this whole debate (I think ).

 

First, an individual has the right the leave his current employer. There's no rights (beyond welfare I guess) that he'll gets another source of income.

 

Second, all have the right to quit a job, but many do not have the freedom to do so.

 

If you're working the above-stated 50 hours/week, it's quite difficult to be looking for another job. If you quit your 50 hour/week 24K$ job you (and your family) are gonna go homeless. Please don't reply with the assertion that your typical 24K$/year wage earner (that's not living with his parents) is gonna have nice little nest egg to pay the rent and buy food while he looks for another job (while not being able to use his previous boss as a reference because the previous boss is mad at him for quitting).

[Cobra]

Name one positive and outstanding thing that made the news in the past 5 years like allison mentions about unions. I payed union dues before. I still think it was a ripoff.

[chucK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

In Hamlet, Polonius counsels Laertes "Neither a borrower nor a lender be!" If more people heeded this advice, much of our current financial chaos might be avoided.

---

Like what?

[Greg_W]

You're right, Allison; labor unions set wage rates through extortion, threats, and intimidation. You're wrong, union wage rates don't do shit for what I make. "Prevailing Wage" is bullshit; this is a political ploy and costs the taxpayers more money when public jobs are awarded.

 

Your union dues don't affect my life one iota; except when I have to listen to some union puke whine on one of my jobs because he has to carry a stick of rebar 10 extra feet. Unions have outlived their usefulness. Now they are nothing more than a vehicle to extort from employers and to serve as a hiding place for useless people who hide behind the implied threat of union repercussions. Why should a third party have the right to tell my boss what he should pay an individual?

 

Don't try and tell me that none of the stuff I mentioned doesn't happen because I do, or have, dealt with all of it my entire career with more than just one union.

 

Allison, you are a perfect example of the sheep that the unions love to get ahold of and program to spew their brand of crap.

 

Greg W

[sk]

7 years ago I was an assistant manager for a franchise fast food place. I woked 30 hours a week. I was making 5.25$ an hour. My manager who worked almost 70 hours a week made about 16,000 a year. We were in a suck shit situation for a bad company, but at the time those were the jobs available. we were POOR! I quit and had kids. No one pays me to take care of my babys. she quit and got an entry level job for a major corp. and is now very well off and in middle managment. So it is about choices. We talk often about who made the correct choice and I guess we each made the best choice for ourselves. But I am telling you I work hard. harder than she does, cause she tired to be me for a week when I had surgery.

[Peter_Puget]

In a month ask a Boeing Machinist how great his union is! Talk about leading the lambs to the slaughter. ANother example of unions scrwing their membership was lumbermill unions. They should have been actively advocating a reduced workforce wand retraining for their members but since that would reduce the number sin the union and require forward looking thinking they screwed their membership.