Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Saturday, February 13. 2016Saturday morning linksBoy Does Something Special With $20 He Finds In A Parking Lot Ancient hook-ups with Neanderthals left lasting effects on our health Tattoo takeover: Three in ten Americans have tattoos, and most don’t stop at just one How the progressive left intends to use the courts to harass those who don’t agree with them on the climate ADVICE FOR PARENTS OF SMALL CHILDREN: Don’t Be Afraid Of Dirt. Flint’s Not the Only City with a Water Problem Soon, West Virginians will have the right to work Gary Kaltbaum: Janet Yellen ‘Just Doesn’t Have a Clue’ People Over 50 Carrying More Debt Than in the Past Welcome To Obama's Recovery: Carrier Moving 1400 Jobs To Mexico Progressive Rutgers Students Protest Milo Yiannopoulos by Smearing Themselves With Fake Blood Campus Lefties: Bullies With a Cause Liberal intolerance is on the rise on America’s college campuses Obama: Muslims are more equal than Christians in America Had someone like Darrell Issa run a hedge fund out of the Cayman DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists Bruised Marco Rubio Gets Personal and Aggressive The Unexpected Breadth of Donald Trump's Appeal - In New Hampshire, he won working class men without college diplomas—and most every other demographic group. Apparently we should get on a boat and leave America ASAP Why the Western Sahara Matters Russia keeps bombing despite Syria truce; Assad vows to fight on Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Russia keeps bombing despite Syria truce; Assad vows to fight on
If you thought you were winning your civil war, wouldn't you? Whose truce? The one agreed to by the U.S., Turkey, France, Germany and the UK? Assad, who was elected by his people to protect them from the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and their gangs, would be a fool to trust anything that cabal says or does.
Tattoo takeover: Three in ten Americans have tattoos, and most don’t stop at just one
Am I the only one who finds the seeming modern penchant for tattooing the hell out of the body and piercing every appendage with metal studs somewhat, er, primitivist? I think it reflects a mental illness. No, not the occasional tatoo, not the one tatoo you got at 18 when you joined the Navy or the one you got at 21 when you were drunk. But after ten tatoos and one entire arm and shoulder is in full color or five earrings in each ear and a stud in your nose and eyebrow or lip; you have a mental health problem.
One odd and disturbing fact about excessive tatoos is that so often a person on welfare will have $10,000 in tatoos to go along with their three kids and excessive benefits. If there was ever a signal that our welfare benefits are too high this is it. In other words, if you do it it's fine; if someone you can label does it, it's nuts.
QUOTE: Tattoo takeover: Three in ten Americans have tattoos, and most don’t stop at just one Oh what will these kids getting into next... http://www.highsnobiety.com/2016/02/10/classic-famous-artwork-covered-in-modern-tattoos/ Re: Tattoos takeover,
I think that's an accurate article, though I expect Maggie's Farmers to disagree with extreme prejudice. I wish the artists would develop a culture of ethics regarding young people and sleeves, though. No one should get inked below the elbow or on the neck while they are young or before they have a considerable amount of tats already. Even my mom, a retired school teacher, got one a couple years ago at age 66. Many years ago, I was told by mental health professionals that there was a rule of thumb regarding tattoos - that after a certain number (I don't remember the number but it was certainly less than five), the tattoos likely indicated "mental instability" (you were crazy).
To add another data point, my wife and I are training to become Stephen Ministers (https://www.stephenministries.org/). One of the ladies from our church who is taking the classes with us is engaged to a guy (another member of our church) who owns a tattoo parlor. Naturally, they both have PLENTY of tattoos! They are both wonderful people. Certainly, the old rule of thumb is no longer operative! We must stop all this cultural appropriation through tattooing. The Britons and Picts were the "painted people"
Let us cover ourselves in woad and prepare for the coming battle. re: Carrier moving jobs to Mexico
The bulk of the analysis of this, including a link within the story to the "experts" who say this is unusual and unlikely to be any sort of harbinger of other companies moving to Mexico, focuses on the lower cost of labor in Mexico. The spokesman from Carrier quoted in the article, however, specifically mentions the regulatory burdens of manufacturing within the US. It's not necessarily the pay rate itself that's driving the move, it's the cost of having employees at all and having to document to the DoL, OSHA, the IRS, the EEOC, etc., etc., etc., every single tiny detail of who you hire and how you work them and how you pay them. Plus, of course, the EPA mandates that more and more seem to be aimed at stopping all human activity whatsoever. "Cutting taxes" as the GOP keeps harping on is just not going to fix this, it's rolling back the regulatory state that's required. Precisely. The government's micro-management of every phase of our lives succeeds in smothering any positive outcomes. My doctor now has more accountants and paper-pushers than medical support staff. He's planning on retiring from medicine next year if Obamacare isn't pulled. He was planning on working his orchards in retirement, but the EPA is hassling him about ponds on his property, etc. A small island in the Caribbean is looking good to him.
My doctor "retired" last year. He wrote a letter to all of his patients making it clear that he was leaving the practice of medicine because of Obamacare and the frustration of all the government red tape, especially the new coding system all healthcare providers are now forced into.
"How the progressive left intends to use the courts to harass those who don’t agree with them on the climate"
I wish I'd kept the link, but several years ago, I read a blog post that pointed out quite convincingly that in the 1970s an insurgent army of lawyers started conducting operations against America and the Constitution. If we step back and view what these lawyers are doing piecemeal, you see their goal is to overthrow. Now, as you might expect, these lawyers with their legal insurgency or I suppose to day it would be trendy to call it, jihad, are Lefty Progressives. Counter-insurgency is difficult because like insurgents, they plan their operations, come out of the woodwork, then win or lose blend back into the population. Regarding jobs moving offshore:
I think there is a great opportunity here. Our business taxes are crippling and instead of discouraging business here we should encourage it. Do two things immediately. 1. Cut/end all federal business income taxes to zero for all work and products produced in the U.S. 2. Place a 20% tax on all goods and services that originate outside the U.S. That is if a car or air conditioner is built in Mexico with no U.S. components and work than the entire retail value is taxed at 20% when it enters the country. If half of the work and products were made in the U.S. but assembled in Mexico or China or Indonesia, etc. than 50% of the retail value is taxed at 20%. The companies are free to build products and provide services overseas but they will pay a 20% tax. If they choose to build it here from American resources and labor than 0 tax. This will end that giant sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico and China. QUOTE: How the progressive left intends to use the courts to harass those who don’t agree with them on the climate Courts won't usually entertain idle accusations. However, if it can be shown that a corporation lied about climate change, then it could result in a successful civil case. How can anyone argue a company "lied" when there is no empirical evidence to support climate change? All the empirical evidence indicates there has been no climate change for the past 18 years. It is only computer models which supposedly demonstrate climate change but they are not supported by actual evidence. In fact, the empirical evidence shows the models are false.
Jim: How can anyone argue a company "lied" when there is no empirical evidence to support climate change?
Quite the contrary. Courts rely on expert testimony, and the vast majority of climate scientists accept anthropogenic climate change. What would have to be shown is that the corporation involved (such as an oil company) knew that climate change was a problem, but lied about it to their customers and stockholders. Jim: All the empirical evidence indicates there has been no climate change for the past 18 years. 2015 set a record for the instrumental surface temperature, beating the previous record 2014. Jim: In fact, the empirical evidence shows the models are false. You really shouldn't get your scientific information from the right wing echochamber. QUOTE: Gary Kaltbaum: Janet Yellen ‘Just Doesn’t Have a Clue’ Nothing in the article actually supports the claim. Due to political dysfunction in the world's largest economy, the Federal Reserve has been attempting to maintain market stability; however, the tools they have are not appropriate to the job. It's like they are pushing on a string. Rather, the U.S. needs to invest in infrastructure and education in order to support long-term growth. Zach I assume you didn't include economics classes in your liberal education. Public works projects do not contribute to long term growth or any 'growth'. There is not a net gain by taking money from businesses and individuals to spend on 'infrastructure'. In fact there is generally a net loss because without the excessive taxation those individuals and businesses would in fact have invested in their businesses which would have created jobs and capital investment. The correct way to stimulate the economy and create long term growth is to dramatically lower taxes and regulations.
GoneWithTheWind: Public works projects do not contribute to long term growth or any 'growth'.
You don't think roads contribute to long-term economic growth? Or research into the prevention of contagious diseases? You are begging the question because you fear the answer.
Let's take a road for example. It could just as easily be a water or sewer line or a railroad track. Some things are necessary and should be built. Their net economic value to society is zero. That is if it costs $100 million to build it gives us $100 million in benefit for a net zero economic good. That is the best we can hope for with public or government projects. But from there on the reality gets so much worse. Every public/government project requires adherence to the Davis Bacon act. That is they must pay whatever the union demands and the union demands a lot. That guy you see out there paving the road is paid quite well, more than you or I. It is hard, dirty and hot work but are they really worth 150% to 250% of what you could hire a non-union worker to do the same job? So immediately that $100 million dollar road project that only yields $100 million in benefits costs between $130 million and $150 million. Classic crony capitalism or union ass kissing depending on how accurate you want to be. But it gets worse: When Robert Byrd was alive and headed the appropriations committee he funneled a majority of highway funds to his home state. So the important critical infrastructure you cite was not built even though the money was spent. In this case that mythical $100 million project returned exactly zero net benefit to the country but keep in mind we still spent $150 million for it thanks to the Davis Bacon act. So the question is is you spend $150 million of taxpayers money for a project that should cost $100 million but is in the wrong place and is never used (since it was only built to redistribute funds to voters and supporters of the corrupt senator) what is the net benefit to the taxpayers??? That's right it's negative $150 million. We have in this country a federal and state tax on gas and diesel that is supposed to be spent on roads and bridges. A self supporting system of infrastructure upgrades and maintenance. If this had been managed properly no one would today be saying we need to 'invest' in infrastructure because the money was there and it was more than adequate for the job. But the politicians siphoned off this money for their favorite projects in their home states. so you had 535 congressmen taking money from a dedicated fund to pay of their cronies and donors AND you had Robert Byrd taking half of what was left to build roads to no where in West Virgina. What is the net benefit to the taxpayer?? It is a huge negative amount over the last ten years probably in the range of $3-5 trillion. The bottom line is that most federal spending falls under the broken window theory and provides no net benefit (that is "net" benefit not simply "benefit"), and because of political corruption most of the taxpayer money is wasted and stolen. Your theory about a benefit to the economy is as corrupt as our congress is. GoneWithTheWind: Let's take a road for example. It could just as easily be a water or sewer line or a railroad track. Some things are necessary and should be built. Their net economic value to society is zero. That is if it costs $100 million to build it gives us $100 million in benefit for a net zero economic good.
Roads contribute far more value to the economy than their cost of construction. It's hard to even imagine a modern economy without roads.
#9.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2016-02-15 08:40
(Reply)
If roads DID contribute FAR more to the economy than they cost, we could pay off the national debt by building roads. Your logic pales to reality. A $100 million dollar road costs the taxpayer $150 million and provides no more than $100 million in benefits (at best).
By your logic we should all go out and break our neighbors windows. The huge amount of money it would cost to fix and replace them all would stimulate the economy by making jobs. My god you are on to something here. We could buy back 1 million clunkers and stimulate the auto industry. We could bulldoze new homes and stimulate the housing industry. Zach your grasp of economics is brilliant. Wasting taxpayer money could be the next big Democrat plan to save us all.
#9.1.1.1.1.1
GoneWithTheWind
on
2016-02-15 10:05
(Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: If roads DID contribute FAR more to the economy than they cost, we could pay off the national debt by building roads.
Building unlimited roads will give diminishing returns. But your claim is that none of them have economic value greater than their cost, which is just silly. GoneWithTheWind: By your logic we should all go out and break our neighbors windows. Breaking windows and building roads are not quite the same thing.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2016-02-15 11:05
(Reply)
It goes back to the broken windows theory.
The problem with taxing to build infrastructure as a way to stimulate the economy is that you have to take the money from people who would have spent it or invested it and that would have stimulated the economy. So there is a net zero at best. But what makes it worse than a net zero is that the government cannot help itself and has to spend $150 million to build a $100 million road/bridge/etc. So there is a economic impact of -$50 million. If the money had been left in the hands of the tax payers there is a better than even chance that the net economic impact would be +$100 million or +200 million because private individuals and companies are the entity that can "make" a profit. So while it is difficult to extrapolate accurately arguably money in the hands of the taxpayers will generate 200%-500% more economic gain than the government would if they took that money from the taxpayer. The real issue here is what happened to the highway fund. Address that issue. The congress siphoned off that money and left roads and bridges to deteriorate. NOW Obama wants a new tax and uses the deteriorated infrastructure as the reason. Obviously they will piss away that money too and simultaneously decrease net economic gain in the process. If you want to stimulate the economy cut taxes. I would eliminate federal taxes on business and reduce the top tax rate for individuals to 20%. THAT would stimulate the economy.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
GoneWithTheWind
on
2016-02-15 18:59
(Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: The problem with taxing to build infrastructure as a way to stimulate the economy is that you have to take the money from people who would have spent it or invested it and that would have stimulated the economy.
Government spending can act as a stimulus, but only when there is an excess supply of money and labor. However, you are conflating stimulus, which is short-term, with the value of infrastructure, which is long-term. You are actually arguing that roads can never increase long-term growth. Other basic infrastructure includes water and sanitation, which are also essential for the growth of cities.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2016-02-16 09:04
(Reply)
I am not "arguing that roads can never increase long-term growth". To the extent that we need roads and bridges they provide economic value equal to their cost. To the extent it is make work projects or a foil to increase taxes they are a waste of money with a negative economic return. This entire discussion is nothing more that the left preparing to push for a $10 a barrel tax on oil. NO! Go back and fix the broken system that allows congress to loot the highway fund.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
GoneWithTheWind
on
2016-02-16 09:28
(Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: To the extent that we need roads and bridges they provide economic value equal to their cost.
Roads provide value far in excess of their cost, a value often lasting for generations. Consider Main Street in just about any town, or the superhighway system. GoneWithTheWind: To the extent it is make work projects or a foil to increase taxes they are a waste of money with a negative economic return. You are still conflating stimulus, which is a short-term measure, to infrastructure, which has a long-term benefit.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2016-02-16 09:51
(Reply)
No! You are wrong. Before anyone built roads there were main streets. If it were true and consistently true that a $100 million spent building a road would return 200% or 500% or even 1000% more benefit than it costs to build than the answer to prosperity is simple; tax at 100% and spend it all building roads/infrastructure. It is NOT true. BUT what is true is that same money, untaxed and in the citizens pockets DOES return 200%, 500%, and even 1000% economic benefit. AND THAT is why taxing to build roads just for the sake of taxing and rewarding cronies is counter productive and a mistake
It is no coincidence that you are suddenly lobbying for more roads at the same time Obama is proposing a $10 a barrel tax on oil. You are nothing more than a shill for the Democrats.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
GoneWithTheWind
on
2016-02-16 20:52
(Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: You are wrong. Before anyone built roads there were main streets.
Name a main street in a major city that isn't due to government action, so we know what you are talking about. GoneWithTheWind: If it were true and consistently true that a $100 million spent building a road would return 200% or 500% or even 1000% more benefit than it costs to build than the answer to prosperity is simple; tax at 100% and spend it all building roads/infrastructure. Asked and answered. There are diminishing returns. And some roads have more value than others. But some roads have provided a benefit far in excess of their cost. GoneWithTheWind: It is no coincidence that you are suddenly lobbying for more roads ... We're not lobbying for more roads. You claimed that public words don't contribute to long-term growth, and that is clearly not the case in many instances. Every modern economy has a network of roads, as well as water and sewage, that form an essential component of the economic system.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2016-02-17 09:41
(Reply)
I am not arguing against roads I am arguing against new taxes or a new push for 'infrastructure' which we all know is code for union jobs in return for union votes. Stop looting the highway fund and spend it on highways and bridges. Stop making highfalutin claims of huge economic gains if we just spend more money or increase taxes. Cut taxes if you want to see real economic gain, cut government spending so it is consistent with the tax revenues. This constant Democrat mantra of tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend is destroying our economy and gutting the middle class.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
GoneWithTheWind
on
2016-02-17 23:09
(Reply)
QUOTE: Obama: Muslims are more equal than Christians in America Bad example. Reasonable accommodation is what is required under the law. The drivers had to show in court that such a reasonable accommodation was available, which they did. As for the Kim Davis case, she didn't just refuse to provide marriage licenses, but prevented anyone in her office from providing marriage licenses. She didn't look for or want a reasonable accommodation. Re How the progressive left intends to use the courts to harass those who don’t agree with them on the climate
Sounds like their rationale is on very thin legal ground to me, but with friendly judges they could succeed. From my perspective, were this to succeed, it would lay the groundwork for suing anyone who opposes the Left on any issue. Just declare an issue 'settled science' and sue the bejeebers out of the opposition. The fear of costly litigation to exercise one's free speech rights would likely silence a great number of people on many issues. @Gonewiththewind - Some of us on this side of the pond would be very happy if US companies stayed in the US. GE just took over Alstom in Switzerland. Shortly after doing so, they announced 6,500 job cuts with over 1,300 in Switzerland alone.
Please be kind enough to keep your corporate "burn and pillage" mentality out Europe and in America where it belongs. . "keep your corporate "burn and pillage" mentality out Europe and in America where it belongs."
I'm not sure where that comes from. I am pretty aware of what American companies do and what other countries companies do. I simply don't see anything that could be characterized as "burn and pillage" even as a metaphor. I am aware that when Saddam Hussein was building his WMD factories that German, French and Dutch countries had those contracts. I suppose that is their moral conflict to deal with but I wouldn't call it "burn and pillage". Although if Saddam had successfully used any of these weapons I would assume that there would be a legal liability to them. So I will assume your comment was either in jest or simply provocative (in a good way I'm sure). However if you can provide some examples of "burn and pillage" I will be happy to discuss it. "Burn and Pillage" has been part of our 2,000 year history as wars raged back and forth Europe from the Swedes invasion of Germany to the Danish raids of Brittan and France up until our most recent debacles back in the 1940's. Needless to say, we've been at it for a long time so 70-years of peace with is new to us.
In this perspective, it has to do with the American attitude of corporate destruction internally and abroad. Back in the 80's American companies, like those managed by Mit Romney, were famous for taking over companies (GST Steel, Dade International and others) and chopping them into smaller ones, selling off anything of value and tossing workers into the streets or simply sending everything off-shore. It was pretty much the last phase of American deindustrialization and Ross Perot warned Americas about this during his attempt at the presidency. As you may be aware, GE recently bought Alstom (France) and has taken over their gas turbine business which is Based in Switzerland. The deal itself was a bit of a mess with Patrick Kron (CEO of Alstom) going hat in hand to ask if GE would be willing to buy the company behind the back of the French government. As you can imagine, when the French found out, they were not happy and even tried to get Siemens to get into the deal, but Siemens wasn't interested. The deal went through with GE and now they are laying off 6,500 people. While European companies have had layoffs in the past, and present and will in the future, there's an established history of American companies putting the value of their workers well below that of their shareholders. In much of Europe, and especially Germany, companies do everything they can NOT to dismiss workers unless they absolutely have to. Programs like "kurtzarbeit" (short work) are programs where companies will reduce workers hours and the government makes up part of the salary. This was done in California during the 2008 downturn in some companies. The purpose is to keep highly skilled workers at work, but working less, until the economic climate turns around and business picks up again. Obviously this isn't a long term solution and eventually if things don't work out then people have to be let go. But no one wants to see highly skilled workers lose their jobs given how hard it is to find them and keep them in the first place. European companies (at least German ones, the British, not so much) have a long history of looking out for their workers and not hiring and firing on a whim. We have a stronger sense of social responsibility to our workers, and as many companies, tend to maintain them at a sustainable size, with modest raises and benefits even for the CEO. I have met dozens of Americans, especially around Frankfurt, who would do anything they could to remain here in Germany, rather than return to the US knowing that they risk losing their jobs at some point in the future because of they way American companies treat their workers. You will find that over 95% of German companies are family owned, and often have less than 100 workers. Workers who have committed themselves to the company, with the company committed to their employees. It's a life-time commitment which is a mutually beneficial relationship. Not like your American attitude of "burning and pillaging" companies and workers. The very idea of GE coming over here, and within months of arriving, to announce these numbers of lay offs is nearly unprecedented in European businesses. And leaves a very bad impression of how American companies intend to function when they come to Europe. If this is the future of American companies in Germany, we would prefer you learn from Walmart's failed attempts to open here and keep your business practices out of Germany. . Well Mitt Romney is a good place to start. I don't know if you simply hate Mitt or simply believe all the Democrat Socialist lies about him. What Mitt's company did was take over failing businesses and rehabilitate them. These businesses could have been family run businesses with 100 employees or big corporations with 1000's of employees but they all had one thing in common; mismanagement. If you are a smart businessman and bought a failing company with the intent of rehabilitating it and making a profit in the process would you fire hundreds of employees if those employees were essential for the companies success? of course not. These companies were mismanaged and that mismanagement included your theory that the employees shouldn't be fired even though they are not providing value equal to or greater than their cost of employment. YOU would like to run companies in a socialist philosophy in a world economy that is for the most part capitalist. I;m guessing that you work for the government Karl.
Your dislike of Walmart is a 'tell' to your beliefs and philosophy. Don't get me wrong I don't blame any European for not wanting an American company just as France doesn't want a German company and Germany doesn't want a French company. We are all in tribes and we behave like tribal members. But Walmart is what it is and that is the most successful retail company in the world ever in our history and at the same time provide more benefit to their customers than any other retail company by a wide margin. It is estimated that a typical Walmart customer saves $2300 a year thanks to Walmart. Just try to beat that with you mom and pop stores. But you resent it because it is foreign, I get it. I still can't agree with your metaphor of burn and pillage. I do understand what you meant by it, i.e. failed to follow your preferred socialist values and retain useless employees at a net cost to consumers. I prefer a economic system where a company is run to benefit the owners of the company and it keeps employees by treating them fairly while simultaneously expecting them to do their job AND retains customers by providing them good service and value. You prefer something else. There is an old joke about Europe, you may have heard it: A gentleman from England was on extended holiday in Southern France and he was having a problem finding a decent laundry soap in the local stores. He finally found a little store that had his brand. He went to the store and bought a box of laundry detergent. The owner looked at him, looked at the soap on the top shelf and grudgingly went and got the ladder, climbed the ladder, got the box of soap and put it on the counter, put the ladder away and came back and made the sale. Next week the man was back and the store keeper went through the same ordeal. Then one day the man came in to buy his soap and the store was out of that brand. The man asked well why didn't you order some more to replace the stock yoou were selling? The store keeper replied, because I had to keep getting the ladder and climbing and then putting the ladder away and it wasn't worth it. Now don't make me explain that joke if it is too subtle but when I lived in Europe many years ago that was my impression of retail business there too. They were more or less there to sell their product but seemed to care less about the customer. Walmart is the exact opposite and maybe that is why older more established retail stores dislike them. @ GWTW - After my mandatory German military service, I left university with a degree in engineering from Darmstadt. Since then I have worked for private industry all my life.
I have personally seen my American colleagues let go during my time working in California. And yes, some of these companies were mismanaged, but still the managers walked away with hundreds of thousands if not millions in severance packages, while the workers were left with nothing. I have nothing against the workers at Wal-Mart or any other American company, I shopped there quite often myself. People were very friendly, more so than in Germany to be honest. But Wal-Mart failed here in Germany because it didn't understand German culture. There are a number of good articles you can search on why it didn't work out. And while you're at it, read up on Wal-Mart and what it's really costing Americans. The small family owned businesses it has put out of business, along with communities it has negatively impacted, plus low wages and lack of health care for its employees is a dismal example of corporate responsibility and pure corporate greed. Sure, you may save a few dollars buying primarily cheap Chinese imports, but at what REAL cost to American workers? What I do have a problem with, and this isn't from a social-democratic perspective, is that the American corporate model simply is not a good corporate neighbor and fails to treat employees with respect, honesty and dignity. I don't expect corporations to be given government hand outs like Alstom did with 3.2 billion Euros from the French government in 2004 any more than I do the banks in the US that received billions in tax payer money which resulted in CEOs, directors and untold numbers of managers who received millions in bonuses and salary increases. We don't operate this way in Germany. Small companies and large, we take care of our own. If the company fails, it goes under, and it happens all the time even here. And yes, corporate giants like VW pay the price when they're dishonest. However in Germany, there is internal loyalty between labor and management, we work together and respect each other in what we all contribute to our success. Is this "social"? Yes, very much so! And what's wrong with mutual trust and respect? What's wrong with being socially responsible? This is exactly why so many German companies will never become publically owned. My point is America has committed industrial suicide across just about every sector of business; from steel, to textiles to just about any type of manufacturing and production. It's no secret or mystery why so many of you are out of work and will never find decent jobs again. In all fairness, we know American workers are hard working, honest people who have been screwed by the people in charge, and I mean those in politics and in private business who only care about stockholder returns. We simply don't want this attitude or these business practices in Germany. It's not a socialist view it's a humanist view. And any American with a brain, and a desire for a job other than a Wal-Mart greeter, shouldn't want it in their country either. . Re: Walmart. If tomorrow Walmart unionized and increased their pay to union scale all of the negative propaganda generated about them would disappear. What you read and hear about Walmart is for the most part union sabotage and pure BS. Walmart doesn’t put small businesses or even large businesses out of business. Typically after a Walmart store is built the area around it becomes flooded with small businesses which tap into the traffic that Walmart generates. I will not deny that Walmart super stores have hurt some grocery stores BUT these are the stores with unionized and overpaid employees where the store passes on the costs to the consumer. I prefer consumer choices, the unions do not. As for the cheap China imports, yes it’s true. Walmart sells all the cheap China imports that all the other stores sell except at Walmart if I want to buy a cheap China import it costs 10% -20% less. Walmart also sells most of the expensive American made and European imports as well. So I just don’t see the substance in that argument. As for health care most Walmart workers do get health care while almost no worker for a small mom and pop store gets health care.
Re: “America has committed industrial suicide across just about every sector of business; from steel, to textiles” Well not really. Our mistake there was in not protecting our industries. It has nothing to do with the American capitalist model or how our businesses are run. The steel workers unions over priced themselves and China and other countries can make, ship and sell the steel here for less. Ditto for textiles. When textiles first went overseas the ads on TV use to sing “look for the union label”. That is they were admitting that the unions killed the jobs. Your unions may indeed be much more responsible but I would bet dollars to Euros that your unions are most interested in pay and benefits for their members and civic duty and good neighbors stuff doesn’t even enter their mind. The labor laws here are dictated by the unions and the playing field slants heavily towards the union workers. IMHO the law should be the same for everyone. Going on strike should be treated like what it is; quitting. And picketing and other underhanded tactics should be called criminal extortion and people should do hard time. I believe that anyone should be able to join a union or not and any company should be able to bargin with a union or act like they don’t even exist. Forcing a company to recognize a union is not just or logical except to those who use unions to extort money. So in brief the unions killed those jobs and intelligent management took the jobs to where they could make money. That is the name of the game after all. Re: “We simply don't want this attitude or these business practices in Germany” Yes I understand that. The town next to me is a liberal college town. They tried to keep Walmart out but failed in court. So they passed laws that only apply to stores with Sq/ft greater than 20,000 (I think). They too suffer from Walmart derangement syndrome. The city council and leaders are simply owned lock stock and barrel by the unions and other big box stores. Crony capitalism at it’s finest. You would think they would be ashamed but they are not. Re: I have personally seen my American colleagues let go during my time working in California. It seems strange to me that this is a problem. I work for a company and they should be able to ‘let me go’ anytime they want to or need to. What would you do different? Force them to keep workers they do not need? I as a worker am free to quit. Shouldn’t I be free to quit and shouldn’t the company be free to let me go??? I am stumped why this should be a problem. The narrowness of your field of view is matched only by the phenomenal windiness of your vast opinions. Ego like that must need wheels to get around.
Ten! You're not you when you're hungry. Have a snickers.
No imagination; no view that isn't subjective. Take one statement of fact, for example:
“America has committed industrial suicide across just about every sector of business; from steel, to textiles” From this true, objective, verifiable observation you go into the usual excruciating depth of narrowest opinion, all but completely unfazed by a whole reality outside of it. Why won't I debunk you, Windy? Because you'll just double down. It's as predictable as it is boring.
#15.1.1.1.1
Ten
on
2016-02-14 20:16
(Reply)
So this means you won't eat the snickers and you will be stuck in your alter ego forever?
#15.1.1.1.1.1
GoneWithTheWind
on
2016-02-15 00:11
(Reply)
@ GWTW - "Going on strike should be treated like what it is; quitting. And picketing and other underhanded tactics should be called criminal extortion and people should do hard time."
So you don't believe workers have the right to petition their grievances when they believe they have been mistreated or abused? So how is that any different from civil disobedience as encouraged by your Constitution? The Boston Tea Party was a strike against paying taxes and lack of representation. According to your own definition, they should have all been rounded up and sent to prison. . I would hope you know that the constitution limits government and delineates individual rights. It doesn't provide more rights to unions or union members. They have the right to quit, to go on strike and to petition their grievances. The business owner has the right to fire them to accept that a strike is a resignation and to ignore their petition. You shouldn't lose all your civil and legal rights when you create a business just because the workers have bought congress. Extortion is extortion and should be prosecuted not enshrined.
|
Tracked: Feb 14, 09:14