From: Mitchell, Jerry (3337) (Jerry.Mitchell@esavio.com)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2001 - 11:28:51 MDT
> >>>Jerry Mitchell" <jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com>
> >>>Maybe then you can clarify the exact point in time and space
> >>>that "Stock options" and the days that are above the minimum
> >>>were fought for and achieved? While you at it, find out where
> >>>they were forced to pay for my relocation to a new city for this
> >>>job.
>
> >>>What about my company bonus? When did the evil business owners
> >>>collapse to the demands for this?
>
> >> Sure, glad to help....
> >
> >> The shift in the time-space continuum you refereed to occurred
> >> in Chicago on May 4th 1886.
> >
> >> Without this occurring we probably wouldn't even have minimum
> >>wage yet.
> >
>
> >I figured you would dodge this. I didn't ask about when minimum
> >wage started, I'm asking why everyone isn't getting paid minimum
> >wage?!
>
> I didn't dodge the question I answered it exactly. You asked for
> the exact point in space and time.
>
> On May 4th 1886 at Haymarket Square in Chicago was the point in
> space/time when relationships between employers and employees was
> permanently altered.
>
> The sociological singularity that occured on that day like any good
> singularity began literally with a "BANG".
>
> The results have cascaded down through space-time since then and
> have resulted in the benefits you received.
My point here is why doesnt everyone get the legislated minimum? I make more
then minimum wage and theres a reason. Supply and demand dictate this stuff,
not government OR buisnesses OR unions.
>
> >What proof? If a company pays you 50K instead of 25K, they cant
> >hire that 2nd person. Cant imagine anyone not getting that.
>
> No the proof that without "Union Interference" we would all have
> been better off.
This boils down to.. did the unions distort the market. If they did, they
created inefficiencies.
>
> >You missed my point again. They don't have the funds to hire you
> >for 3, only 2.50. If this logic worked, we could just raise the
> >minimum wage to a million dollars an hour and well all be rich
> >right? Just pay them all more is the mantra here right?
>
> You missed my point, If you were worth $6.00 dollars, they'd have
> no problem hiring you for $3.00.
Worth $6 to whom? The company? Why are you worth more then everyone else? My
supposition was the normal wage for a particular job was $3. Why cant I come
in and offer to do the same job as the union guys at a lower price?
>
> >I personally have 1 uncle that works at Ford on the assembly line.
> >He makes 45K for reasonable unskilled work due to union pressure.
> >The companies may be making a profit, but I wonder how much more
> >they could have grown otherwise. How many more jobs would have
> >been created. How many more people hired? Maybe they might be
> >buying Fords in Japan if that had been the case?
>
> Ford has been moving it's production to Mexico. Much of the high
> cost of assembly line work is due to the sheer drudgery of it.
>
> Have you checked management compensation at Ford?
>
Like someone else said in their post, the unions can bitch and whine all
they want. End the end, Mexico will get the jobs and those union saps will
be out of work. Thell learn they cant control market forces long without
paying the piper.
>
> >Yeah, like I said, the teamsters were simply angels.
>
> I never said that you did.
>
> Hopefully you will never end up in a situation where you are
> literally fighting to feed your kids, you'd be amazed at what your
> capable of.
>
So in a situation where a job is needed to prevent my kids from going
hungry, dont you think that attacking companies may not be the best route to
accomplish this? They MAKE the jobs.
>
> >Microsoft is NOT a coercive monopoly. Only the government can
> >create an organization and use the power of force to keep it on
> >top (like post office, utilities, etc..). Microsoft is on top
> >because they provide a product that people WANT to buy.
>
> The government and millions of critics disagree.
I dont want to get into anti-trust law here, but I will say that it is so
subjective, there is no way a company can possible know in advance of a
trial, if what their doing will result in getting attacked for "monopolistic
practices". I know its popular to attack the successful guy, your right, the
government and millions of Americans cant stand the rich and will attack
then whenever they can for any reason they can drum up. Class warfare at its
best, but ultimately Microsoft doesnt control the OS market as long as
theres alternatives. They just have a huge market share and thats the goal
of ALL companies I know of.
>
> >But those poor ragged starving masses cant distort the market it
> >seems, even with the power of a union. Its so easy to empathize
> >with those sweet innocent non-violent unions when the antagonist
> >is some burly evil corporation that kills, maims, and steal little
> >children's candy for the fun of it.
>
> If you can't abstain from the rhetoric, this is just a waste of
> time.
> Brian
My point here is to do the same thing youve been doing. You said we owe
everything we have to the unions and thats simply not true. Youve said
nothing positive at all about the corporations and it appears that the
unions can do no wrong. I simply expanded on this approach to show the
lameness of using it in a reasonable debate. Its a lot easier to imagine a
world with no unions then it is to picture one without companies.
I will say one thing nice about the unions. If your in one, you can force a
company to pay you over market value for your labor. For the consumers or
the people needing jobs, sorry though, your out of luck.
Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:16 MST