Re: Greed (Re: I am proud to be from Davao)

"Bob" <bob@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:df891v$35t$0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> Sigh. You are obviously a whiner who will never amount to anything.
>> $800 a month?
>
> I am on total and permanent disability. The "business" is largely
> dormant. Hopefully it gets reactivated when or if I get well enough to
> work again.

The story of your disability might or might not be interesting or
informative.

The fact that you can post here indicates that you are not, IMHO, unable to
work. I know people who work a couple hours a day, at $50-80 and hour,
using the same muscles and abilities that you use posting here. Of course,
it requires getting some specialized education, which can also be done at
home over the web, but that is for people who are uninterested in having the
gummint (i.e., the working taxpayer) take care of them.

>> The labor market dictates how much I pay - if I cannot find people to
>> work
>> for what I am offering, I have to offer more. Pretty simple. The market
>> dictates what is fair compensation.
>
> LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not in the 3rd World.
> Not anywhere, frankly. Without minimum wage laws and unions we would be
> fucked.

Really. I am surprised, with your degrees in international finance, that
you cannot find work which you are physically capable of doing.

Please explain what is wrong with an international company going into a 3rd
world country, investing in a manufacturing plant, then paying wages (not
controlled by the local government) that has prospective employees standing
in long lines to get the jobs? What is wrong with paying $5 a day for
steady labor when that is the common pay (or slightly above), assuming
someone could get a job (which are not otherwise available)? This is
something the do-gooders don't consider - if the locals are willing to spend
hours in line waiting for a job, doesn't that mean that the job (and the
pay) is desired by these people? Do you think that they will thank you for
taking that job away and sending it elsewhere?

People such as yourself think you are helping the world's poor when you
stick your nose in and try to regulate what companies pay. They end up
looking for more congenial spots, and the people who would love the jobs
lose out. And their families lose out.

Price caps do not work. Wage caps do not work. They interfere with the
market, and create shortages and lower employment.

Most jobs *are not* union. In the US, only 12.5% are union
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). This number is declining.
This means that 87.5% of the U.S. economy is driven by non-union
compensation, or market forces.

Unions certainly had their historical role, but that role has long passed.
With decent state and federal worker protections, the egregious abuses of
100 years ago are long past. Nowadays unions spend more time raising money
for politics than helping their people with legitimate complaints.

> Whenever the gummint gets involved
>> (such as raising the minimum wage), jobs are lost.
>
> That's a complete lie. Anyway, minimum wage laws save lives, everywhere
> on Earth, all the time. The only way to afford workers a decent living
> is a minimum wage law.

That is sheer ignorance, Bob. Minimum wage is earned by a) the young
(teens), b) the elderly, who lack the capacity to perform in more demanding
jobs, or who simply want to stay busy, and c) the unskilled and uneducated.

Consider the studies at:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html

http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm

> You make an employer pay
>> more, they have finite resources and will cut the number of employees.
>
> Oh *** THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A well-reasoned reply.

Try to get your brain around this:

I have, say, $800 a month in income as an employer. I want to hire one or
more people to help me. I would like to hire 2 people at $4 an hour
half-time ($160 a week). The gummint comes along and says I need to pay $6
an hour. That's more than I take in (40 hours x $6 x 4 weeks = $960).
Being a "businessman", as you claim, what are your options?

1.. Hire one person and do more of the work yourself along with demanding
more from the new hire.
2.. Increase prices to cover the higher wages.
3.. Run a deficit (dip into savings or borrow).

Which of the above choices do you think the small business person will
choose? What other options can you propose?

I think you think business has unlimited money, and that the owner simply
should cut into their profits to pay workers more. You think that *workers*
should earn more, but *owners* should earn less? Why is that? Why are you
not concerned about the rights of the owners? They take the risks, they
create the jobs, they work the long hours in the hopes that they might, at
some future point, make money and rise above the wage-earning level. Yet
you think these people should have their money taken away by government
decree.

If I have an idea, and create a business around it, and create jobs, and
people are willing to work in those jobs - should I have the right to make a
profit?

In the US, there are so many opportunities to work that no one is forced to
take a menial job unless they are not qualified for a better job. The
higher labor becomes, the higher prices are. And if wages are too low, no
one will take the job. If you cannot fill the job at one rate of pay, you
are forced to increase what you offer. That's just the way it works. If
you had ever truly owned a business - or even run one for someone else - you
would understand this.

No one is forced to work at a minimum wage job.

>> Happens every time, as study after study has shown (even the liberal NY
>> Times came to the conclusion a few years back that the best minimum wage
>> was $0).
>
> Yeah that's truly ultrareactionary. No wonder you have NPA in the
> Philippines. I hope they win and kill all the despicable feudal rich
> like you.

OK, I guess it's about time to ask - what connection do *you* have with the
Philippines? Why are you posting OT stuff here? Shouldn't you be hanging
out at alt.dole.blodgers.whingers?

Actually, as you would have known had you read my responses to you, I live
in California like you. We are not a 3rd world country. Yet.

>> The majority of employment in the US is from small businesses, which are
>> not
>> run by greedy millionaires but moms and pops who have the dream and drive
>> and tenacity to make a go of it. They sacrifice, work horrible hours,
>> take
>> risks, and may or may not make a good living after a few years.
>
> Why should they be valued over workers? They are no better than a
> worker? So they take risks? So fucking what??????????????

Hmmm. You keep showing that your claim to being a "businessman" is a lie.
Anyone who had ever been in business for himself would understand this.

If I invent something, and create hundreds of jobs, and create wealth for
myself, my employees, and my community - is that something to be valued? As
opposed to the person who simply works for me?

We're not talking about "which soul is better in the eyes of God." We are
talking about who contributes more to society. Absent my business, there
would be less innovation and product for people to enjoy, there would be
fewer jobs, there would be fewer taxes to pay those who cannot or will not
work for a living.

Who should society value more - Henry Ford, or Joe Lineassembly? Without
Ford, there would be no assembly line for Joe to work on.

Look at the history of invention. People invent where they can reap a
reward. Why is the U.S. the leader in innovation and invention? Why, in
normally communist states, are scientists segregated into small capitalistic
enclaves (the former Soviet Union comes instantly to mind, with their
akademgorodoks) where they are rewarded for their developments?

Say you have Bong who invents a carburetor that gets 70 mpg. Bong is a wage
earner working for Big Company. Your sympathy is with Bong now, right?
He's
a good guy, right? He quits Big Company, and starts his own business with
Pedring. He's living on borrowed money, living with relatives. Are you
still in sympathy with Bong? I think so. Then Bong spends 2 years,
refining his design, finding financial backing, working 90 hours a week with
no return, trying to reach a point where he can manufacture. Still a good
guy? Then Bong and Pedring hire 20 people, mostly friends and relatives.
Because they don't have any money to pay competitive wages, they offer
workers a small percentage of the company, gambling on future profits.

Is Bong still a good guy? Skip forward 10 years. Bong is making $300,000 a
years as CEO of Bongworks, and his stock is worth $150 million. Pedring is
making $200,000 a year as CFO. The original workers' are all worth $1
million plus because of their stock options. Bong has resisted the union
coming in, and pays more than comparable union jobs to keep the union out
(which is the standard way of a company resisting unionization - offer more
than the union has gotten in comparable situations).

When did Bong become a bad guy? When did he start hating people and wanting
to make them sick? The answer is - he didn't.

>> Small business people are too busy working to try to "kill you, wreck
>> you, ruin your life."
>
> They are, it's a fact. The small business classes hate the workers and
> try to ruin their lives, sicken them and kill them. In capitalism, your
> boss is your sworn enemy. That's all their is to it. I suppose it works
> the other way too.

I think you need to change the tin foil in your hat.

Why do small businesses "hate the workers and try to ruin their lives?" Do
they say, "I want my workers to be sick and not show up for work, so my
business suffers?" Do they say, "If I can destroy enough workers, demand
for my product or service will decline and I will be out of business?"

In capitalism, if your boss is your enemy (and there certainly is an
adversarial relationship in many businesses), you can always find another
job with a more congenial boss. Or you can take the risk and start your own
business, as millions have done. Many fail - perhaps most - but many
succeed. And those who succeed create more jobs, more wealth. And pay in
more taxes to support people who cannot or will not work.

>> The majority of those millionaires were created in the last 30 years.
>
> Who gives a *** how many millionaires in the US????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I was merely responding to your claim that people here will not get rich,
and that only 1% of Americans are millionaires. You, apparently, give a
f*ck about this.

>>> Let me give you some examples. Our elec bills went up 200% in California
>>> just because a bunch of rich scums came in and tried to destroy our
>>> state
>>> and bankrupted California to $10 billion and almost ruined our economy.
>>> A
>>> pig named G Bush, another dog named Arnold Sharzscummer were in on this
>>> crime, along with all their buddies. Deals were later negotiated with
>>> the
>>> criminals to pay back the $10 billion they robbed from workers. Our elec
>>> rates are now locked in at 3 times previous for the next 10-15 years in
>>> order to pay back the thieves.
>>
>> Alas, your work ethic is only surpassed by your ignorance of history. No
>> "rich scums" came in to CA and tried to ruin it - incredibly bad
>> legislation
>> by the Democratic legislature in de-regulating without safeguards,
>> coupled
>> with very bad deals cut by Democratic Governor Gray Davis, led to the
>> energy
>> crisis of 2001. Note that in part this crisis came from the refusal of
>> the
>> Democratic machine in CA, kow-towing to the environmental whackos, to
>> build
>> any new power plants in CA for decades to meet growing demand.
>
> Yeah this is all just ultrarightwing nonsense, disproven by reams of data.

Really? Please cite some credible sources for this "reams" of data.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/california/subsequentevents.html

>> The only involvement of the Bush administration was to not throw taxpayer
>> dollars (gleaned from hard-working people in all 50 states) to bail CA
>> out
>> of bad decisions made by the CA government. A win for federalism.
>>
>> And, ob cors, Gov. Schwarzenegger was elected after this in large part
>> because of the energy boondoggle.
>
> No, this was all a plot. Schwarzenfascist plotted with the energy
> kingpins to destroy the state while the Dem governor was in. Then when
> the public was furious about the energy crisis, the criminals plotted to
> overthrow Davis with an election. Now Scharztoilet's popularity is about
> 22%, which is more than he deserves. Fact is, this is a progressive state.

Here is a summary of factors by the liberal San Francisco Chronicle. Please
highlight where it discusses your theory. Hint: The Chronicle opposed the
recall of Gov. Gray Davis and opposed Ahnold for gubernator.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/05/08/lookhow.DTL

Schwarzenegger's approval rating is at 41%, which is not great, to be sure.
Compared to former Governor Gray Davis's 24% approval rating in 2003, Ahnold
is still a star, baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis

>> The deficit in CA was not from energy costs but other factors, including
>> a
>> runaway payroll and benefit plan for public employees and prison guards,
>> drain upon state resources by illegals who are outside the taxation
>> system
>> (except sales tax), and near junk bond status of state debt.
>
> This post of mine did not address the deficit. The state owed the
> utility pigs $10 billion. This is NOT the deficit to which you refer.

Well, you *almost* have this right. Some claim that the *energy companies*
owe *California* about $9 billion.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Releases/r-ferc-enron-ltr.htm

I mean, there's no real difference between *owing* billions and *being owed*
billions. Riight?

>> The obvious answer is to shuck this "hellhole" and return to the
>> Philippines.
>
> The US isn't a hellhole. Philippines is, largely due a sociopathic
> ruling class made up of pigs like you. However, the expat life does seem
> a bit appealing sometimes. A lot of single guys my age go live overseas.

Hmm. 47-year-old single white boys with no money who don't work? Just what
the Philippines needs.

>> MY GAWD!!! You have *broken blinds* and the landlord has not fixed them!
>
> Listen up PUNK. The fucking whore has to install my blinds. I don't even
> have blinds. If they didn't work, that's one thing. They don't even
> fucking exist. The fucking *** slumlord has to install but she won't
> cuz she's a rich dog like you.

Punk? Been a long time since I was young enough to warrant that
appellation.

Does your lease explicitly state that you will have blinds? No? Then she
doesn't have to install them. You have no *right*, in spite of your
attitude, to have owner-provided blinds. It is an amenity, not a necessary.

Do you have *any* idea how petty, provincial, and ignorant this outrage of
yours is?

>> Why, that makes the apartment uninhabitable!
>
> It's unpleasant. I don't have any covering on my front window. It's
> livable but it sucks. Main thing is, our state laws say this fucking
> whore has to put those goddamn blinds in. She's breaking the law cuz
> rich scums like you and her don't care about laws.

Please cite the state law that says she must provide blinds. I am somewhat
conversant with the laws of the state and am unfamiliar with it. Indeed, a
search of all California statutes does not result in any requirements for
blinds or curtains in rentals.

Please elucidate your legal basis for the above claim.

> Sounds to me like constructive
>> eviction.
>
> They can't evict me. We don't live a medieval feudal nightmare state
> like Philippine.

Silly boy. Of course you don't know what constructive eviction is, but it
is a remedy claimed by the renting party, not the landlord. It is a claim,
coupled with abandonment of the property, whereby you can demonstrate that
some failure to repair has rendered the premises so uninhabitable that it is
as if the landlord has evicted you.

And of course you can be evicted. Depending on your lease, you can be
legally evicted for a wide variety of things, from not paying rent to
failing to maintain the premises to loud parties. Landlords (and your
neighbors) have rights, too.

>> Now, most people would retain the use of "slumlord" to those who violate
>> health and safety codes,
>
> A fucking SLUMLORD is any fucking WHORE landlord that does not fix the
> shit that is wrong with your place. These shitty pigs are legally
> obligated to fix things. If they don't they break the law. They don't
> like the laws, don't rent property!

Yes and no. The California State Supreme Court, in a case called Green v.
Superior Court, held that leases have an "implied warranty of habitability."
The Court defines this: "Under the implied warranty which we recognize, a
residential landlord covenants that premises he leases for living quarters
will be maintained in a habitable state for the duration of the lease. This
implied warranty of habitability does not require that a landlord ensure
that leased premises are in perfect, aesthetically pleasing condition, but
it does mean that "bare living requirements" must be maintained." (Green v.
Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 637 (111 Cal.Rptr. 704).)

However - and this is crucial to your case - the court went on to state:
"Malfunction of venetian blinds, water leaks, wall cracks, lack of painting,
at least of the magnitude presented here, go to what may be called
'amenities.' Living with lack of painting, water leaks and defective
venetian blinds may be unpleasant, aesthetically unsatisfying, but does not
come within the category of uninhabitability. Such things will not be
considered in diminution of the rent." (Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10
Cal.3d 638.)

Thus not only do you have a case for duty to repair, but you may not deduct
from your rent *unless it was specified in your rental contract*.

> refuse to repair major items like toilets or
>> kitchen appliances, but since you don't have new blinds you are
>> condemning your landlord!
>
> I don't have ANY fucking blinds! I have nothing, a bare fucking window,
> *** that.

Do you speak like this ITRW, or are you one of those "cybercowards"? Just
curious.

Maybe if you weren't so foul-mouthed and abusive you could get some action
out of your landlord.

>> Sheesh. While I am not offering legal advice, howse this - if the blinds
>> are really a part of your deal or you can document the express or implied
>> promise of the landlord (simply showing that all other units have them
>> provided by the landlord will do) you do self help. Buy the blinds and
>> install them (takes about 15 minutes) and deduct the purchase cost from
>> your next month's rent. Perfectly legal in CA.
>
> It is? Maybe I will do just that.

Again, you should seek legal advice on this before taking action. Unless
you have something in writing about the blinds you may be setting yourself
up for eviction.

>> Ah, the Jews. Why didn't I suspect that they were behind it all?
>
> The Jews were killed repeatedly in pogroms by enraged serfs, often due
> to the fact that they were in alliance with the feudal lords. That
> doesn't explain all pogroms but it does explain some of them. And it's
> not anti-Semitic to note that, it's just undisputed historical fact. The
> roots of anti-Semitism in medieval Europe lay in Jewish alliance with
> feudal lords. They were the visible sign of feudal oppression of the
> serfs and when the pogroms came they were an obvious target.

Could you be more ignorant?

The word "pogrom" comes from Russian ("wreaking havoc"). The first pogroms
were encouraged *by* the government. Jews were falsely accused of
assassinating Tsar Alexander II *by the government*, and people rose up and
killed Jews, raped the Jewish women, and stole or destroyed their property
in Warsaw. Tsar Alexander III blamed these riots on the Jews (good despotic
rule - blame the victims). The Tsarist Russian secret police, the Okhranka,
instigated the pogroms within Russia proper over the next few years leading
up to the Revolution.

The pogroms had *nothing* to do with "alliances" with feudal lords - for one
thing, the first real pogrom occurred in 1881, long after the feudal period.
They were instigated *by* the rulers. The most massive pogroms were during
the Russian Revolution, where hundreds of thousands were killed, by the
Green Army, the White Army and the Red Army.

In this, as in just about everything you post, you are wrong, my friend.

>>> "Caring" doesn't have anything to do with running a decent economy. All
>>> Western Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand have superb
>>> economies. They are all pretty caring places. I would say much more
>>> caring
>>> than the Philippines where ppl live in garbage dumps and die on the
>>> streets.
>>
>> Hunh? Do you have *any* idea of the unemployment in some of these
>> places,
>> the stagnation of economic growth, the lowered standard of living?
>
> These places have some of the highest standards of living on Earth, in
> addition to the most prosperous economies. The ultraright can scream all
> they want.

Please do something for me - read a book, read some non-partisan web sites,
go to school - do something other than spout nonsense.

What nation do you want to point to in Western Europe as having a
"prosperous economy"? Germany?

Per Capita GDP - $28,700 (24th place)
Unemployment rate: 10%+
Current state of welfare: under Hartz IV welfare reform, cuts to welfare
benefits
GDP growth in 2004 - 1.5%, the same as Italy and the Netherlands - while the
US grew by 4.4%

Economic growth is a few other of your "prosperous economies":

Japan - 2.9% growth, 4.7% unemployment

France - 2.1% growth, 10.1% unemployment

Belgium - 2.6% growth, 12% unemployment

Canada - 2.4% growth, 7% unemployment

Since much of Europe has staggering unemployment, most nations have been
"de-socializing" businesses and cutting welfare benefits. Sweden has led
the way away from the society you lionize, and has managed to get
unemployment down to about 5.8%.

The EU has an *average* unemployment rate of 8.9%. Can you imagine what the
US would be like with 8.9% unemployment?

>> I am curious about how you evaluate "caring" in these countries.
>
> Well developed welfare system.

Since welfare destroys family integrity, robs people of incentive to
produce, and takes money earned by those who work and gives it to those who
do not, I don't see how this is "caring."

Look, for example, at the disintegration of the black nuclear family - since
the advent of all of the social welfare "caring" of the "Great Society", the
majority of black families are not headed by a man, over 80% of black
children are born out of wedlock (compared to about 24% in 1960), drug use
is up, academic scores are down, crime and incarceration are up. This can
be directly tied to welfare.

> How many
>> thousands of elderly died in France a few years back because the younger
>> generations abandoned them to go to the beach?
>
> I don't think that that is what happened. They are not used to heat
> waves in France. The killer heat wave was caused by reactionaries like
> you.

Hmmm. We are so powerful we cause heat waves?

I suppose you are thinking "global warming." Which has increased,
theoretically, the global average temperature by 1 degree in 25 years. This
caused the 104 degree heat in France that killed upwards of 15,000 people?

Here's what some of those Frenchies thought of the situation:

There are a lot of elderly people alone in big cities in August," said
Health Ministry spokesman Laurence Danand. "They are often alone in Paris
when their families go away on holiday." The daily Liberation newspaper
called the result a "massacre" and accused the government of doing "too
little, too late."

"The government was on holiday," said Dr. Patrick Pelloux, president of the
Association of Hospital Emergency Doctors of France. President Jacques
Chirac was at his vacation spot in Canada. Most government ministers,
according to news reports, had been too reluctant to cut short their time in
the sun.

The doctors, too, were missing. "Doctors, medical staff, and government
personnel were on vacation," reported Norman Ho, a senior editor at the
Harvard International Review. "It caught French hospitals and medical staff
completely off-guard, and left many victims to die daily with astonishing
frequency in crowded hospital rooms and lobbies."
http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/007320.shtml

> I hope you don't talk to ppl in real life the way you just talked to me
> in here, or someone is going to hit you in the face with a baseball bat.
> And that you will deserve.

> Or do you just talk tough on the net, like most cybercowards?

Again sigh. You claim to be 47, and a former business owner, yet you write
like a teen. My guess, given your expressed ignorance, you really *are* a
teen trying to act like an adult.

Who is talking trash here? Who is calling names and using foul language?

Actually, I *do* talk to people the way I write. I just don't associate
with people who handle their disagreements with baseball bats.

I guess we travel in different circles.

Vegas Pig



.

Loading