This is a two-part thread.

Let's look at the first issue, the word "fortunate" itself. Dictionary.com defines fortunate as....

for�tu�nate (f�rch-nt)
adj.

1.Bringing something good and unforeseen; auspicious.
2.Having unexpected good fortune; lucky.

Therefore, if you are describing low-income earners as "less fortunate" (a term devised by Democrats and leftists alike I may add), it implies they simply were not lucky in life, instead of partially being victim of the decisions that they made in their own lives.

Does the contrary ring true as well? Does that mean the ones who actually achieved and succeeded only done so because they were "lucky" and didn't work their ass off and make the decisions they needed to in order to accomplish what they have in life? This actually has been a thought that has been going around sometime, as a year or two ago Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) referred to high achievers as "Those who have won life's lottery". Is that how people actually percieve every financially independent person, as someone who was just "fortunate" to be in the spot they are in today, like picking a lottery number?

Of course there are people out there in this world that were born into the decrepit situations they are in, as well as there are people in this world that were born "with a silver spoon". But of course, rarely has it been stated nowadays of people that come from poor conditions and a harmful environment that have become the exception of the norm and made their way to the top and become high-achievers. Likewise, there have been people that were born in luxury that have taken a hard fall while being rich, and have either ended up in jail or have lost a fortune (some might be facing the latter on Wall Street now). In this society do we try to educate people that it is possible to transfer yourself from either situation, granted that you make decisions supportive of success or failure? Do we actually live by the term, "Life is 10% of what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it.", or do we sit around miserably or even naively thinking that we live in a virtual caste system, and our situations, especially black people, will never change no matter what we do?

_______________________________

The second part of this thread seeks to question the standard of "poverty".

What can actually be called poverty? What conditions and standards must be applied in order for someone to be called "poor", specifically in these United States?

M2 and I have had this conversation before over at the old Boondocks site, but never with you guys. I think when we tend to think of people that are "rich", we tend to think of multi-millionaires, mostly white, with mansions and rolls royces, limosines, etc. However, the IRS and politicians knowingly call someone that is making around $350,000/yr rich. Why? Because they are classified as the top 1% of wage-earners, aka to leftists "the greedy, filthy rich".

Same with the poor. When we think of the poor, we tend to think of people living in sub-normal shelter and conditions. We think of homeless people. We think of people that dont have any food, wear dirty clothes, parents with no jobs, and children that go hungry. I honestly think that when a majority of you think of the "poor and the less fortunate", you think of something simular to watching the infomercial "Save The Children".

But is that actually realistic more often than not to the "poor" in the US? Sure, there are isolated spots in this country in which there are people that are indeed in need of help, such as Appalacia, but are all poor seen in the same standard? Can all welfare recipients be classified as poor, even though they have the luxuries that most people in America have: televisions, phones, VCR's, etc? There is a television in 99% of the homes in the United States; 98% of those televisions are color. However, the "poverty rate" in America is supposed to be 10%, and hasn't dropped in the last 40 years. There are people in other nations that have never seen a television; in fact they would amazed at the sight of chewing gum.

Hence, is your idea of poverty in America for the most part (emphasis on most part) an illusion? Or are you actually taking the luxuries that they happen to possess in consideration?

Just thought I'd make you guys think this weekend...

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

-Liberals often present success as the result of Good Luck and being "less fortunate" as the result of Bad Luck.

-Conservatives present success as being an achiever and being "less fortunate" as the result of Bad Choices.

Both perspectives are not entirely correct. To be successful you do need to work hard, you also need a "little" luck. Furthermore, you may/may not need a little help.

Can I honestly say that the success I've had in life to this point isn't the result of how my parents raised me? The lessons they taught me? My father having me read the Wall St. Journal since I was 5? How about the computers? The subscriptions to Business Week and Popular Science? How about college? All I had to do was get in, while other kids had to worry about coming up with the money.

As someone who considers themselves an "achiever" I feel I can say that I've gotten to where I am through my own determination and hard work. BUT, I had help along the way that put in a position to achieve in the first place.

The vast majority of poor people were born poor, therefore they're just following in the foot steps of their parents. They may make a few bad decisions, but all in all they're just imitating their parents. Some may escape, but as you said Expertise...they're the exception to the norm.

Looking at my friends who are doing well right now, they almost all came from families who were doing well. (High School & College) Same thing when I'm talking to my colleagues about their backgrounds. The couple that are poor can pretty much always point to someone who helped them along the way: A Wealtheir relative, a pastor, a teacher,

The point is that it's very rare for middle class children to go backwards and end up poor, furthermore it's not quite as rare but let's say it happens in less then 15% of all cases for Poor people to end up Middle Class or Rich.

This means that where you come from has a real bearing on your success, it may not be the utltimate determinate, but it has some affect. The people around you, your environment, family, etc...all real factors.

It's no wonder my friends who came from 6 figure income households, are heading in that direction or already there....and the ones that didn't...see that as almost impossible...while to my other friends...it's just normal.

This means that poor people aren't entirely the result of bad choices and that successful ones aren't entirely the result of making good ones. It's very rare for a person to be successful, or unsuccesful just based on their smarts or lack thereoff.

Neither the conservative or liberal stance towards success or failure recognizes this. The truth of the matter is somewhere in between both stance(s).


Poverty:

Too often, people look at the Welfare recepient with a TV and claim that they're not poor or not as poor as others may think. I think that this is a load of CRAP, TV and VCRs are not luxuries in America. The amount of money that Welfare recepients get is a pittance, with which they can barely feed themselves on....so what if they have a VCR...they ain't got isht besides that. $300 worth of electronics are their most valuable possessions.

To me, a poor person is someone for whom their current financial situation presents them buying a home. (You only need to make 25k/year to buy a house) A poor person can't buy a decent car....I'm not talkin about a Benz either...you can lease a Honda Civic for nothing down and $199/month. New clothes? No.....vacations? No......savings? No.....

To me, poor people are those who financial situation will prevent them from every owning any property, saving any money or building up any significant assets, regardless of how they earn their money. E.g. You make $20,000/yr...you can't buy a house...you can barely get a used car....you have to support a family...you can barely pay bills.....that person is poor. SO what if they have a TV? If the most valuable thing you have cost $300.......you're for damn sure poor.....

Rich.....well that just means you have money that works for you. So what if you make $350k/year.....you can build a net worth of 1 million pretty easily. (you could with a 1/3 of that...but that's another story ) I think being rich means that you can use your money to build up rather significant assets, and fairly easily. Poor means you have no chance of doing that..and Middle Class...means you can build some assets....but not as well as a rich person...


I'm out



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>-Liberals often present success as the
>result of Good Luck and
>being "less fortunate" as the
>result of Bad Luck.
>
>-Conservatives present success as being an
>achiever and being "less fortunate"
>as the result of Bad
>Choices.

Agreed. Although I do concede that people can fall victim to "fate", whether it's negative or positive. That doesn't mean they can't overcome it however.

>Both perspectives are not entirely correct.
>To be successful you do
>need to work hard, you
>also need a "little" luck.
>Furthermore, you may/may not need
>a little help.
>Can I honestly say that the
>success I've had in life
>to this point isn't the
>result of how my parents
>raised me? The lessons they
>taught me? My father
>having me read the Wall
>St. Journal since I was
>5? How about the computers?
>The subscriptions to Business Week
>and Popular Science? How about
>college? All I had to
>do was get in, while
>other kids had to worry
>about coming up with the
>money.

True also. The "ripple effect" I guess it is called....

>As someone who considers themselves an
>"achiever" I feel I can
>say that I've gotten to
>where I am through my
>own determination and hard work.
>BUT, I had help along
>the way that put in
>a position to achieve in
>the first place.

Everyone has help, one way or another, in paving the path of success or failure. Therefore, I feel the whole concept of assistance is relative, for everyone has had it, although not equal measurements.

>The vast majority of poor people
>were born poor, therefore they're
>just following in the foot
>steps of their parents. They
>may make a few bad
>decisions, but all in all
>they're just imitating their parents.
>Some may escape, but as
>you said Expertise...they're the exception
>to the norm.

Let me clarify myself. I stated "exception to the norm" on the basis that most stay in the same conditions they are used to, but not that they can't get out of those conditions. It depends on 1. the character of the individual and 2. the environment of the individual, as you have shown by using your parents as an example. But 1 can override 2.

>The point is that it's very
>rare for middle class children
>to go backwards and end
>up poor, furthermore it's not
>quite as rare but let's
>say it happens in less
>then 15% of all cases
>for Poor people to end
>up Middle Class or Rich.

Hmmm....I'll grant that estimate. I doubt if that can actually be proven in studies however, whether it's more or less.

>This means that where you come
>from has a real bearing
>on your success, it may
>not be the utltimate determinate,
>but it has some affect.
>The people around you, your
>environment, family, etc...all real factors.
>It's no wonder my friends who
>came from 6 figure income
>households, are heading in that
>direction or already there....and the
>ones that didn't...see that as
>almost impossible...while to my other
>friends...it's just normal.
>This means that poor people aren't
>entirely the result of bad
>choices and that successful ones
>aren't entirely the result of
>making good ones. It's very
>rare for a person to
>be successful, or unsuccesful just
>based on their smarts or
>lack thereoff.
>Neither the conservative or liberal stance
>towards success or failure recognizes
>this. The truth of the
>matter is somewhere in between
>both stance(s).

I personally never argued that it doesnt. However I feel most people put that into account entirely too much. I'm not down with the "product of your environment" thing. I honestly feel that we do not try to encourage people to get out of the funks they may be in, hence they are discouraged from changing their situations, hence developing a defeatist attitude.

>Too often, people look at the
>Welfare recepient with a TV
>and claim that they're not
>poor or not as poor
>as others may think. I
>think that this is a
>load of CRAP, TV and
>VCRs are not luxuries
>in America. The amount of
>money that Welfare recepients get
>is a pittance, with which
>they can barely feed themselves
>on....so what if they have
>a VCR...they ain't got isht
>besides that. $300 worth of
>electronics are their most valuable
>possessions.

Once again, that's an opinion, and opinions are relative. You might take certain items and conditions for granted, but the case remains that they could be valuable to someone else.

>To me, a poor person is
>someone for whom their current
>financial situation presents them buying
>a home. (You only need
>to make 25k/year to buy
>a house) A poor person
>can't buy a decent car....I'm
>not talkin about a Benz
>either...you can lease a Honda
>Civic for nothing down and
>$199/month. New clothes? No.....vacations? No......savings?
>No.....

But can't you argue that for most the opportunity remains for them to change that financial situation? I feel it can, if you're willing to work for it. Most people can make $25k a year; in fact, most do.

>To me, poor people are those
>who financial situation will prevent
>them from every owning any
>property, saving any money or
>building up any significant assets,
>regardless of how they earn
>their money. E.g. You make
>$20,000/yr...you can't buy a house...you
>can barely get a used
>car....you have to support a
>family...you can barely pay bills.....that
>person is poor. SO what
>if they have a TV?
>If the most valuable thing
>you have cost $300.......you're for
>damn sure poor.....

Family is an iffy, you have a choice as to if you want to raise one or simply stay single; ditto on having/raising children. Also, you're taking the meaning of luxuries out of context. I'm not arguing that poor people can't have the items they have, only that a continuous waste of "simple" luxuries could be part of the reason they are in the situations they are in, especially in the black community and the US. It has been conversed that Americans do too much spending and not enough investing, and since African-Americans generate less consumption than only nine countries in the world, despite still being a small population, I think that's a correct analysis.

Hypothetical question: The most valuable thing you possess cost $300 means you're poor. I'll grant you that one. But what if they have a number of items that cost around $200....let's say maybe 10. Can they still be considered poor? And if they can, is it because of poor resources or poor financial discipline?

>Rich.....well that just means you have
>money that works for you.
>So what if you make
>$350k/year.....you can build a net
>worth of 1 million pretty
>easily. (you could with a
>1/3 of that...but that's another
>story ) I think
>being rich means that you
>can use your money to
>build up rather significant assets,
>and fairly easily. Poor means
>you have no chance of
>doing that..and Middle Class...means you
>can build some assets....but not
>as well as a rich
>person...

Agreed. But the question is, does everyone see it that way?

New Quotes....

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. - Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. - H.L. Mencken

When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? - Henry David Thoreau

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" - Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

And always...my favorite....
Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take comfort in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today. Someone else tomorrow. You have no Constitutional right not to be offended. - Neal Boortz

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

Expertise and M2 basically agreeing......interesting.....and not to mention strange.

If I were to define poverty to rich.......I'd say your level of poverty or "richness" is dependent on your ability to use your money to save, invest, build wealth, buy property, and provide for your family things beyond food and clothing. E.g. Education

Material possessions have nothing to do with it.

Heck we should just define someone's level of poverty/richness, as an index that factors in net worth and income. Since Poverty is an economic condition, let's just quantify it and make it numbers based and not objective.

Anyway, when it comes to levels of help and being able to overcome adversity...I don't want to make a character judgement on someone if they're poor. They are tons of middle class people who just had better ops growing up and more help, and that's the only difference separating the two. Does one have more character then the other? No....one just had better opportunities.

The Ability to create a decent life for one's self is hard to quantify, all we know is that it seems to be dependent on the life your parents lead. While some people seem to escape, it seems that only the truly exceptional ones do. If we could only devise a way to give the non exceptional a decent shot, similar to your average spawn of middle class parents....then we could reach a point where we could truly say that if one is poor...then it is their own fault.


M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>This is a two-part thread.
>
>Let's look at the first issue,
>the word "fortunate" itself.
>Dictionary.com defines fortunate as....
>
>for�tu�nate (f�rch-nt)
> adj.
>
>
> 1.Bringing something good
>and unforeseen; auspicious.
>
> 2.Having unexpected good
>fortune; lucky.
>
>Therefore, if you are describing low-income
>earners as "less fortunate" (a
>term devised by Democrats and
>leftists alike I may add),
>it implies they simply were
>not lucky in life, instead
>of partially being victim of
>the decisions that they made
>in their own lives.
>
>Does the contrary ring true as
>well? Does that mean
>the ones who actually achieved
>and succeeded only done so
>because they were "lucky" and
>didn't work their ass off
>and make the decisions they
>needed to in order to
>accomplish what they have in
>life? This actually has
>been a thought that has
>been going around sometime, as
>a year or two ago
>Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota)
>referred to high achievers as
>"Those who have won life's
>lottery". Is that how
>people actually percieve every financially
>independent person, as someone who
>was just "fortunate" to be
>in the spot they are
>in today, like picking a
>lottery number?
>
>Of course there are people out
>there in this world that
>were born into the decrepit
>situations they are in, as
>well as there are people
>in this world that were
>born "with a silver spoon".
> But of course, rarely
>has it been stated nowadays
>of people that come from
>poor conditions and a harmful
>environment that have become the
>exception of the norm and
>made their way to the
>top and become high-achievers.
>Likewise, there have been people
>that were born in luxury
>that have taken a hard
>fall while being rich, and
>have either ended up in
>jail or have lost a
>fortune (some might be facing
>the latter on Wall Street
>now). In this society
>do we try to educate
>people that it is possible
>to transfer yourself from either
>situation, granted that you make
>decisions supportive of success or
>failure? Do we actually
>live by the term, "Life
>is 10% of what happens
>to me and 90% of
>how I react to it.",
>or do we sit around
>miserably or even naively thinking
>that we live in a
>virtual caste system, and our
>situations, especially black people, will
>never change no matter what
>we do?
>
>_______________________________
>
>The second part of this thread
>seeks to question the standard
>of "poverty".
>
>What can actually be called poverty?
> What conditions and standards
>must be applied in order
>for someone to be called
>"poor", specifically in these United
>States?
>
>M2 and I have had this
>conversation before over at the
>old Boondocks site, but never
>with you guys. I
>think when we tend to
> think of people that
>are "rich", we tend to
>think of multi-millionaires, mostly white,
>with mansions and rolls royces,
>limosines, etc. However, the
>IRS and politicians knowingly call
>someone that is making around
>$350,000/yr rich. Why?
>Because they are classified as
>the top 1% of wage-earners,
>aka to leftists "the greedy,
>filthy rich".
>
>Same with the poor. When
>we think of the poor,
>we tend to think of
>people living in sub-normal shelter
>and conditions. We think
>of homeless people. We
>think of people that dont
>have any food, wear dirty
>clothes, parents with no jobs,
>and children that go hungry.
> I honestly think that
>when a majority of you
>think of the "poor and
>the less fortunate", you think
>of something simular to watching
>the infomercial "Save The Children".
>
>
>But is that actually realistic more
>often than not to the
>"poor" in the US?
>Sure, there are isolated spots
>in this country in which
>there are people that are
>indeed in need of help,
>such as Appalacia, but are
>all poor seen in the
>same standard? Can all
>welfare recipients be classified as
>poor, even though they have
>the luxuries that most people
>in America have: televisions,
>phones, VCR's, etc? There
>is a television in 99%
>of the homes in the
>United States; 98% of those
>televisions are color. However,
>the "poverty rate" in America
>is supposed to be 10%,
>and hasn't dropped in the
>last 40 years. There
>are people in other nations
>that have never seen a
>television; in fact they would
>amazed at the sight of
>chewing gum.
>
>Hence, is your idea of poverty
>in America for the most
>part (emphasis on most part)
>an illusion? Or are
>you actually taking the luxuries
>that they happen to possess
>in consideration?
>
>Just thought I'd make you guys
>think this weekend...


-----
bshelly: railing against the Industrial Revolution since 1999. Even Adam Smith recognizes:

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occassion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." That's my word.

----
bshelly

"You (Fisher) could get fired, Les Snead could get fired, Kevin Demoff could get fired, but I will always be Eric Dickerson.” (c) The God

and talk about how life is.


>
>Therefore, if you are describing low-income
>earners as "less fortunate" (a
>term devised by Democrats and
>leftists alike I may add),
>it implies they simply were
>not lucky in life, instead
>of partially being victim of
>the decisions that they made
>in their own lives.
>
> But of course, rarely
>has it been stated nowadays
>of people that come from
>poor conditions and a harmful
>environment that have become the
>exception of the norm and
>made their way to the
>top and become high-achievers.

The Horatio Alger myth, to use language designed to pull your chain, is no more than one of the most potent of the opiate of the masses. Yes, in hayday of early American industrialization, America had a fair bit of social mobility, but those days are over. By whatever index you look at, America now has the least social mobility of any industrialized nation. People stay in the same income bracket they're born, they have the same level of education as their parents, they live as long as their parents did, etc.. Before you come back with a "well, that's just the way of the world" argument, remember that in every Western European country and Japan, supposedly bastions of evil leftist thought, people now overcome those obstacles at a much higher freqency than they do in the US. I might also add, whatever social mobility we've had in the last 40 years has had a lot to do with affirmative action, but now that that's been curtailed things will probably get even more bleak for the less fortunate.

>Likewise, there have been people
>that were born in luxury
>that have taken a hard
>fall while being rich, and
>have either ended up in
>jail or have lost a
>fortune (some might be facing
>the latter on Wall Street
>now).

Name five. Really. Name five people who have fallen from millionaire status to renting on MLK Boulevard. Time in a white collar jail or having to move from a five million dollar house to a half a million dollar house doesn't really count, since bankruptcy laws in several states allow you to sink as much money into a house as you can without paying your creditors.

>failure? Do we actually
>live by the term, "Life
>is 10% of what happens
>to me and 90% of
>how I react to it.",
>or do we sit around
>miserably or even naively thinking
>that we live in a
>virtual caste system, and our
>situations, especially black people, will
>never change no matter what
>we do?

Look, as personal mantra I think this philosophy is ideal. Every individual should think they can rise above the bad around them and lead a fulfilling life. The question is, as a society can we help people do that? Can we make the playing field a little bit more level, so merit does rise the top? Because if you think that happens now, you're just ignorant.

>But is that actually realistic more
>often than not to the
>"poor" in the US?
>Sure, there are isolated spots
>in this country in which
>there are people that are
>indeed in need of help,
>such as Appalacia, but are
>all poor seen in the
>same standard?

So do we give up on the people of Appalachia?

Can all
>welfare recipients be classified as
>poor, even though they have
>the luxuries that most people
>in America have: televisions,
>phones, VCR's, etc? There
>is a television in 99%
>of the homes in the
>United States; 98% of those
>televisions are color. However,
>the "poverty rate" in America
>is supposed to be 10%,
>and hasn't dropped in the
>last 40 years.

The following is stolen from a "This Modern World" cartoon: are you familiar with the credit card industry? No matter what your credit card rating, no matter what your ability to pay, so long as you're breathing they will issue you a credit card with a backbreaking interest fee and collect what they can when you can't pay. I'd agree with you that these people should be held accountable, except for the fact our education system is so god awful that I honestly don't think people understand what they're getting into. This says nothing about renting, layaway, and all the other wonderful devices capitalism has come up with to take money away from the poor and leave them, in the end, with nothing.
>
>Hence, is your idea of poverty
>in America for the most
>part (emphasis on most part)
>an illusion? Or are
>you actually taking the luxuries
>that they happen to possess
>in consideration?

What's illusory is your reality. I think you're a good person, and you seem to be active, but it's obvious you've never ventured outside your shell (either geographically or mentally). Go volunteer at an AIDS shelter for two months and see if you still feel the same way.

-----
bshelly: railing against the Industrial Revolution since 1999. Even Adam Smith recognizes:

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occassion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." That's my word.

----
bshelly

"You (Fisher) could get fired, Les Snead could get fired, Kevin Demoff could get fired, but I will always be Eric Dickerson.” (c) The God

>The Horatio Alger myth, to use
>language designed to pull your
>chain, is no more than
>one of the most potent
>of the opiate of the
>masses.

Agreed.

>Yes, in hayday
>of early American industrialization, America
>had a fair bit of
>social mobility, but those days
>are over.

Agreed.

>By whatever
>index you look at, America
>now has the least social
>mobility of any industrialized nation.

Plus a STUPENDOUS wealth gap.

>People stay in the
>same income bracket they're born,
>they have the same level
>of education as their parents,
>they live as long as
>their parents did, etc..

Yup.

>Before you come back with
>a "well, that's just the
>way of the world" argument,
>remember that in every Western
>European country and Japan, supposedly
>bastions of evil leftist thought,
>people now overcome those obstacles
>at a much higher freqency
>than they do in the
>US. I might also
>add, whatever social mobility we've
>had in the last 40
>years has had a lot
>to do with affirmative action,
>but now that that's been
>curtailed things will probably get
>even more bleak for the
>less fortunate.

Yes.

>Look, as personal mantra I think
>this philosophy is ideal.
>Every individual should think they
>can rise above the bad
>around them and lead a
>fulfilling life. The question
>is, as a society can
>we help people do that?


Organized labor (repeat a million times).


>What's illusory is your reality.
>I think you're a good
>person, and you seem to
>be active, but it's obvious
>you've never ventured outside your
>shell (either geographically or mentally).




>Go volunteer at an
>AIDS shelter for two months
>and see if you still
>feel the same way.

Better do it soon. They'll be gone within four years.

Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>The Horatio Alger myth, to use
>language designed to pull your
>chain, is no more than
>one of the most potent
>of the opiate of the
>masses. Yes, in hayday
>of early American industrialization, America
>had a fair bit of
>social mobility, but those days
>are over. By whatever
>index you look at, America
>now has the least social
>mobility of any industrialized nation.
> People stay in the
>same income bracket they're born,
>they have the same level
>of education as their parents,
>they live as long as
>their parents did, etc..
>Before you come back with
>a "well, that's just the
>way of the world" argument,
>remember that in every Western
>European country and Japan, supposedly
>bastions of evil leftist thought,
>people now overcome those obstacles
>at a much higher freqency
>than they do in the
>US. I might also
>add, whatever social mobility we've
>had in the last 40
>years has had a lot
>to do with affirmative action,
>but now that that's been
>curtailed things will probably get
>even more bleak for the
>less fortunate.

Actually studies show that affirmative action actually helps out more minorities and women that are already in the upper and middle classes, and barely helps low income earning blacks.

I'll grant that social mobility as slown, sure. However that doesn't mean that there isn't opportunity for people to actually succeed. I think the opportunity is still there; however more factors, such as societal, cultural, and domestic factors that weigh in just as much as socioeconomic factors. As for socioeconomic factors themselves however, I feel it's common sense that the higher the standard of living gets the harder it is to become a high income earner. If you have $10 dollars, it makes it that much harder to make a million. But that doesn't mean it's not possible, only naive that everyone can/will do so.

>Name five. Really. Name
>five people who have fallen
>from millionaire status to renting
>on MLK Boulevard. Time
>in a white collar jail
>or having to move from
>a five million dollar house
>to a half a million
>dollar house doesn't really count,
>since bankruptcy laws in several
>states allow you to sink
>as much money into a
>house as you can without
>paying your creditors.

Actually, the bankruptcy laws were just revised. Millionaires wont be able to try to keep million dollar assets while having their debts erased.
Now I'm not saying they jump from a mansion to a ghetto, but the very practice of them filing bankrupt means they do not always have luck riding on their side and do fail at something, not to mention everything they own. Like I said however, it's an exception to the norm and it doesn't happen everyday.

>Look, as personal mantra I think
>this philosophy is ideal.
>Every individual should think they
>can rise above the bad
>around them and lead a
>fulfilling life. The question
>is, as a society can
>we help people do that?
> Can we make the
>playing field a little bit
>more level, so merit does
>rise the top? Because
>if you think that happens
>now, you're just ignorant.

We can. However I feel it should start with a reformation of cultural and spiritual ideals, not government. I dont believe you can simply throw money at a cause and think you can make some kind of positive impact.

>>But is that actually realistic more
>>often than not to the
>>"poor" in the US?
>>Sure, there are isolated spots
>>in this country in which
>>there are people that are
>>indeed in need of help,
>>such as Appalacia, but are
>>all poor seen in the
>>same standard?
>
>So do we give up on
>the people of Appalachia?

Where did I say give up on anyone?

>The following is stolen from a
>"This Modern World" cartoon: are
>you familiar with the credit
>card industry? No matter
>what your credit card rating,
>no matter what your ability
>to pay, so long as
>you're breathing they will issue
>you a credit card with
>a backbreaking interest fee and
>collect what they can when
>you can't pay. I'd
>agree with you that these
>people should be held accountable,
>except for the fact our
>education system is so god
>awful that I honestly don't
>think people understand what they're
>getting into. This says
>nothing about renting, layaway, and
>all the other wonderful devices
>capitalism has come up with
>to take money away from
>the poor and leave them,
>in the end, with nothing.

I dont think the education system can be held to blame for the fact that people spent more money than they could afford. Nor can I see how renting and layaway falls into the whole "money trap" for the poor, unless you've live in places where they have high costs of living, like New York or Cali.

>What's illusory is your reality.
>I think you're a good
>person, and you seem to
>be active, but it's obvious
>you've never ventured outside your
>shell (either geographically or mentally).
> Go volunteer at an
>AIDS shelter for two months
>and see if you still
>feel the same way.

AIDS shelter? What does an AIDS shelter have to do with discussing poverty?
As far as "venturing outside of my shell", I dunno what "shell" you are referring to, as I grew up in rural North Carolina, and very few people there were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. The town I spent my childhood was on the Outer Banks, and had less than 500 people in the county, and it only had one stoplight, and that was near the courthouse. Believe me, I know what poverty is, and I know a good part of it comes from societal and cultural traits exposed on the people and not as much of economic disparities.

New Quotes....

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. - Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. - H.L. Mencken

When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? - Henry David Thoreau

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" - Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

And always...my favorite....
Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take comfort in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today. Someone else tomorrow. You have no Constitutional right not to be offended. - Neal Boortz

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

I'm curious about what you believe?

Are you implying that there isn't a systematic effort to keep certain types of people poor?

There are alot of traits that vary from demographic to demographic, whether it's gender, age, geography, etc. However I think key problems exist within the black community due to the lack of ambition and achievement, particularly within education and within employment. This is a crucial one. For one thing African-Americans have always looked at each other as a collective group, and always looked towards someone or a group of someones to "lead" us. However they themselves, especially within the last 30 or so yrs, have relayed upon the black community a sense of victimization, setting anything and everything to one universal reason - racism. With this ideal, not only have they indirectly discouraged competition with blacks among whites in particular, but they also have neglected education and job training, which leaves a great deal of black people unqualified for top calibur jobs.

Studies have shown during times of segregation, despite the constant abuse of individual rights given to us, we were still growing enormously in the fields of education and employment. However, such information and statistics have largely been ignored. Why? Because so-called black leaders would have you think that other than a few individual accomplishments nothing was achieved by African-Americans before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Instead, we have a mentality that is sweeping through the black community that unless we are "protected" by government through laws and legislation that prioritizes us, then we will fall victim to the mighty white hand. Logic and statistics dictate this to be false.

This is only one thing out of many too lengthy to mention. Racism does play a part in alot we do, but not as much as we are led to believe.


Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. - Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. - H.L. Mencken

When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? - Henry David Thoreau

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" - Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

And always...my favorite....
Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take comfort in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today. Someone else tomorrow. You have no Constitutional right not to be offended. - Neal Boortz

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

>Therefore, if you are describing low-income
>earners as "less fortunate" (a
>term devised by Democrats and
>leftists alike I may add),

Damn them. Always trying to be considerate

>it implies they simply were
>not lucky in life, instead
>of partially being victim of
>the decisions that they made
>in their own lives.

It's not a great term, and I wouldn't use it. I say "disempowered," or "oppressed," or simply "struggling." This is where I think "fortune" should come in: If you're lucky, your family has enough money to send you to a private university after high-school. If not, you go to a public university.

You see what I'm saying?

Everyone born in our society deserves to live above the poverty line with health care, education and security. If you're fortunate, you're doing a little better. If not, you're doing fine.

But, of course, let's tangle on this.

>Does the contrary ring true as
>well? Does that mean
>the ones who actually achieved
>and succeeded only done so
>because they were "lucky" and
>didn't work their ass off
>and make the decisions they
>needed to in order to
>accomplish what they have in
>life?

Obviously not. It's a stupid term.

>This actually has
>been a thought that has
>been going around sometime, as
>a year or two ago
>Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota)
>referred to high achievers as
>"Those who have won life's
>lottery". Is that how
>people actually percieve every financially
>independent person, as someone who
>was just "fortunate" to be
>in the spot they are
>in today, like picking a
>lottery number?

But NOW: Let's look at how it is. If you're born a person of color? It's not that your struggles are just based on luck, but you sure as hell are "unfortunate" to be colored because you're just going to have to struggle and it's hard as hell to get anywhere. Similarly, let's look at how it is for the white middle-class male born in Oregon. Yeah, it's due to the success of his parents that he goes to college, but he's fortunate in that our society works to his advantage, regardless of his own decisions or dedication (not that those don't effect his future, it's just that the channels will be there for him regardless).

>In this society
>do we try to educate
>people that it is possible
>to transfer yourself from either
>situation, granted that you make
>decisions supportive of success or
>failure?

Sure, we teach that but for the most part it's not true.

>Do we actually
>live by the term, "Life
>is 10% of what happens
>to me and 90% of
>how I react to it.",
>or do we sit around
>miserably or even naively thinking
>that we live in a
>virtual caste system, and our
>situations, especially black people, will
>never change no matter what
>we do?

Somewhere in the middle. I'd say that if those who are disadvantaged try to take the traditional routes to success they're likely to fail. But if they dedicate themselves to changing the structure it's another ballgame.

>The second part of this thread
>seeks to question the standard
>of "poverty".
>What can actually be called poverty?
> What conditions and standards
>must be applied in order
>for someone to be called
>"poor", specifically in these United
>States?

It's a basic question. Do you have enough money/medical coverage/security to support yourself through life? If you have a family, do you have enough money/medical coverage/security to support them?

Some people have enough, some more than enough, and some WAY more than enough. Some just don't have enough, and between those that do and those that don't lies the poverty line.

>I
>think when we tend to
> think of people that
>are "rich", we tend to
>think of multi-millionaires, mostly white,
>with mansions and rolls royces,
>limosines, etc. However, the
>IRS and politicians knowingly call
>someone that is making around
>$350,000/yr rich. Why?
>Because they are classified as
>the top 1% of wage-earners,


Yes. That's "rich." It's not rocket science, it's a vague term.

>aka to leftists "the greedy,
>filthy rich".

Har.

>Same with the poor. When
>we think of the poor,
>we tend to think of
>people living in sub-normal shelter
>and conditions. We think
>of homeless people. We
>think of people that dont
>have any food, wear dirty
>clothes, parents with no jobs,
>and children that go hungry.

Not me. I think of those, PLUS families living in EXTREMELY low-income housing/ghettos with no health care and sick kids and four jobs. And almost no future. That's poor.

>Sure, there are isolated spots
>in this country in which
>there are people that are
>indeed in need of help,
>such as Appalacia, but are
>all poor seen in the
>same standard? Can all
>welfare recipients be classified as
>poor, even though they have
>the luxuries that most people
>in America have: televisions,
>phones, VCR's, etc?

What people have (i.e. how they spend their money) has nothing to do with whether or not they're "poor." I'm sure you've seen a Lexus on golden rims pull up to a project entryway. That's not luxury.


>However,
>the "poverty rate" in America
>is supposed to be 10%,
>and hasn't dropped in the
>last 40 years.

It's actually gone up. They measure it wrong (in my opinion).

>There
>are people in other nations
>that have never seen a
>television; in fact they would
>amazed at the sight of
>chewing gum.

They've got a completely different class spectrum. For instance, we've got 5% unemployment (yay!) while other countries have 30%. But guess what, having a job here sucks, whereas in other countries that actually provide their citizens with services having no job isn't that bad.

Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

-I disagree that poor people who take the traditional route to success will fail, and that their only way out is to try to change the system.

#1. They don't have the resources to effect any kind of change
#2. They don't even know how to go about the traditional routes of success, they have no role models, Mom & Dad can't show them. If they fail "trying" to go the traditional route, it's because they don't know how things work or how to be successful. Trying to change things won't work either, because they won't know how the "system" works.

Middle Class kids grow up to be Middle Class because they know what to do, they just imitate their parents. A lot of my middle class friends often marvel how easy it is, to have a 6 figure household income just like their parents...and how they don't consider that to be rich..even if it puts them in the top 10% of all wage earners...or higher. To them, buying the BMW, the 350k house, etc...doesn't mean your rich...heck it's easy..while to a poor kid it seems difficult or even impossible....To the middle class it simple and goes like this:

Apply to college, apply for Financial Aid (if you can get it) no aid..take out loans...Major Finance/Accounting/Economics/Enginering/Comp Sci, or something else with a decent starting salary.....you make 35-45 coming out of college..while your girlfriend (soon to be fiance) does the same. In your late 20s...you hope to be making about 50-70...you get married...now you make about 100-140 together. You buy your first house for about 150 - 200k (either saving for the downpayment yourself, or through a combination of borrowing from family and your own savings) you fix up that house and sell it in 5 years for about 200 - 250k...or more. Then you take that money and buy the 350k house, buy the BMW.....

Your kids see this, and imitate you when they get older...and the cycle continues.

While the poor kid has these dreams and no clue how to make them come true.

We don't have a Virtual Caste system because being poor doesn't give you the opportunies to become rich...we have a caste system because the poor don't KNOW HOW to elevate themselves. There is a big difference....the opportunities are there...they just don't know how to take advantage.

The Wealth Gap means that there are a lot of opportunities to make money, it also means that a lot of people can't take advantage of those opportunities. It doesn't mean that the people creating Wealth are bad people, taking advantage or are somehow lucky...per se...it just means that others don't even have a chance to create wealth themselves.

Organized Labor? Couple of Thoughts:

Organized Labor rarely has the interests of the company at heart, I think workers should have rights. I just wish that workers would actually have some Business sense and think about the overall health of the company. I get ticked off when I hear about GM, squelching a technology that could help them regain their foothold as one of the best car makers on earth because the unions won't let them.

I think that if Unions actually tried to align their needs with those of the Business...they'd be more successful. Right now, the businesses only give in to them out of fear..not neccessarily because it will help them.

Case In Point: Sometimes, Layoffs are neccessary for the overall health of the company..downsizing as well. But you'll never hear a Union admitt that...

I also don't think organized labor is going to fix the wealth gap, wealth isn't created by working for a company...it's created by side stuff (investing) having your own business...or having the position/business sense to exploit the company to generate wealth through 401ks and stock options.

Furthermore, proponents of Organized Labor...just want the workers to be paid more...which isn't always in the workers self interests..nor are the "workers" always worth that much.

No, I feel improving worker/company relations and conditions..will do little to change the wealth gap. Teaching people how to build wealth will.



Peace Out,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>-I disagree that poor people who
>take the traditional route to
>success will fail, and that
>their only way out is
>to try to change the
>system.

I didn't say that they "will fail," I said that they're "likely to fail," specifically in areas of income, education and security. I think it's a good chance.

>#1. They don't have the resources
>to effect any kind of
>change

Not yet. And you don't need that much, besides the energy to organize (which, judging from the "Justice for Janitors" campaign and the success of the UFW, I'd say they have).

>#2. They don't even know how
>to go about the traditional
>routes of success, they have
>no role models, Mom &
>Dad can't show them. If
>they fail "trying" to go
>the traditional route, it's because
>they don't know how things
>work or how to be
>successful.

Right. That's one of the main reasons why I said that they'd be likely to fail.

>Trying to change things
>won't work either, because they
>won't know how the "system"
>works.

Well, that's optimistic. I think most activists (i.e. "people who are trying to change things") would say that it's just as important to know how you WANT things to work. If not more.

>Middle Class kids grow up to
>be Middle Class because they
>know what to do, they
>just imitate their parents.

That's true. That's not the only reason, though.

>While the poor kid has these
>dreams and no clue how
>to make them come true.

I'd argue that even if the poor kid *does* have a clue how to make his dreams come true, it's still going to be EXTREMELY difficult based on the way things work.

>We don't have a Virtual Caste
>system because being poor doesn't
>give you the opportunies to
>become rich...we have a caste
>system because the poor don't
>KNOW HOW to elevate themselves.

Ouch. It's just my opinion, but I'd recommend thinking that one through some more.

>There is a big difference....the
>opportunities are there...they just don't
>know how to take advantage.

See above.

>The Wealth Gap means that there
>are a lot of opportunities
>to make money, it also
>means that a lot of
>people can't take advantage of
>those opportunities. It doesn't mean
>that the people creating Wealth
>are bad people, taking advantage
>or are somehow lucky...per se...it
>just means that others don't
>even have a chance to
>create wealth themselves.

Well, yes. At the same time, they create that wealth by getting people to buy what they sell. They have to get everybody to do it, but instead of this exchange balancing wealth, it concentrates near the top.

>Organized Labor? Couple of Thoughts:

>Organized Labor rarely has the interests
>of the company at heart,

....yes. It really depends on how you define "the best interests of the company." If you limit those interests to:

- low labor cost
- maximum profit
- maximum flexibility and control

...then yes, organized labor tends to detract from these. If you adopt the FAR OUT notion that a company might want to promote economic justice, prosperity in its community, fair treatment of workers, access to health care, etc., then unions *would* be "in the company's best interests." Of course, this isn't the case, and companies do care only about those three things above. As such, organized labor does tend to be contrary to the company's interests.


>I think workers should have
>rights. I just wish that
>workers would actually have some
>Business sense and think about
>the overall health of the
>company.

Yeah. My guess is that "the overall health" of their health care-less family might come before the exact size of their employer's profit margin.

>I get ticked off
>when I hear about GM,
>squelching a technology that could
>help them regain their foothold
>as one of the best
>car makers on earth because
>the unions won't let them.

This makes me laugh. You think GM is good for the American economy? THEY WENT TO MEXICO!! That's how they're trying to regain their foothold. And let's see... New technology = 11,000 layoffs. What do you expect the union position to be?

>I think that if Unions actually
>tried to align their needs
>with those of the Business...they'd
>be more successful.

No wait, THIS makes me laugh.

Business: It'd be really convenient for us if we could pay you all 23 cents an hour.

Union: That sounds good.

Business: No health care, though.

Union: Of course.

Business: Or overtime pay.

Union: Obviously.

Business: And random firings would be really good for us as well.

Union: I'm with you on that.

Business: Also, we'd like you to do twice the work, but it's really become inconvenient to run the trainings, so could you just learn on the job?

Union: By all means. And could you please fire my wife if she gets pregnant?

Business: Wow, it's like you read my mind!

etc.

>Right now,
>the businesses only give in
>to them out of fear..not
>neccessarily because it will help
>them.

Well, ultimately it will help them, if their alternative is a collective action like picketing or striking. But yes.

>Case In Point: Sometimes, Layoffs are
>neccessary for the overall health
>of the company..downsizing as well.
>But you'll never hear a
>Union admitt that...

That's because the workers are the union and LAYOFFS ARE NOT GOOD FOR WORKERS! Is that really a complex concept?

>I also don't think organized labor
>is going to fix the
>wealth gap, wealth isn't created
>by working for a company...it's
>created by side stuff (investing)
>having your own business...or having
>the position/business sense to exploit
>the company to generate wealth
>through 401ks and stock options.

Whatever.

>Furthermore, proponents of Organized Labor...just want
>the workers to be paid
>more...which isn't always in the
>workers self interests..nor are the
>"workers" always worth that much.

Do you know a single thing about the "proponents of organized labor?" I'm not going to respond to this until you demonstrate even the most rudimentary knowledge of labor in this country.

>No, I feel improving worker/company relations
>and conditions..will do little to
>change the wealth gap. Teaching
>people how to build wealth
>will.

Okay, I'll try that.

"Miguel, you've got to learn to INVEST your $6.10 an hour. Build a line of credit with your $300 a month, THEN get yourself a money-market account. Forget child-care, sink it in oil stock."

Alek
________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

-Back in 1999, Caddilac came up with a rather innovative roadster, it would be be able to go head to head with the foreign roadsters and help bring caddilac back to the forefront of Luxury car building. BUT, it never really made it past concept phase....because they knew the Steelworkers union would freak. Caddilac is making the car, but it's not going to be as innovative as it once was.....thereby not really being that much of a competitor for foreign cars.

If Caddilac is able to re-establish itself as one of the premier luxury car manufacturers...that's better for the company as a whole and better for the workers.

BUT, due to the Union's strangehold...it may never happen.

So Caddilac's market share will slip, they will make less money and be forced to lay people off. Just 3 years ago, Caddilac sold more luxury cars in the US then anyone else. Now? BMW is #1, Lexus is #2, Mercedes is #3 Caddilac is #4 now.

GO UNION, Caddilac won't use the new technology and the workers keep their jobs...for now. BUT what happens when things get worse for Caddilac? Did the union consider that if they let that car get made as it was originally planned, the company would've been healthier an that would've helped them in the long run?

I understand that workers want more money, not to be laid off, better conditions and what not. BUT, I also understand that if the company isn't healty or is falling behind to competitors, then the company may not be around or will have to lay people off just because they don't have the revenue to keep them...then what?

There has to be a balance between what the workers want and what the company's objectives are. Remember it's the company's focus on profit that made it possible for the workers to have a job in the first place....the reason the company exists is to make money...not to employ people.

Layoffs are often a neccessary part of the business cycle. Car Makers are laying people off because they aren't selling as many cars as they used to, they're laying people off because they are idling factories. What are they supposed to do in those situations? Keep people standing around with no work to do?

How about when companies need to lay people off to make things more efficient? Unions NEVER understand this..they would rather the company get big and bloated and collapse under it's own weight.

It's all about BALANCE....balancing the needs of the community (which is often good for business) with the needs of the workers and the company.

I don't believe in sweatshops or unfair wages, but that doesn't change the fact that layoffs are often neccessary, companies can move work to foreign countries if they want to, and people working manufacturing jobs aren't going to get a lot (a lot and fair are two different things).

The Union only thinks about it's workers, E.g. Wages, No Layoffs, etc. The company thinks about appeasing the Union (No Strikes) and making profits...which pay the workers. I think the Unions need to think about the profits of the company as well, after all if the company wasn't thinking about making money...no one would have a job.

I don't think Miguel should make $6.10/hour or 12k/year...or that he shouldn't have insurance. I also don't think he should be making 30/hour or 60k/year either. 35k? Ok....but not 60.....it's called Balance....

It's true that the companies are thinking about profits, but the Unions only think about their workers, even at the expense of the company.

When the company makes decisions that hurt workers, the company benefits and that helps the people who still have jobs and is important for future growth and keeping the company healthy. When the Union makes decisions that hurt the company, it often ends up hurting the workers anyway. But now both parties are hurt, and the company's ability to employ as many people is hurt....


As for your dismissal of my opinion on building wealth, it is obvious you know nothing about building wealth. Increasing GM worker salaries by 50% will do nothing to build wealth unless they know what to do with the money. You don't get wealthy by working for someone else, (entirely) you have to extra stuff. Study the Forbes 400, you might learn something about wealth building. The simple fact that you said "whatever" to the very methods used to buid wealth, indicates you know nothing about it.

As for the Poor Kids not knowing how to make their dreams come true...I stand by that. My school district got re-districted (a word) itself internally, so instead of going to the Yuppie HS in the district, I went to the 85% Blue Collar one. I knew a lot of Blue Collar kids who had the grades and the smarts to get into college, but never went...never really put it together. The schoool wasn't used to college bound kids so it was of little help. They didn't know about things like Fiancial Aid, or had the wrong idea about loans....

So in a St. where the State school was ranked #42 in the country and cost $3k/year..a lot of smart kids didn't go to college. They thought it was a rich kid thing.......while my yuppie neighboors and the kids from the other school went on to college and good careers.

SO I stand by my theory that a lot of poor kids don't know how to make their dreams come true....which just makes it harder because even if they did know...it would be difficult. But if you don't know how to start.....what chance do you have? It's not like Poor kids go to college in droves and just drop out....or try really hard to get in and don't get accepted anywhere.



Peace Out,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>-Back in 1999, Caddilac came up
>with a rather innovative roadster,
>it would be be able
>to go head to head
>with the foreign roadsters and
>help bring caddilac back to
>the forefront of Luxury car
>building.

Mm hmm.

BUT, it never really
>made it past concept phase....because
>they knew the Steelworkers union
>would freak.

And you never asked yourself why? Do you think it's because they don't like innovation? Or because they don't want Cadillac to be successful? Course not.

How about the fact that they planned to de-specialize factories which would CRIPPLE the any leverage workers had against their employer (i.e. when factories are de-specialized and one plant goes on strike, the employer can simply order parts/templates from another factory)?

How about the fact introducing new models and new machinery often allows management to get around contractual agreements regarding occupational safety and workday limits, not to mention RAMPANT reclassification of jobs (which is basically a tool the employer can use to push people back down the wage ladder)?

How about (and this is the kicker) the new technology involved in this "innovative" product will result workers losing jobs that are supposed to be secure.

That's why the union objected.

>Caddilac is making
>the car, but it's not
>going to be as innovative
>as it once was.....thereby not
>really being that much of
>a competitor for foreign cars.

I'm going to give you a little clue. Cadillac ISN'T much a competitor with foreign cars (at least in the small car market). I'd be plenty happy if they were, but they aren't and it's not because of innovation, it's because of reputation, reliability, and cost of production.

>If Caddilac is able to re-establish
>itself as one of the
>premier luxury car manufacturers...that's better
>for the company as a
>whole and better for the
>workers.

Sure, as long as the workers don't get fucked as part of the deal.

>BUT, due to the Union's strangehold...it
>may never happen.

Well, the "stranglehold" you're talking about is NOT a reality. Even the extremely high union density in the auto industry is deteriorating.

>GO UNION, Caddilac won't use the
>new technology and the workers
>keep their jobs...for now. BUT
>what happens when things get
>worse for Caddilac?

They may have to bite the bullet and get bought out, or lower production, or marketing, or they may have to outsource. Or they may lay off workers, but let me tell you this: It'll be the union making sure that those workers aren't simply abandoned by an employer that folds underneath them. The union will be there to make sure workers have pensions.

>Did the
>union consider that if they
>let that car get made
>as it was originally planned,
>the company would've been healthier
>an that would've helped them
>in the long run?

Maybe. Obviously it didn't outweigh all the reasons I listed above for not letting it happen. Look, what products are actually made IS NOT a mandatory bargaining point, and it's actually an uncommon one. HOW they get made, under what conditions and with what compensation, IS a mandatory point. So what you're defining as a "stranglehold (ha -- the UAW is powerful but there isn't really much comparison) was more likely a situation in which Cadillac saw that the union wouldn't let them implement there new strategy because it violated contractual agreements.

>I understand that workers want more
>money, not to be laid
>off, better conditions and what
>not.

That's generous.

>BUT, I also understand
>that if the company isn't
>healty or is falling behind
>to competitors, then the company
>may not be around or
>will have to lay people
>off just because they don't
>have the revenue to keep
>them...then what?

Then you treat your workers (who built your company and aren't responsible for your bankruptcy) with respect and you give them notice, severance, and a pension. EVEN BETTER (and GM has done this often in the past), you give them a job at another factory.

>There has to be a balance
>between what the workers want
>and what the company's objectives
>are.

Yup, and it's negotiated every time the contract comes up.

>Remember it's the company's
>focus on profit that made
>it possible for the workers
>to have a job in
>the first place....

hmmmmm.

>the reason the
>company exists is to make
>money...not to employ people.

hmmmmmmm.

>Layoffs are often a neccessary part
>of the business cycle.

Bullshit. They're part of the Reagan/Roger Smith/Freemanomics business cycle. Lean and mean. Rather than design better cars, better factories or better distribution, American manufacturors choose to deal with the problem of flexible supply by laying off workers and shutting down factories.

>Car
>Makers are laying people off
>because they aren't selling as
>many cars as they used
>to, they're laying people off
>because they are idling factories.

They're laying people off because it's their POLICY. That's how American car companies work.

>What are they supposed to
>do in those situations? Keep
>people standing around with no
>work to do?

I made many suggestions above.

>How about when companies need to
>lay people off to make
>things more efficient? Unions NEVER
>understand this

You don't seem to know SHIT about what unions understand. First of all Unions=workers. It's not some third party selling job insurance and a pay raise in exchange for membership dues. It's the workers themselves. If you were a worker who worked at the Chevy plant for twenty years and just got laid off completely arbitrarily because Chevys can't sell now, how understanding would you be?

>..they would rather the
>company get big and bloated
>and collapse under it's own
>weight.

No, I think they'd rather the company refrain from being so greedy that it becomes big, bloated, and collapses under its own weight.

>I don't believe in sweatshops or
>unfair wages, but that doesn't
>change the fact that layoffs
>are often neccessary, companies can
>move work to foreign countries
>if they want to, and
>people working manufacturing jobs aren't
>going to get a lot
>(a lot and fair are
>two different things).

Okay, there are two glaring fallacies here.

1) If you don't "believe" in sweatshops or unfair wages, then you don't. It's as simple as that. People deserve to be paid and treated fairly, you seem to be saying. So why then is it completely acceptable to you that "layoffs are necessary, companies can move work to foreign countries (i.e. into sweatshops) if they want to, and manufacturing jobs aren't going to get a lot." Seems like a contradiction.

2) Manufacturing jobs DO get a lot. They're some of the best paid jobs in the working class, and they're terrific compared to the service sector average.

>The Union only thinks about it's
>workers,

Once again, union = workers. No third party. Workers are in bargaining unit, they form bargaining team, they vote to strike, they ratify contracts, they pay dues.

>E.g. Wages, No Layoffs,
>etc.

By etc. I assume you mean: health care, overtime, maternal leave, occupational safety, 8-hour days, non-discrimination, comparable worth, child care, job classifications, grievance procedures, privacy....

>The company thinks about
>appeasing the Union (No Strikes)
>and making profits...

But not in that order.

>which pay the
>workers.

Sort of. The profits pay the company, then the company decides how little of those profits it can pay the workers and still get away with it.

>I think the Unions
>need to think about the
>profits of the company as
>well, after all if the
>company wasn't thinking about making
>money...no one would have a
>job.

True enough.

>I don't think Miguel should make
>$6.10/hour or 12k/year...or that he
>shouldn't have insurance. I also
>don't think he should be
>making 30/hour or 60k/year either.
>35k? Ok....but not 60.....it's called
>Balance....

Fair enough. He's asking for a LIVING WAGE. In other words, he wants to be able to feed and house a family and he wants his kids to have a doctor when they're sick. He wants to be able to afford a place where they aren't in danger from violence or drugs.


>When the company makes decisions that
>hurt workers, the company benefits
>and that helps the people
>who still have jobs and
>is important for future growth
>and keeping the company healthy.

Oh. Well in that case, let's extrapolate your little theory and euthanize everyone with a contagious or hereditary disease. Who'll object? It'll be good for the health of the human race.

>When the Union makes decisions
>that hurt the company, it
>often ends up hurting the
>workers anyway.

Union equals...oh nevermind.

>As for your dismissal of my
>opinion on building wealth, it
>is obvious you know nothing
>about building wealth. Increasing GM
>worker salaries by 50% will
>do nothing to build wealth
>unless they know what to
>do with the money.

True. But as I said, if they don't have any capital then teaching them what to do with it would be useless.

>You
>don't get wealthy by working
>for someone else, (entirely) you
>have to extra stuff.

I see.

>Study
>the Forbes 400, you might
>learn something about wealth building.

You know, we're not talking about building Forbes 400 - wealth. We're talking about building a liveable income. Which doesn't really take much building, just some commitment on the part of the employer.

>The simple fact that you
>said "whatever" to the very
>methods used to buid wealth,
>indicates you know nothing about
>it.

No, it indicates that I dismissed your advice as essentially irrelevant to an L.A. janitor who makes six dollars an hour.

>As for the Poor Kids not
>knowing how to make their
>dreams come true...I stand by
>that.

I know, I agreed with you to a large extent, but I also pointed out how simply knowing how and being committed isn't quite enough in our society. We're getting closer, but we're not there yet.

Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Caddilac USED to be a competitor against other foreign luxury car makers. I'm talking about Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Audi....those companies used to be trying to sell more cars then caddilac. They've only recently succeeded.

I'll agree with you, a lot of Caddilac's problem is piss poor cars. BUT, when they try and innovate and get past that....the Union stops them. You want to Blame Caddilac for wanting to change factories, close old ones that couldn't make that car. Fine.

But let's Blame the union for not saying: "Ok, we see you want to make this new car with this new technology, let's reach a comprimise where you can use the new technology and lose as few people as possible"

I'll admitt I don't really know what Manufacturing jobs pay, but I DO know they don't pay as well as executives and nor should they. That's where I was going...I'm thinking along the lines of the Michael Moores who want a limit on CEO pay.

Building better cars, making manufacturing processes more efficient and building better factories isn't always going to mean more jobs for workers. It often means the opposite. If GM made it's cars like Toyota and Nissan, they wouldn't need as many people....but of course the Unions won't allow that.

Companies that are lean, mean and greedy aren't going to collapse under they're on weight. Just ask Microsoft or GE. If they're always trying to get rid of redundancies staff wise, make things more efficient, and make as much money as possible...they're going to do better in the long run then a company that always tries to make the workers happy.

I want all the things you want for Workers, fair pay, health care, a decent place to live, etc. BUT, I still believe in Layoffs and moving the factory to foreign countries. It's the company's perogative to do both, I don't see corporations as these public service organizations whose duty it is to employ people. I think that's where we really differ, if they can move them around...fine...but if they can't...such is life. The difference between you and I, is that I think the workers should be treated well while it is in the company's best interests to hire them....when it is no longer the case...and they have to lay them off...all bets are off.

As you pointed out several times in your post, Union=Workers..they see things from the workers side...not the company's. If laying off 10,000 people is good for the company, the workers won't care. Which is essentially my point.

You said that if I worked at a Chevy plant for 20 years and then got laid off, I wouldn't care about the company (even if the company needed to do it)...my worry would be me. Well, what do you think happens when the Unions Negotiate...they are only thinking about themselves.

If the company keeps workers while another lays them off, and it ends up hurting that company....and the company gets acquired..it will be worse for everyone. When you merge companies you take a look at each and every function and competencies the companies have in common, and you get rid of the lesser one. For the ones they don't share, you try to figure out ways to cut reduncies there as well, you try and figure out if two similar but not identical functions can be merged anyway, or reduncies cut.

As for Building wealth, it's not just organized Labor...paying factory workers 120k/year won't close the wealth gap unless they know about building wealth. HEll, even a "living wage" as you call it won't do that either. Closing the wealth gap is a lot more then just raising incomes.

The way I see it, Companies don't have to employ people...they don't have to guarantee anyone a job either. This is not a childish Utopia, where everyone gets a job...having a job isn't a right. Workers want to just pick a company and work for them forever and always expect the company to employ them, and that's a misguided way of thinking. You're not guaranteed a job by law..nor should you be...so get over it. Companies change, markets change, products change...you can't expect a company to hurt itself to employ you...when its focus on profits is the reason for its existence and is what makes it successful.

I know from the worker's perspective, this is unacceptable...but they need to grow up. You can't only view things from one perspective and expect things to go your way...especially when another party is affected by what you want.

Workers/Unions have to accept the fact that factory output is determined by how many cars that company is selling, which can be affected by the cars themselves, the economy and the natural BUSINESS CYCLE...which determines if people are going be buying a lot of cars in one year compared to the next.

Business Cycles are a very real part of business, sometimes you have a lot of employees because things are hot...when things cool down..you have to let them go...and then when things pick up again....the cycle is determined by the economy and the consumer. If the economy is down, people spend less....if a lot of people bought cars in record numbers in the 2-3 years previous...it stands to reason that eventually it will slow down because people who want cars already bought new ones and/or it could be a year when a lot of cars are at the end of their run in terms of that model or iteration of that vehicle. E.g. The Current Accords came out in 98 and haven't changed much.....it's going to change soon....so why buy one now? Or the new Audi A4 comes out in the Fall, so why buy one now...or in the 4 months previous..when the new is going to be so much better?

I'm a Quasi-Independent consultant....whereas I work for a company which provides benefits, 401k, etc...but my pay is largely determined by whether or not I have a client that I'm billing. In other words, I might get something if I'm not billing...but not much. Worrking like this is risky, but I'll come out way ahead cash wise, then if I worked as a salaried consultant.

Last November, a week before thanksgiving...I got a call that informed me that the client had pulled the plug on a project I was working on. I went into work (at the client site) and the CFO told us that due to financial problems, problems in the market and other issues..they had decided to pull the plug on the consultants working on the project. This was in november, the slow time of the consulting industry....I probably wouldn't be working again until January.

Did I whine? No! Did I run around talking about evil corporations, and how they should keep paying me to help the community? It's the nature of the Beast, so I accepted it...some jobs are more volatile then others. When you work in industries that are affected by trends in car sales, or IT spending..you suck it up and deal with it. Or you prepare before hand. I was able to find myself another gig in 3 days, I got lucky...but even I didn't..I wouldn't blame the client...they did what they had to.

Workers in this country need to stop whining and stop expecting companies to keep jobs in the country and/or not lay them off when things are going bad. I know they want their jobs, but that's the nature of the beast...they should stop whining...stop looking at it from only their side and deal with it.



Peace Out,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

just so everyone's clear, let's remember that the workers HAVE to look at it from their side, because no one else will. i think any worker understands what you're saying. but self-interest is self-interest, seeing all sides is seeing all sides. the two aren't mutually exclusive but they're far from the same thing.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E 2001:
TinkyWinky - Posdnuos
Vivrant - q-tip
bfnh - dres
guinness - ju-ju
Mosaic - common
ILLWILL - Chi Ali! hahaha!!!
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Ali Shaheed
Nickelz45 - psyco les
Raina - monie love
Phil - Jarobi
Donwill - trugoy

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

Conversely, the Company HAS to look at it from their side as well. AND, the workers can't blame the company for looking at it from their side if they're being just as selfish.

Finally, since the workers aren't really concerned about the company's profits...what will they see when they are no profits and the company goes bankrupt?

It's shortsighted to always expect the company to cater to the worker, even if it means losing money by keeping old technologies, not laying off people when they need to and not doing the things they need to do to stay competitive.

Peace,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>Caddilac USED to be a competitor
>against other foreign luxury car
>makers. I'm talking about Lexus,
>BMW, Mercedes, Audi....those companies used
>to be trying to sell
>more cars then caddilac. They've
>only recently succeeded.

Not that recently.

>I'll agree with you, a lot
>of Caddilac's problem is piss
>poor cars. BUT, when they
>try and innovate and get
>past that....the Union stops them.

Read my post. The workers, WHO MAKE THE CARS, stopped them. I think it's completely valid for the people who construct a product to refuse to make it on the grounds that its production will be directly harmful to their lives.

>But let's Blame the union for
>not saying: "Ok, we see
>you want to make this
>new car with this new
>technology, let's reach a comprimise
>where you can use the
>new technology and lose as
>few people as possible"

I know the UAW. They say things like this MUCH more often than other unions (they're a little more prone to selling out, in other words). I can pretty much guarantee that they said this, but that the terms they offered (i.e. producing this new car WON'T result in layoffs) weren't accepted by the company so the company spun it as if the union "stopped" production.

>I'll admitt I don't really know
>what Manufacturing jobs pay, but
>I DO know they don't
>pay as well as executives
>and nor should they.

....why the hell not? More skill? Nope. More hours? Nope. More education? Maybe. If that's the only criterion, I'd say that asking to be treated fairly from someone who gets PHENOMENALLY RICH off of your manual labor isn't too much.

>Building better cars, making manufacturing processes
>more efficient and building better
>factories isn't always going to
>mean more jobs for workers.
>It often means the opposite.
>If GM made it's cars
>like Toyota and Nissan, they
>wouldn't need as many people....but
>of course the Unions won't
>allow that.

That's because the workers are already hired, and they HAVE a contract. The only time unions are at all effective in lobbying for new hires is when the plant is completely understaffed (which is often the case).

>Companies that are lean, mean and
>greedy aren't going to collapse
>under they're on weight.

Of course they aren't.

>Just
>ask Microsoft or GE. If
>they're always trying to get
>rid of redundancies staff wise,
>make things more efficient, and
>make as much money as
>possible...they're going to do better
>in the long run then
>a company that always tries
>to make the workers happy.

"Do better?" Depends on how you define that. Doing better can mean making more money, but it could also mean "sucking the life out of local economies and laying off workers and manipulating the market."

>I want all the things you
>want for Workers, fair pay,
>health care, a decent place
>to live, etc. BUT, I
>still believe in Layoffs and
>moving the factory to foreign
>countries.

Priceless. "I want fair pay, health care, a decent place to live...but I believe in a corporation's right to suddenly remove those things at any time."

That's what you're saying.

>It's the company's perogative
>to do both, I don't
>see corporations as these public
>service organizations whose duty it
>is to employ people.

Obviously not.

>I
>think that's where we really
>differ, if they can move
>them around...fine...but if they can't...such
>is life.

Seems fair. If you can get the operation, fine. If you can't such is life.

>The difference between
>you and I, is that
>I think the workers should
>be treated well while it
>is in the company's best
>interests to hire them....when it
>is no longer the case...and
>they have to lay them
>off...all bets are off.

So you don't think that job security is part of "being treated well?" If they can lay off anyone at any time, then there's ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to treat the workers with any respect or afford them decent compensation/benefits. So they won't. You yourself have explicity outlined the motives of a corporation, and it doesn't include those things.

>As you pointed out several times
>in your post, Union=Workers..they see
>things from the workers side...not
>the company's.

.....I love how deeply you misunderstood this. UNION=WORKERS. The workers ARE the union. The union doesn't speak FOR them, or work AROUND them. The union consists of workers at the plant.

>If laying off
>10,000 people is good for
>the company, the workers won't
>care. Which is essentially my
>point.

?????

Those 10,000 people will care that they're getting laid off!

>You said that if I worked
>at a Chevy plant for
>20 years and then got
>laid off, I wouldn't care
>about the company (even if
>the company needed to do
>it)...my worry would be me.
>Well, what do you think
>happens when the Unions Negotiate...they
>are only thinking about themselves.

Yes, everybody in this equation thinks primarily about themselves. That's the way human society tends to work.
What are you trying to say?

>If the company keeps workers while
>another lays them off, and
>it ends up hurting that
>company....and the company gets acquired..it
>will be worse for everyone.

Why? Because the company is doing worse? Let me explain something. Unions negotiate, they don't dictate. The bargaining team sits down with the employer and says: "Your workers need this." The employer says "Well, this is what we've got in the budget for labor cost." The union either says "Okay, we'll take that" or they say "Bullshit, you've got tons of money tied up here and here, and you yourself make way more money than is at all reasonable, so loosen your budget." And on it goes.
If the company says "Giving you a $10 raise will sink us," and that's true (which it probably would be in most places), end of story. The worker's aren't trying to sink the company and get fired. But if management says "giving you a 50 cent raise over four years will sink us," someone has to stand up to that crap.

>As for Building wealth, it's not
>just organized Labor...paying factory workers
>120k/year won't close the wealth
>gap unless they know about
>building wealth. HEll, even a
>"living wage" as you call
>it won't do that either.
>Closing the wealth gap is
>a lot more then just
>raising incomes.


Agreed, but let's give this up. You're saying the same thing about education over and over, and I'm agreeing with you to the extent that we need education.

HOWEVER, just because you think a raised income won't close the wealth gap in and of itself doesn't mean that it isn't the first necessary step. I don't see how people can build wealth without income.

>The way I see it, Companies
>don't have to employ people...they
>don't have to guarantee anyone
>a job either. This is
>not a childish Utopia, where
>everyone gets a job...having a
>job isn't a right.

I wish I'd read this before I spent all this time responding.
Goodbye.

>I know from the worker's perspective,
>this is unacceptable...but they need
>to grow up.

Wait, I just wanted everyone to get another chance to read this little gem.

Actually, never mind. Now that I've read the rest of what has to be the single most irrational response on the Activist board, I think I should take issue with some of these comments.

>Business Cycles are a very real
>part of business, sometimes you
>have a lot of employees
>because things are hot...when things
>cool down..you have to let
>them go...and then when things
>pick up again....the cycle is
>determined by the economy and
>the consumer.

Exactly. How do you expect consumers to boost the economy if their low wages and zero chance of promotion drastically limit their purchasing power?

>I'm a Quasi-Independent consultant

Hurray for OkayActivist.

....whereas I work
>for a company which provides
>benefits, 401k, etc...but my pay
>is largely determined by whether
>or not I have a
>client that I'm billing.

But even if you don't you have a job.

>Did I whine? No!

You went home to your house and picked up your from their affordable day care and waited till January when you'd have plenty more clients to put you "way aheah cash-wise." Sounds like you were hurting.

>It's the nature
>of the Beast, so I
>accepted it...

Hurray for Activist Pt. II. Changing the world.

>Workers in this country need to
>stop whining and stop expecting
>companies to keep jobs in
>the country and/or not lay
>them off when things are
>going bad. I know they
>want their jobs, but that's
>the nature of the beast...they
>should stop whining...stop looking at
>it from only their side
>and deal with it.

Nice work.


Alek
________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

-How do you know that by simply making a car with Aluminum that it is going to kill the workers? That wasn't the case here, the problem here is that they wouldn't need as much steel and the steel union would raise a ruckus.

I think that the biggest problem facing America's automakers is the fact that any serious paradigm change is often impossible due to the unions and the size of these company's. But it is going to take a serious Paradigm change to get our cars truly competitive with the foreign ones. The only reason caddilac had more sales then the foreign car makers is because they had loyal customers, (typically older...who were refusing to buy foreign) now those people have given up......and Caddilac can't do much to get them back. They can just sell their technology to Lexus and Mercedes...but they can't sell their technology in their own cars....what kind of Jack isht is that?

-How come it is okay for the workers to just see their perspective but not for the company?

If executives run the Business, Market the products, Design the Products, decide which products to make, map out the strategic direction of the company and do the things that keep the factories running and the demand for cars up...why should the guy who just screws on mufflers all day get paid the same? They are more people who can work on assembly lines then can be good executives (or even mediocre ones for that matter)..so why should the laborers get paid the same?

The execs are charged with making sure that company runs well and that it continues to make money....(not to mention earnings growth and stock market issues) the workers have to screw bolts....not the same thing. I don't think workers are going to lose their job if their unit misses earnings targets...

Anyway, I stand by my previous comments. Company's should pay fair wages, health benefits, etc...WHILE YOU'RE still employed. If they decide they no longer need to employ you for financial reasons, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.

As for me, in terms of % of income drop let's say I would be hurt more by a 2 month layoff then an Auto Worker.

It boggles my mind that you think you have a right to tell someone what they can do with their own company...e.g. not lay people off or move jobs out of the country.......

People need to know how to build wealth more then they need more money. Otherwise, they'll spend it all and the gap will get bigger...because they are pumping money in the hands of the wealthy. Besides the "workers" are never going to receive the kind of money it would take to give them enough disposable income to make them wealthy just on an income basis. The company's would just raise prices and it wouldn't matter if they made more.

Arghh, I'm sick of you socialist crack pots...so sure you know what's good for the worker.....but having no understanding of how business works. Funny how 99% of you have never had a serious Business Job.......

In my own life, I've had to make reccomendations to companies that they bring in new technology which would result in them having to let people go..and/or reccomending that they let people go in order to make their IT departments more efficient. Call me what you will, and I don't enjoy it...but it's neccessary for the long term health of the company as a whole.

Luckily, there isn't an IT Union......


What's next? Naderism(s)? Everyone gets a job by law? No one can make more then 100k, the CEO cannot make more then 30x the average salary of the rest of the people working at the company?


Lata,





M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>-How do you know that by
>simply making a car with
>Aluminum that it is going
>to kill the workers?

Funny, I don't remember writing that. It'll help if you quote me when you respond, so you can keep all this complex stuff about "human rights" in your head.

>That
>wasn't the case here, the
>problem here is that they
>wouldn't need as much steel
>and the steel union would
>raise a ruckus.

Is this what happened? You led me to believe that the workers at the plant resisted the production of the new car. Can you please post a specific neutral summary of the progression of events in this case we're discussing?

>-How come it is okay for
>the workers to just see
>their perspective but not for
>the company?

Don't recall writing that either. Remember when I explained contract negotiations to you? Both parties go in with their own self interest, and they're both forced to take into account the interest of the other in order to negotiate.

>If executives run the Business, Market
>the products, Design the Products,
>decide which products to make,
>map out the strategic direction
>of the company and do
>the things that keep the
>factories running and the demand
>for cars up...why should the
>guy who just screws on
>mufflers all day get paid
>the same?

Well, that will never happen. So far, I've been focusing on the muffler-screwer getting paid fairly, and that's all. But if you have to ask why he might get paid the same as an executive, I'll tell you. Executives manipulate the business, develop and market the product, arrange for suppliers, etc. But if they don't put it together with a screwdriver, they have LITERALLY NOTHING.
That's why.

>They are more
>people who can work on
>assembly lines then can be
>good executives (or even mediocre
>ones for that matter)..

This is a complete myth. Manufacturing jobs ARE skilled jobs, requiring experience, knowledge, and intelligence. Oftentimes a whole lot more than is required to push papers around on a desk and set a budget.

>Anyway, I stand by my previous
>comments. Company's should pay fair
>wages, health benefits, etc...WHILE YOU'RE
>still employed. If they decide
>they no longer need to
>employ you for financial reasons,
>then that's the way the
>cookie crumbles.

Why (I asked this before) do you think a company will pay workers fairly at all? You've already said that you don't think they're "social-welfare" institutions. Especially if they can fire anyone at will, what in God's name would motivate them to pay their workers well?

Answer this time.

>As for me, in terms of
>% of income drop let's
>say I would be hurt
>more by a 2 month
>layoff then an Auto Worker.

Maybe, but you wouldn't be left with nothing.

>It boggles my mind that you
>think you have a right
>to tell someone what they
>can do with their own
>company...e.g. not lay people off
>or move jobs out of
>the country.......

Well, actually, the government has asserted that right on numerous occasions. I think every citizen has a right to say what they think will be best for people in our country, and voice their concerns over what they care about. Don't get dizzy, though, it's just the first amendment.

>Arghh, I'm sick of you socialist
>crack pots...

Not a socialist. Crack pot depends.

>so sure you know
>what's good for the worker.....

I'm only saying this because I am a worker, and I know countless others, and I've worked in unions, and I've spent lengthy ours talking with workers about their concerns. Not good enough?

>but
>having no understanding of how
>business works. Funny how 99%
>of you have never had
>a serious Business Job.......

Good statistics, businessman.
You have no clue what you're talking about, ESPECIALLY when it comes to your judgements about the professional composition union organizers.

>In my own life, I've had
>to make reccomendations to companies
>that they bring in new
>technology which would result in
>them having to let people
>go..and/or reccomending that they let
>people go in order to
>make their IT departments more
>efficient. Call me what you
>will, and I don't enjoy
>it...but it's neccessary for the
>long term health of the
>company as a whole.

Great. I think it's clear that you don't consider the long term health of the worker, and I think we should leave it at that.

>What's next? Naderism(s)? Everyone gets a
>job by law? No one
>can make more then 100k,
>the CEO cannot make more
>then 30x the average salary
>of the rest of the
>people working at the company?

I'd have no problem with that. How about Michael Eisner takes a %10 pay cut and donates that $20 million a year to a living wage for his offshore workers. Isn't that what you said you wanted?

Take your time.

Alek


________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Back in the fall of 99' Caddilac had developed a concept car called the Evoq...it was actually a damn good roadster. 0-60 in 5.0 seconds with a 4 speed automatic made it very competitive with the other roadsters out there.

Two problems though:

The car could easily be faster then a Corvette, after all the one they tested had a detuned engine. Which could cause some sort of internal brand issues, the Corvette is supposed to be the fastest GM model.

Materials: Fiberglass would be quickest to market, although Steel and Aluminum was the optimum choice...however the decision wasn't made by GM's designers....they had to talk to UAW as well as the Steel Unions....which would dictate the final material choice.

Actually, they just recently announced they were going to make the car....at the Corvette Factory in Bowling Green, Kentucky...I don't have any information yet on what the car is going to be made out of.

The thing that bothers me, is the Union having a say at all in what materials the car is made of. I don't think the workers should be put in danger, but agreements dictating that a certain % of various cars have to use steel and what not have to go.

It's no wonder that GM's 3800 series engine has been in service since the 60s, yes the engine has been modified dramatically...but it's the same push rod they've been using for the past 35 some odd years.

Anyway, I think we can agree that on BOTH sides the UAW and GM relationship is not healthy for either side. IMHO.


As for Toyota & GM's relationship, Toyota makes the Chevy Prism for GM...so each company's union issues are separate. Toyota also buys parts from GM for it's lexus brand (traction control systems, OnStar) but it's just a case of competitors implementing GM technology better the GM can.

BMW uses GM Automatic Transmisios

Toyota doesn't have layoffs because they can't make enough cars to meet demands, (neither can Honda) you can go and order certain models and wait the dealer will tell you that the car won't be coming off the assembly line for another 6 weeks.

The Japanese also have a different culture then the US, according to some they work people "to the bone", to be honest I'm not even sure the Japanese have Unions in Japan...and I know that they don't use Unions in the US. I went to the UAW home place and looked up the UAT region where the Marysville, Ohio plan is (where Honda manufactures the Honda Accord & Acura Tl/CL) they are not represented. Niether are BMW plans in South Carolina (where they make the BMW X-5)

But again, the coporate culture is different. The Japanese take pride in their cars, they take pride in their manufacturing process. They feel what's good for the company is good for them.

The reason the Japanese & Germans don't work with the Unions in the US, is because they don't want them getting their hands in their manufacturing processes. After all, superior manufacturing processes is the primary reason foreign cars are more dependable.

Mazda makes cars here as well, BUT Mazda is owned by Ford..and does use UAW workers...the quality of their cars has slipped and it's wiser to buy a Mazda made in Japan then in the US.

Daimler/Chrysler.

Well, they're laying off folks world wide aren't they? The new head of Chrysler in America, is well known for laying people off.

In any event, it's a different culture and I've always felt that the Unions in Germany have a greater level of synergy with the companies they work with. As in Japan there is more pride in their work, and they feel what's good for the company is good for them.

Overall, I think we can agree that the UAW/US Automaker relationship isn't good for either side or even the consumer. Both sides only care about their self interests, and there absoltutely no positive synergy between the two.

Furthermore, we should look at foreign manufactures who don't use Unions because they feel it would hurt them..but still pay their workers fairly as a clue that the Union isn't the great saviour it claims to be.

As for executives, I haven't worked in a car factory...nor do I care to. However, I do know that they're more people available who can do that kind of work (or are trained to) then high level middle managers and execs. You say that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to autoworkers..maybe...but you for damn sure don't know what it takes be an exec, it's not some cushy job where you just push paper.

I work with upper managers and execs all the time, I see them coming in at 7 and leaving at 7. They're CEOs who have two secretaries, one works the 7-4 and another who works 4-11. It's not a simple "paper pushing job". With no workers they are no cars, but the impetus that helps generate the need to make those cars does not come from the workers.

Finally, I'd like to have this converstion again when you've had a couple of years working in Business at a high level. I admire your dedication to "help" the workers, but it's not as easy as the company not laying people off, and just forking over the cash they're "hording"...and you really just don't "get" the corporate side of things. They are a lot of issues related to Wall St., the Business Cycle, Sales Growth, (just to name a few) that you aren't taking into account.

Peace,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

I was completely misled by your original description. It sounded like Cadillac employees were objecting to the production of the car, but actually it was the employees of the steel supplier. Totally different situation.

Regardless, it's clear from your statement below that even IF the employees had objected, you wouldn't see that as acceptable.

>The thing that bothers me, is
>the Union having a say
>at all in what materials
>the car is made of.

Why not? They make the car. The USE the materials. Why not give them at least a say in production (it works well at Saturn).

>I don't think the workers
>should be put in danger,
>but agreements dictating that a
>certain % of various cars
>have to use steel and
>what not have to go.

This is a completely separate topic. We can discuss it on another post.

>Anyway, I think we can agree
>that on BOTH sides the
>UAW and GM relationship is
>not healthy for either side.
>IMHO.

What exactly are you sayin? It's tangled.

>The Japanese also have a different
>culture then the US, according
>to some they work people
>"to the bone", to be
>honest I'm not even sure
>the Japanese have Unions in
>Japan...and I know that they
>don't use Unions in the
>US.

Wrong and....wrong. At the US plants which make Japanese cars the workers are unionized. In Japan itself they have a completely different system of labor law and labor relations, but they've got the equivalent.
Here's a hint. According to Human Rights Watch, the US lags far behind EVERY other industrialized nation in terms of the right to organize.

>In any event, it's a different
>culture and I've always felt
>that the Unions in Germany
>have a greater level of
>synergy with the companies they
>work with.

Germany actually HAS a labor movement. The synergy works because the balance of power is at least somewhat equal. Both constituents (corporations and unions) are strong social/political forces.

>Overall, I think we can agree
>that the UAW/US Automaker relationship
>isn't good for either side
>or even the consumer.

I don't think so.

>Furthermore, we should look at foreign
>manufactures who don't use Unions
>because they feel it would
>hurt them..but still pay their
>workers fairly as a clue
>that the Union isn't the
>great saviour it claims to
>be.

Find me one, then we'll look at it.

>As for executives, I haven't worked
>in a car factory...nor do
>I care to. However, I
>do know that they're more
>people available who can do
>that kind of work (or
>are trained to) then high
>level middle managers and execs.

Not at all. Training execs is FAR easier than training manufacturors. The difference is that execs are hired based on a self-limiting policy (class, race, education, etc.).

>You say that I don't
>know what I'm talking about
>when it comes to autoworkers..maybe

Definitely.

...but
>you for damn sure don't
>know what it takes be
>an exec, it's not some
>cushy job where you just
>push paper.

I was making a comparison about SKILL. Not hours of work (because manufacturors have long-ass hours and the work is much harder physically) or anything else.

>I work with upper managers and
>execs all the time, I
>see them coming in at
>7 and leaving at 7.

Then they need to organize too (and lots of them have).

>With no workers
>there are no cars, but
>the impetus that helps generate
>the need to make those
>cars does not come from
>the workers.

True.

>Finally, I'd like to have this
>converstion again when you've had
>a couple of years working
>in Business at a high
>level.

Well, then I guess we'll have to postpone it indefinitely.

>I admire your dedication
>to "help" the workers,

Thanks for the quotation marks.


>but
>it's not as easy as
>the company not laying people
>off, and just forking over
>the cash they're "hording"...

Did I ever once suggest that? There are plenty of ways to deal with layoffs, wage increases, or the NUMEROUS other issues I mentioned (none of which, incidentally, you've taken up because the fact that they're routinely ignored by the companies and this proves that companies simply don't care).

>and you
>really just don't "get" the
>corporate side of things.

Really? As part of my study of labor relations, I've devoted a huge amount of time studying American corporatism. I think I "get" it pretty well. Weren't we agreeing about it before? Profits and short term stability, right?

>There
>are a lot of issues
>related to Wall St., the
>Business Cycle, Sales Growth, (just
>to name a few) that
>you aren't taking into account.

I DO take them into account. I happen to think that in many cases they're simply functions of greed. You act like ecomonic theory is a law of nature. It's not, it's the theory of how people get rich, and the contemporary field of American economics and American business completely ignores worker's rights. So it's not that I don't take things into account, I just don't prioritize them the way Roger Smith does and you do.

Alek
________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

You mention the foriegn competitors.

Mercedes which also owns Chrysler = Dailmer Chrysler

Germany, where the union is a lot more powerful than that here in the US. Workers get over 60 DAYS paid vacations and the working hours are less than that in the US.

Lexus/Toyota which often works along with GM.
Japan, again work weeks are often shorter and layoffs are extremely rare.

Cadillac/GM
US, layoffs are frequent, the work week is longer, and the corporations bickers often with the employees (UNION) publicly.

Peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

That is so true about high school kids not living up to their potential. There were so many that I wanted to slap upside their head because they were making honor roll throughout their education, only to go to a community college, if any college at all. The biggest thing I feel that impedes achievement in the black community is lack of confidence and a lack of an example, not lack of resources. Even if you use your resources in the right way, you can still build yourself bigger and better things in the future. It doesn't matter how long it takes, as long as you get there. Defeatist attitudes dont help anyone.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

>Organized Labor rarely has the interests
>of the company at heart,

I'd say this: the company almost NEVER has the interests of the worker at heart, so...


>I think workers should have
>rights.

How would you propose that they get them, if everything is done on the company's terms and the company is singularly concerned with minimun labor cost?

Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

>Apply to college, apply for Financial
>Aid (if you can get
>it) no aid..take out loans...Major
>Finance/Accounting/Economics/Enginering/Comp Sci, or something else
>with a decent starting salary.....you
>make 35-45 coming out of
>college..while your girlfriend (soon to
>be fiance) does the same.
>In your late 20s...you hope
>to be making about 50-70...you
>get married...now you make about
>100-140 together. You buy your
>first house for about 150
>- 200k (either saving for
>the downpayment yourself, or through
>a combination of borrowing from
>family and your own savings)
>you fix up that house
>and sell it in 5
>years for about 200 -
>250k...or more. Then you take
>that money and buy the
>350k house, buy the BMW.....
>

i do get your point, but these numbers are questionable. i mean, it all depends on your college stuff, but 35-45 is a REALLY nice starting salary these days, and 50-70 by the late 20s is one HELL of a jump.

then we get to the house stuff. you cover the downpayment, but don't forget, there's a mortgage (or 2) on that. if your FIRST house costs 150-200K, even if you pull 125K combined, with NO kids, you'll be paying for that house for 10 years (at least). fix it up and sell it? well, that's where the second mortgage may come in. "fixing up" a house ain't cheap. throw 1 kid in the equation? add 5 years. 2 kids? add 10. a certain non-specific relative of mine moved into his first house with ihs wife and 1 child when he was about 30, had his second child soon after this. that house was WELL under 100K. 5 years later he did manage to move into his second house, a modest house costing under 160K. right now that relative and his wife make a combined 160K a year. and they're still not entirely out of debt. i get your point here, but i wanted to clarify how uneasy this whole thing can be.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E
TinkyWinky - marley marl
Vivrant - Pete Rock
bfnh - Premier
guinness - Jay Dee
Mosaic - Hi Tek
Illwill - Hank Shocklee
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Buckwild
Raina - Jazzy Joyce
phil - The Rza
nickelz45 - Diamond D
Donwill - Automator
honorable mention:
fire - fire

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

>i do get your point, but
>these numbers are questionable.
>i mean, it all depends
>on your college stuff, but
>35-45 is a REALLY nice
>starting salary these days, and
>50-70 by the late 20s
>is one HELL of a
>jump.

The Average Starting salary for Engineers, Accountants, Finance Majors and Comp Sci folks is between 35-45. That's what my friends majored in in college, (with 2 exceptions) the Lowest Starting salary was 35...but it was at an accounting firm that worked you to death and paid overtime...so it ended up being about 45k...50 wasn't out of the question either. I don't think any of us made less then 40 1st year out of college.

My point is that all of us wanted to make some serious money, and we picked our professions accordingly. I know a lot of people making 50-70 in their late 20s.....personally I don't think 50 is out of the question by age 30...heck you'd better make at least that much.


>then we get to the house
>stuff. you cover the
>downpayment, but don't forget, there's
>a mortgage (or 2) on
>that. if your FIRST
>house costs 150-200K, even if
>you pull 125K combined, with
>NO kids, you'll be paying
>for that house for 10
>years (at least). fix
>it up and sell it?
> well, that's where the
>second mortgage may come in.
> "fixing up" a house
>ain't cheap.

I'm assuming that the repairs/enhancements wouldn't require a second mortgage. Also, a lot of people (in my experience) borrow extra money if they feel they'll need it to fix up the house.

As for them still being in debt, it typically takes 30 years to pay off a house. Few people plan on paying off their first house, let alone a 250k one in 10 years or less. You get a 30 year mortgage, you wait 5 years to avoid the prepayment penalty (depending on what state you live in) and then you sell it and use the proceeds to pay off the principle remaining on the Mortgage...you take the rest and put it down on a new house. You don't need to pay off the house to sell it.

I'm not trying to sound daft, but I think you misunderstand how mortgages work. No matter how much money you make, most people have 30 year mortgages. Since the interest is usually fixed and you can invest the money you would use to pay the house off quicker...it is smarter (financially) to have a long mortgage then a short one. If you want, I can do the calcs for you........

Anyway, I just got done working on a project for Mortgage Origination company working with their loan origination software....I know the industry pretty well...trust me on this one.

> i
>get your point here, but
>i wanted to clarify how
>uneasy this whole thing can
>be.

Cool, and I added some detail.

I will say that I'm basing this on what my family and friends families did growing up and what my friends and colleagues are doing now. While the salaries may be inflated because of those professions I spoke off.....it does speak to people imitating their parents...because that what my friends are doing.


Peace


M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

makes sense, and yeah, i AM shaky about mortgages. see, you and i are clearly very different people. i'm an english major. once i'm finished college i'll be THRILLED to toil thanklessly in a low-paying position for any recording studio that will take me. there's nothing wrong with choosing your career for the money, but i personally am choosing (or trying to "choose")something i enjoy and care about despite the fact that i may never see more than 40 or 50 K a year for it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E
TinkyWinky - marley marl
Vivrant - Pete Rock
bfnh - Premier
guinness - Jay Dee
Mosaic - Hi Tek
Illwill - Hank Shocklee
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Buckwild
Raina - Jazzy Joyce
phil - The Rza
nickelz45 - Diamond D
Donwill - Automator
honorable mention:
fire - fire

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

Just what the world needs...another English major...

-----
bshelly: railing against the Industrial Revolution since 1999. Even Adam Smith recognizes:

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occassion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." That's my word.

----
bshelly

"You (Fisher) could get fired, Les Snead could get fired, Kevin Demoff could get fired, but I will always be Eric Dickerson.” (c) The God

like i said, i never plan to actually attempt to USE that degree. at least not in any sort of professional setting. what the world DOES need is another phil spector, and that's where i hope to come in....

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E
TinkyWinky - marley marl
Vivrant - Pete Rock
bfnh - Premier
guinness - Jay Dee
Mosaic - Hi Tek
Illwill - Hank Shocklee
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Buckwild
Raina - Jazzy Joyce
phil - The Rza
nickelz45 - Diamond D
Donwill - Automator
honorable mention:
fire - fire

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

I LOVE my career...just because I picked it for money doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. For me to enjoy it, I need to do something I like and something that makes money.

Just a Pet Peeve, the Arts and Science people at college used to always say that at least the enjoyed their majors, unlike the engineers, accountants, finance and computer folks...when we did like our majors and that's why we choose them. Money had something to do with it, but if we hated it we couldn't do it. But the A&S folks just saw that they would hate it, and assumed we did as well.



Peace,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

i don't think you chose it for money alone and that you really hated it. i just think you're a FUCKING PSYCHO for liking it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V I V R A N C E 2001:
TinkyWinky - Posdnuos
Vivrant - q-tip
bfnh - dres
guinness - ju-ju
Mosaic - common
ILLWILL - Chi Ali! hahaha!!!
SqueegieXM - Prince Paul
Kay Dee - Ali Shaheed
Nickelz45 - psyco les
Raina - monie love
Phil - Jarobi
Donwill - trugoy

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

>Apply to college, apply for Financial
>Aid (if you can get
>it) no aid..take out loans...Major
>Finance/Accounting/Economics/Enginering/Comp Sci, or something else
>with a decent starting salary.....you
>make 35-45 coming out of
>college..while your girlfriend (soon to
>be fiance) does the same.
>In your late 20s...you hope
>to be making about 50-70...you
>get married...now you make about
>100-140 together. You buy your
>first house for about 150
>- 200k (either saving for
>the downpayment yourself, or through
>a combination of borrowing from
>family and your own savings)
>you fix up that house
>and sell it in 5
>years for about 200 -
>250k...or more. Then you take
>that money and buy the
>350k house, buy the BMW.....

Very shaky, only a small ammount of people can expect that kind of growth at such an early age, if ever. This is very dependent on the area you live in, the job market at the time, the kind of job you hired at. For the most part most Finiancial Sector entry level position, even with college degree, begin in the $25,000 to $30,000 range. Now as far as the other careers in the more technical fields(IT, engineering, Comp SI) the difference is higher pay, but again is this a good measure for the average college graduate..

peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

25k - 30k in the financial sector? Are you nuts! The only way you're making that little is if you're a bank teller or doing low level book keeping/analysis work for some local business. The financial sector pays more then any other industry, so when you consider the fact that the average college graduate makes about 346...40k for someone in finance isn't out of the question.

My Sr. year of college, it was common practice for all of us to share our compensation packages with our friends. It wasn't a huge Sr. class (1,000 students) so after awhile...you knew the starting salaries of most of the kids who had jobs before Graduation. People who had jobs in Accounting/Finance/Engineering/Comp Sci pretty all broke the 40k barrier coming out school. The mean was about 45k starting out. Some were as high as 55-60k or even more.

The only reason I even said 35-45, was because I knew some kids who didn't put a lot of work into their studies or the job search, and because I knew some people who had confidence issues and didn't apply to top companies and ended up taking salaries in the 30-35k range. I also knew a couple of others, who decided they didn't want to work in those industries (even though they had majors in them) and ended up floating around trying to "find themselves"..still making 30 wasn't hard for these people.

But let's assume my school was exceptional, it's one of the better schools in the country right? The graduates from it are bound to make more.

BUT, based on my day to day work experience...I'd have to disagree with you. Just thinking about the salaries of the young people who work/have worked for me...a lot of the Jr. people fresh out of college are making 45-50...last year we hired a girl fresh out of college (we hired her two days after graduation) to do some low level grunt work...she had almost no experience, went to a mediocre school, had a so/so IT Degree (MIS) had maybe one job her whole life....she started out at 50k.



Take a look at this:

http://collegegradjobs.about.com/careers/collegegradjobs/library/weekly/aa051500a.htm

I rest my case, if you can't make within 5k of those starting salaries in your field..that's on you for not taking care of Business in school.

25-30k? C'mon....even teachers can make more than that!

I don't mean to sound daft, but I think you have low expectations that are not in touch with today's Job Market.

Peace Out,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

I'am looking at from Banking, Insurance, Real Estate industries. The average college grad is not pulling those figures. matter of fact the average as I stated before varies....
$50,000 is the cap for most people... in Accounting alone...here are some sites.http://www.salaryexpert.com/salaryexpert/index.cfm?job=4001&zip=&area=130520.0&x=17&y=11

and

http://www.jobstar.org/ or http://www.acinet.org/

and of course the biggest: http://www.bls.gov/datahome.htm

peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

..........you should know what you're talking about.

Furthermore, you really should know what you're looking at before you quote it.

I went to one of the sites and looked up Accountant, http://www.salaryexpert.com/salaryexpert/index.cfm?job=4001&zip=&area=426160.0&x=20&y=11

It said that accountants in Philadelphia make about 41k with about half of them making between 31 and 48. Looking at the national averages further down the page, it gave 31k as the low, 41k as the average and 48 as the high. This means that 41k is the national average and 48 is the HIGH average, E.g. for a city like NYC where people get paid more.

Furthermore, a high average is NOT A CAP....in salary surveys most people make above or below the average.

Another thing to consider is that for a lot of people, they start out with a Job Title related to their Major..e.g. they start out as an accountant, and then end up a manager, consultant, VP., Financial Advisor, etc. These positions pay more then just being an "accountant" so when looking at someone's earning potential as an accountant, these numbers aren't entirely accurate. You could have a pharmaceutical company with an Accountant working in Sr. Mgt. pulling down 200k/year. He's an accountant by training, if not by job title...so again, stating 50k as a cap is just plain wrong.

So again, 50k is not a realistic cap for Accountants to make. They are accountants charging anywhere from 60 - 200/hour on up. Just that range puts their yearly income at somewhere between 120 - 400k/year.

Furthermore, looking at average salaries for the Real Estate, Insurance & Banking industries won't give you a sound estimate of what a college graduate working in the financial sector can expect to make. #1. Real Estate is not part of the finance industry #2. You left out consulting, investment banking, brokerages, financial concerns that sell Mutual Funds, the accountants/finance majors that a company that isn't a financial institution might snap up. #3. Real Estate, Insurance and Banking industries have a lot of low level people who will bring the average down. If prudential hires 5 financial analysts out of college for 50k and then hires 20 insurance salesmen for 20k out of college..it is going to push the average down.

But I'm not talking about the low level people who aren't making much. I'm talking about the highly educated offspring of people from middle to upper middle class homes.

So let's get back to the subject, what can college graduates realistically expect to make? IF they major in Finance, Accounting, Engineering or Computer Science and are just decent students? I'm talking about just a B- or 2.7 GPA here.

At my college, I do know that a lot of kids were getting offers as I stated before. As students we received that information, letting us know what we could expect...based on what the class ahead of us had gotten. Those numbers were right in line with what I quoted before.

But let's just say that my college was abnormal and in order to really determine the average salary of a college graduate, we would need to talk to recent college graduates and/or their career centers.

http://collegegradjobs.about.com/careers/collegegradjobs/library/weekly/aa051500a.htm

The above web site provides data for 00', 99' & 97. The data was gathered from US News, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Job Stats. The Job Stats list was the most compelling since it was taken from over 900 college career centers, with provided information on what graduates got as well as what various employers were offering.

So again, you misinterpreted the salary survey, you didn't take into account people changing career paths after graduation, you didn't evaluate the financial industry correctly, and you weren't looking at Data that was focusing on college graduates.

I'm only 25, and I went to school with people who made WAAAY above the averages you're quoting...as did I. I also know what the averages are for college graduates, all I have to do is look them up. I've also hired people fresh out of college, who are making that money. 50k isn't out of the question coming out of college, if we were talking 100k...then I'd agree with you....but still there have been kids making that much as well.

Going back to my original post, it is NOT abnormal in the least for graduates of the fields I mentioned to make 35-45 coming out of college and get into the 50-70 range by their late 30s (28+) then marry someone who makes a similar salary and end up with a 6 figure household income.

For these kids who came from affluent homes, this seems normal to them...while it may seem almost impossible for someone who came from a poor family. Perhaps, you fighting me on this reveals that. You see this as not possible, or abnormal...but in my world..it's the norm. Maybe 70 by age 28, is above average...but 50 sure isn't...60 is well within range as well.

I'm going by salary surveys of graduates, and by what I've seen in my own life. I know far too many people who aren't neccessarily exceptional, who will have a 90+ household income by their late 20s after they get married...a lot of them will hit 100k before 30.

The Bureau of Labor statistics provides numbers that are less in some cases then the ones gathered from College Campuses. But even then, that only puts people in the low end of my estimates..but again..it's an average so must people are above or below. Since, I'm not talking about the people who slacked through college and didn't handle business academically and career wise....my previous post stands.

I'm not going to sit here and argue facts you don't understand or won't accept...so if you want to discuss this further please come back with some real facts. I'm sick of the defeatists who love to tell me things aren't possible, that really are and are happening every day to average people. Especially amongst other Blacks, I have a friend now who thinks that buying a house is out of the question for people our age...that you'd have to be on some Bill Gates isht to do so.

I have an Aunt and Uncle who only have an associates degree between them, earn over 6 figures collectively and own 3 homes. Her side of the family is poor and blue collar, and don't understand how they can pull it off....and are always suspecting that they're selling drugs and isht to live how they do. WRONG! They are aware of what they can accomplish and don't impose limits on themselves.

But again, it's because of the environment in which they were raised...they see impossible what others see commonplace.

Their defeatist thinking is one of the reasons that Whites have Financial success in areas we don't. Sometimes we think something is impossible, when in fact it isn't. This is part of the reason why poor whites are more likely to own their homes, even if they don't have people to help them out...they didn't impose that limit on themselves.

I'm not arguing opinion here, I'm arguing financial fact.

Peace,


M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

......working in Engineering, Finance, Accounting or Comp Sci who can help me shed some light on what Graduates in those fields are making?

I'm almost getting irritated that most folks who've responded to my post don't seem to think that it's possible to make that kind of money. That's the kind of defeatist attitudes that keep people from succeeding.....I figure it will have more weight if others chime in with their own experiences.




peace,




M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

I never said that kind of money is not possible, but to say it is the average is simply not true. There are a lot of variables that have to be included in that. Most graduates even in the business field do not make that kind of money, most will never see that kind of money. Now that is the reality..
What you see and the rest of the world are two different things. I try to be as general as possible when I make statements, it is obvious you are dealing with the minority of the population when the fact is that it is not that easy.

peace...

The facts are within my second post......

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

did you really read the stats... or are you just going to continue to argue your points...

peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

Did you graduate from college?

Are you working in the real world?

I suspect you haven't done either, or if you did you're low expectations are holding you back and preventing you from succeeding.

I've seen this before, people who don't think certain salaries are possible or that they can work for certain companies. Then they get passed up by less talented people whose only advantage is that they believe.

Then when presented with the facts of what is possible, they have to argue to save face and/or claim that the norm..simply..isn't.

In my first post on this thread, I talked about how my friends from Middle class backgrounds are doing better then the ones from Blue Collar ones....simply because of expectations......not neccessarily talent or even opportunities.

Apparently, you're one of those people whose expectations or lack of confidence holds them back.

If you want to keep believing the salary ranges and "caps" as you call them are all that's reasonable to expect for most people..then go ahead. I can't stop you. I just hope you wake and/or not spread this nonsense to other young people who are just finishing college.

My numbers come from experience and the salary surveys of college graduates.....and you didn't really interpret your numbers correctly.....so what are we really arguing here. Hmm?


Peace Out,





M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

I read all the stats, my stats came from the Bureau of Labor statistics too! You simply misinterpreted what you read and I already explained that.

To say 50k as a cap for accountants is ludicrous! You know how many accountants make more then that, or hit 6 figures by age 30?! It's laughable, that a CPA would never make more then 50k.

Shoot, I was looking at accountants to do my taxes earlier this year who wanted $75/hour on the low end and to 200+ at the high. If they could bill just 30 hours/week that's a range of 117k to 234k+ Accountants at the Big 5 usually start out in the 35-45 range and finish much higher...and you don't work for a Big 5 for the money...(they don't pay well....not until you're partner anyway) you work for the experience so you can work someplace else!

If you want to misinterpret facts and have low expectations, go right ahead. It will be your fault when people pass you over.






M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

Not every accountant is a CPA. My mother is an accountant went and graduated a semi prestigious institution "Hampton/Mercer University" and did not make over 50 until now, she is damn near 50. I feel YOU misinterpet the stats for IF you could READ your answer is within them. How many accountants have CPA??? How many work at a big 6 firm. How many financial advisors are really earning 100K do you know how much the starting salary at Merrill Lynch is for a Financial Advisor or what it intake to reach that success. Now YOU deal with averages, I say your wrong, you ask for proof and I supply you with them, now you say I misinterpret the statistics. I was offer to work at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.....turned em down ..

as far as your personal attacks......

MOREHOUSE COLLEGE GRADUATE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WITH A CONCENTRATION IN FINANCE.....working at BANK OF AMERICA....

whatever .....

peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

Soon to be working at the Management Training Program in IT at BOA...
currently employed at State Farm Ins...(Underwriter)


peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

......and since I'm already an IT manager I can tell you right now that you're going to exceed 50k rather quickly if you haven't already.



Peace



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

.....if you can't make that much when so many others do....


what can I tell ya'?


Funny how you're accusing me of basing my numbers on experience when you're doing the same thing.....and I got college grad averages from the Bureau of Labor as well.

this is DUMB!

Arghh, I hate training.....I need another project so I can stop wasting time here..............

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

Wow, funny I never mentioned my salary....
Nor have I asked you for your proof as far as the 50K range before 30. Where is your proof??? Your scale??
This cat needs more than a reality check.



I will agree with you the IT (comp sci, engineering, MIS) field does produce the higher paying scale that's common.

Yeah, find another project...

peace...

https://twitter.com/onnextlevel

My bad, I should not have made assumptions about your salary because you were arguing with me. You could be making 60k/year and just don't think that most people can do that.

Anyway, I don't even tell my Mama how much I make...so I'm not going there on the boards. If you really know in order to have an idea, for the sake of argument credibility, inbox me and I can point you to two resources that give VERY accurrate predictions of what someone who does what I do: Sr. Business Analyst/Mid Level Project Mgr. can expect to make in the Philadelphia area.

Hell, since you're going into an IT Mgt. training program, I can give you some pointers there as well.

I'm not really mad at you per se, I just hate it when people seem to be placing limits on themselves that I don't believe exist.


Peace,



M2


P.S. I don't need reality "checks", I prefer the kind I can cash.

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>I'm almost getting irritated that most
>folks who've responded to my
>post don't seem to think
>that it's possible to make
>that kind of money. That's
>the kind of defeatist attitudes
>that keep people from succeeding

Yeah, that's the reason most people can't make 50,000 dollars a year.

Alek


________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Graduates MAJORING IN Accounting, Finance, Engineering, Comp Sci, MIS these are the people I'm talking about...NOT the GENERAL freaking populace. What part of that is so friggin hard to understand! I'm talking about people in THOSE FIELDS, not the Average JOE!!!

MI GAWD! What fields are YOU working in! What did you MAJOR IN!

ONE LAST TIME, IN THOSE FIELDS...it is not hard to make 50k. IN THOSE FIELDS...I'm not talking people who didn't major in those fields...

Again, did you go to college?....are you working in the real world?....what real experience are you basing thise on..with respect to those Majors?!


Come back when you have something real, I'm not posting on this topic until someone does.



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>RE: Are you guys on the PIPE!

No, but whatever college you went to, they need to teach you how to use question marks.

>Graduates MAJORING IN Accounting, Finance, Engineering,
>Comp Sci, MIS these are
>the people I'm talking about...NOT
>the GENERAL freaking populace.

You said that you saw your middle class friends succeeding (going through that whole list: financial aid, college, first year, house, 50K) because of their "expectations," and you asserted that if people (and I assume you were including the Blue Collar kids who you compared them to) expected to do better, they would.

>MI GAWD!

And how to spell.

>What fields are YOU
>working in! What did you
>MAJOR IN!

I haven't graduated yet.

>Again, did you go to college?

I'm there now. Just finishing up my first year at Yale.

Instructions:

1. Put above in pipe.
2. Smoke it.

>....are
>you working in the real
>world?

Yes. Volunteering at the hospital, organizing undergraduates and student/labor coalitions.

>Come back when you have something
>real, I'm not posting on
>this topic until someone does.

Somebody give M2 back his teddy bear.


Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

.....after you've experienced the real world and then we'll talk.

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>.....after you've experienced the real world
>and then we'll talk.

Okay. See if you can hang on to some shred of logic until then.

Alek

P.S. How is New Haven not "the real world?" It's about as real as it gets.

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Working for a living and seeing how Business and the Corporate Machine work at a high level is the Real World, College is not. Shoot.....I don't care where you go to college, it just gives you baseline level of skills....you don't really learn anything about Business until you start working.

That's the reason people who get MBAs before they go out into the workplace, are often schooled by those who don't have MBAs but have more real world experience. An MBA without experience has *some value* and may help your career, but that MBA really isn't worth anything until you work for a couple of years and see how things really work.


peace,



M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

>Working for a living and seeing
>how Business and the Corporate
>Machine work at a high
>level is the Real World,
>College is not.

Seeing how business runs and working at the top of the ladder puts one completely out of touch with the majority of our country. How is that the real world? The real world is people not getting health care, people not getting good education, etc.

Whether I'm in college or not has nothing to do with my perception of the real world, just as my age has nothing to do with it. I've made a real and direct effort to see what's out there besides upper-middle class life. I live now in one of the poorest communities in the country.

>you don't
>really learn anything about Business
>until you start working.

I worked all through high school. Not for a living, but I worked about 30 hours a week.

Look, I'll be the first person to admit that I have limited experiencel/knowledge about running a business. But that doesn't mean I have limited experience/knowledge about the real world, so you can stop trying to dismiss me on those grounds.

Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

Until you see how the corporate machine works on the inside, and start considering issues dealing with investor confidence, sales growth, increases in earnings from one year to the next, trying to find a way to boost the bottom line (again relating to investors and capital), so that the markets don't react adversely.....you can't get an accurate picture of how companies work and the issues they face.......and the things I mentioned are the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps I was wrong by calling it "The Real World" perhaps I should call it the "Real Business World".

Being aware of poor people, people without health care, people struggling to get by...does not give on sufficient insight into the corporate machine...particularly since you want to change it. I've yet to see see people who call for same things you do, that have first hand knowledge of corporations from the inside. Because if you had first hand knowledge, you'd realize that some of the things you want are unrealistic.

Layoffs, downsizing, job cuts, mergers, shifting work to foreign countries....are all sad parts of the corporate life. It's unfortunate, but they're neccessary for the long term health of the corporation. You don't want to believe that because of the people it hurts, or because it would be better for people towards the bottom of the economic ladder. But it's still neccessary.

Corporations are not social welfare organziations, they were started for the purpose of making a profit. No one starts a company thinking about the people they could employ.

I'm not against the idea of Unions, I'm against the practice. In my mind Unions should merely represent the workers and make sure they get paid fairly, they get the proper benefits and that they have safe work environments. BUT, Unions want to dictate how the company is run, what materials are used, where areas the company can do business, if the company can let lay people off if they no longer need them, heck if the Union had their way..the people they represent would get paid more then the people that actually run the company!

If you ask me, Unions should stop at work enviroments, benefits and wages...and let the company run itself. If they are layoffs, you have a severence package that is part of the deal and leave it alone..you accept that layoffs are part of business.

Currently there isn't a consultants Union, (although I hear rumblings of people trying to create one ) Quite frankly, I hope it stays that way. It would only get in the way of progres and I think it would hurt us in the long run. Autoworkers get more money (in terms of % of salary) then I do, when I have down time...so it would help me $ wise, if there was a Union...BUT, in terms of career opportunities and industry progress...I think it's a bad idea.

I don't want to see an IT union either, I hope to god I never see one. A common thread through all the assignments I have, is that I'm trying to make a Business Process more efficient: re-engineering a software app, replace an existing software with a better one, supply chain efficiencies, help turn around the operational efficiency/competency of an IT shop, etc.

To do that, I have to reccomend new technologies, evaluate personnel, decide who needs to go, who can be re-trained, etc. It's hard enough to convince a company to invest in the short term costs of re-engineering their IT Business Process/Technologies, (Businesses can rarely see long term benefits with tech, but that's neither here nor there) but it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to do it if we have to give them 12 months of severence pay, can only layoff X number of people and/or can only use certain technologies, the workers have a say in what technologies we can use, the workers are trying to control how the company outsources things. <shudder>


Anyway, I've said my piece.



Peace,




M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin�s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin�s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.

I must be.

>Until you see how the corporate
>machine works on the inside,
>and start considering issues dealing
>with investor confidence, sales growth,
>increases in earnings from one
>year to the next, trying
>to find a way to
>boost the bottom line (again
>relating to investors and capital),
>so that the markets don't
>react adversely.....you can't get an
>accurate picture of how companies
>work and the issues they
>face.......and the things I mentioned
>are the tip of the
>iceberg.

Fine. I've been trying to learn this for a long time. As I said, I've done a fairly extensive amount of study involving corporate policy, practice, etc. I honestly think that you're misinterpreting my lack of concern for lack of knowledge.

I'm not so concerned right now with finding a way to boost the bottom line, nor am I concerned with beating out foreign competition or pretty much anything else you listed. I know what you're talking about, and I understand it, but I've made WORKER'S RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS my priority in this discussion (and, incidentally, my life). You obviously haven't, so the things you think are important don't line up with the things I think are important. It's an ideological difference.


>Perhaps I was wrong by calling
>it "The Real World" perhaps
>I should call it the
>"Real Business World".

I'd call it the Semi-Real Business World.

>Being aware of poor people, people
>without health care, people struggling
>to get by...does not give
>on sufficient insight into the
>corporate machine...

No shit. Other than how the corporate machine routinely screws people.

>particularly since you want
>to change it.

Like I said, I feel that I understand the corporate machine well enough to try to change it, especially given the fact that I'm advocating a different set of priorities, so it's not vital that I first sympathize and fully comprehend existing priorities (even though I still make an effort to).

>I've yet
>to see see people who
>call for same things you
>do, that have first hand
>knowledge of corporations from the
>inside.

Once again, no shit. Someone who cares deeply about worker rights is probably not going to involve himself in an institution which suppresses those rights.

>Because if you had
>first hand knowledge, you'd realize
>that some of the things
>you want are unrealistic.

Which? What did I propose that was unrealistic? That's a pretty huge generalization, especially given the fact that I simply mentioned a laundry list of different concerns, and no particular demands. I know that giving workers a 500% wage increase is unrealistic. I know that, for some companies, fully subsidizing health care is unrealistic (while partial subsidy wouldn't be).
Etc.

>Layoffs, downsizing, job cuts, mergers, shifting
>work to foreign countries....are all
>sad parts of the corporate
>life.


This is not set in stone.


>It's unfortunate, but they're
>neccessary for the long term
>health of the corporation.

See above. You're acting like this is a law of nature, but it isn't. It's just one theory (which happens to dominate corporate America at the moment) among many.

>You
>don't want to believe that
>because of the people it
>hurts, or because it would
>be better for people towards
>the bottom of the economic
>ladder. But it's still neccessary.

Disagree.

>Corporations are not social welfare organziations,
>they were started for the
>purpose of making a profit.

You can't define what corporations are. They can be anything. Techically, or theoretically, they're whatever their stock-holders want them to be.

>No one starts a company
>thinking about the people they
>could employ.

....and you're wrong. Sorry, but you are. This is the basis of much liberal reform in the past century (especially during/after the depression and in Johnson's era). The same held for the early 19th century.

>I'm not against the idea of
>Unions, I'm against the practice.

And now it comes out. Couldn't hang on to that neutral stance any longer, huh?

>In my mind Unions should
>merely represent the workers and
>make sure they get paid
>fairly, they get the proper
>benefits and that they have
>safe work environments.

If you get laid off, do you consider that "getting paid properly?" What's the difference between a large-scale pay cut and a string of layoffs? --->>Do answer this, because it seems to me that it's pretty much the same from the angle of the company.

>BUT, Unions
>want to dictate how the
>company is run, what materials
>are used, where areas the
>company can do business, if
>the company can let lay
>people off if they no
>longer need them, heck if
>the Union had their way..the
>people they represent would get
>paid more then the people
>that actually run the company!

Once again, you know nothing about union contract negotiations. Ditto with your perception of who's really important to the functioning of the company. Are you saying that the workers represent literally NO PART of the company's composition? If the issue here is democracy within an institution, and workers are constituents in that institution, then why WOULDN'T they have a say in most company decisions?

By the way, nearly every contract sets out what are acceptable and unacceptible bargaining points.

>If you ask me, Unions should
>stop at work enviroments, benefits
>and wages...and let the company
>run itself.

At which point it would proceed to ruin the work environment and cut pay and benefits. See?

>If they are
>layoffs, you have a severence
>package that is part of
>the deal and leave it
>alone..you accept that layoffs are
>part of business.

This is the first time you've ever mentioned severance. You kept maintaining that it was just the breaks of the game, and kept asking "Why should the company feel at all responsible for firing someone? It's the worker's problem." Now it seems like you're saying that the worker IS owed some kind of job security.
Hmmm.

>Currently there isn't a consultants Union,
>(although I hear rumblings of
>people trying to create one
> )

There are probably consultants who are union members (freelance writers/analysts can join unions).

>Quite frankly, I
>hope it stays that way.

Shock me.

>It would only get in
>the way of progres and
>I think it would hurt
>us in the long run.

I think that at this point you should just stop pretending that you care about worker rights at all. You clearly don't.

>Anyway, I've said my piece.

Indeed. Me too.

Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."