![]() |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
Real wages for 90 percent of americans are declining. You are terrible people if you want that trend to continue. [/ QUOTE ] No, you're a terrible person if you think Americans "deserve" to make a few extra thousand whereas Mexicans don't deserve to eat. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
The YouTube comments page has gone completely out of control.
|
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
I find more and more threads where I have nothing to contribute because bobman has said everything I want to say. This should probably worry bobman. [/ QUOTE ] I am very concerned. I went out today and got myself a new "I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] THE STATE" bumper sticker for my car today just to remind myself what I believe in. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
God bless Bobman. His first response is exactly true.
The union period in American history is really regrettable. Bryan Caplan of Econlog makes the point that we glorify this period of American history wrongly because of American dominance of the world economy. In a new industry, he claims, growth is paramount: grabbing market share makes less sense that controlling profits. Google, for example, might be the prime example of our time. It has grabbed huge share of the search industry, lavishly spending on its employees to grab valuable market share, (and they have low fixed costs). Similary, the big 3 in Detroit were so busy expanding and creating cars for everyone in America that not much attention was paid to the insanely cushy jobs of the American union worker, who doesn't currently have marketable skills. The auto industry has matured. The IT industry is maturing. Clearly, there is much to gain in a new entrepneurial industry of IT. Perhaps it's "Web 2.0" (Facebook?) Perhaps it's telecom like Skype. There are always possibilities for people who want to make alot of money, and paying attention to the trends would do anyone well for those who want those cushy jobs. Yet I am pleased as well. For all the whining of these "poor Americans", the beautiful power of evolution and creative destruction raises its head again. You see, a singular government can no longer tyrannize its own people. It is a beautiful thing we don't have a global government, because now even governments must deal with the slimming effects of competition. Capital is HIGHLY mobile. No longer can corrupt and inefficient governments lord over their profitable industry. Limit the freedom of IT in America, and it will JUST MOVE. Corporate tax rates are plummeting around the globe, and governments are keenly competing to attract high-growth industries, with those requisite skills and minds. Let America overextend itself. The moment we lose our entrepreneurial spirit, vigor, and commendable individualism, that's the moment I lose my national "pride" - I'm ready for the Chinese, or Singaporean, or Irish resurgence. Governments, for the first time, beware. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Real wages for 90 percent of americans are declining. You are terrible people if you want that trend to continue. [/ QUOTE ] No, you're a terrible person if you think Americans "deserve" to make a few extra thousand whereas Mexicans don't deserve to eat. [/ QUOTE ] Well, "deserve" is a moral or ethical judgment, not really an objective standard. Blue-collar Americans are not to be faulted for placing their own interests first, just as you are not to be faulted for putting your own self-interest above the interests of your opponents when you try to win over them at poker. Also, I'm afraid I still don't fully understand why Mexico apparently can't become prosperous in its own right: Mexico has a large and eager work force, as well as abundant natural resources including oil, so...why must Mexicans move to the United States in order to eat? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Real wages for 90 percent of americans are declining. You are terrible people if you want that trend to continue. [/ QUOTE ] No, you're a terrible person if you think Americans "deserve" to make a few extra thousand whereas Mexicans don't deserve to eat. [/ QUOTE ] Well, "deserve" is a moral or ethical judgment, not really an objective standard. Blue-collar Americans are not to be faulted for placing their own interests first, just as you are not to be faulted for putting your own self-interest above the interests of your opponents when you try to win over them at poker. Also, I'm afraid I still don't fully understand why Mexico apparently can't become prosperous in its own right: Mexico has a large and eager work force, as well as abundant natural resources including oil, so...why must Mexicans move to the United States in order to eat? [/ QUOTE ] Their government is even worse than ours? You are confusing Mexicans (the nationality) with Mexicans (the individuals) here, I think. The individuals are coming here because thats where the jobs are. I don't know why the nationality can't create more jobs or whatever, I don't know anything about Mexican economics. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not sure what their motivation is at this company, but I have to agree that whatever it is, it's their business to run their place as they see fit, including hiring anyone they choose without any intervention from the government.
That said; how it affects American workers should not matter. If the best workers cannot get work at places like this, then they will form their own companies, and perhaps do better. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time and energy working for these cheap bastards. The only thing missing in the video is the clown suits. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. the law is stupid and self destructive. A free flow of labor benefits all. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Maybe it does maybe it doesn't. In the short term, there is no doubt that lower income lesser skilled workers pay a disproportionately high price for an increasing supply of labor. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, as soon as I hit send I thought about "for all" and it's obviously not true. Those whose wages would remain higher through protectionism will be hurt a bit in the short term. But when it comes to skilled workers, job protectionism is absolutely ridiculous and even for unskilled workers, the free flow of labor eventually creates more jobs and industries and/or spurs workers to develop skills. natedogg |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
And now we have propaganda pieces like this that demonize companies for complying with the law and doing their best to find the most qualified, most suitable worker. [/ QUOTE ] You don't expect the Programmers Guild, a union-like outfit, to try to protect and better the working conditions of its sector? These kind of professional organizations have been very successful in the past. Just ask your doctor, nurse, engineer, architect, or favorite ball player. How does "Our goal is clearly NOT to find a qualified worker" appear to you not to be a circumvention of the law? And you still say they are doing their best to find the most qualified, most suitable worker?!? [ QUOTE ] If the price of your job goes down because supply increases, too bad for you. Suck it up or develop some more valuable skills. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, I'm a 55 year old semi-skilled, trades, or manufacturing worker in Pittsburgh with 35 years in and it is too bad for me? Sorry, Bob, I'm going to try to protect my job. My freedom of association is still OK with you isn't it? |
![]() |
|
|