OT- Who's job is it?

Neal Boortz

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

LET'S TALK ABOUT "YOUR" JOBS

Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.

First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, or if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.

Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?

Ditto for manufacturing. I've already told you the story about the California company that makes computer mouses. (computer mice?) This company ships the components to China. The mouse is assembled in China and shipped back, then sold for around $40. Why? Because the assembly is cheaper in China than it would be in the US. So, you say you want the president to force this company to have that mouse assembled in the US? Fine .. then the price for the mouse goes up to about $70 a pop and sales drop. As the sales drop the jobs of the people in this country who manufacture the components for that mouse go away. Then the 100 marketing jobs this company supports in California also go away. You see, perhaps you can succeed in forcing this company to assemble these mouses in the US, but there just isn't any way you can force the American consumer to pay 80% more for the "made in America" version.

As Bruce Bartlett says in an article listed in my reading assignments, "No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad."

What we are seeing here is a demonstration of the "government owes me" mentality of far too many Americans. Every time you arrive at a speed bump in your life's journey you start screaming to the government for help. Sure, the speed bump is going to slow you down a bit ... but just keep moving forward and things inevitably pick up speed again. Americans are becoming helpless whiners. The more helpless you are, and the more you whine, the more likely it is you're going to vote for a Democrat. Democrats specialize in stroking the malcontent.

Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America is fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a freaking law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.

----------------------------------

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Reply to
Gunner
Loading thread data ...

Excellent piece! Thanks for posting this.

Robert

...

Reply to
Siggy

Snip.. (No argument here)

If it is not my job than how can it be my job choice?

I am up here in the frozen north wondering how come no kid comes to my door offering to shovel snow out of my driveway. One skill that has been sadly bred out is ability to recognize opportunity. Why work for food if state (mom and dad) guarantees it?

Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see: Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs

formatting link

Reply to
Boris Mohar

================================

Neal Boortz

Wednesday, April 10, 2002

What's So Great About One Man, One Vote?

Someone once said that the business of America is business. Well, why not run it more like a business, then? Let's make all voters "shareholders" in America. Each person who is not otherwise disqualified by age or past felony convictions, would get one "share" [one vote per share -- ed.] of America. Additional shares would be awarded to certain citizens based on the amount of income tax they pay.

Let's use a $25,000 threshold. If you pay over $25,000 in federal income taxes, you get a second share. You get a third share when your tax bill goes over $75,000. A fourth share at the $100,000 threshold - and so on.

We could put a maximum of 10 shares when your tax bill reaches $250,000...

=================================

(another voice from Gunner's collection of nutbags and fascists )

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

I like it.... Ya know, if you worked it right you could get some people together and take the whole thing private.....Hmmm.. Are crowns measured in metric or imperial units?

Kevin Gallimore

Reply to
axolotl

Not that the idea of more more votes for the amount of tax paid is a good idea, but why is it a good idea that one person should pay more taxes (or even worse, a higher percentage) for the same benifits as everyone else? It could be argued that, in a way, the wealthy work harder for the same reward (the benifits of our democracy). That isn't too unlike communism, and we all know how well that policy has gone over in history. Just a thought.

-Will

Reply to
Will

Thanks for the great post, Gunner.

Ivan Vegvary

Reply to
Ivan Vegvary

?x?X??}×W`ª6vR%+ãK%N²µÞßvl?'?ÇåGl?ð ?bè¯Ïé(?+Y¿xD¾?>}yÛ[K~¹¸¶¤ÜZ?©Ja©?k©p?LPgìFE§|oÕèzU¹Á*m+jç"?Z­V®^.,m?ÖØjÉÒF5?¦Qµ??ú?ph?Òx?·jÓ???ÿ¶«Åâ V«\G?olt?j ºSkç?V­.kêväut~?ÄG¯])õÉgY¥n¹( `Åonå²QR¥âà&+?Z~PëÈ[Âlü?ÉãÍ`b½¨á?ÞRÛ5nlÉF1ý·ËkH¾??ºh??Õ[W©ÙÂ^o6u¼¾}x£n/>¼W??ns?\úW6øÝõåÍÉãï?«UJ(8?Jg]; Q80 ³BF=¿6!ô??\¼??D??dÔ/?Y+¤·j]?ËD¨,n¨? }×ÁU?}O¶:?©t9®NªûÆx â?7ák?ð'SG?  ¬?¬¢R÷¸

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Bwa Haa haa haa haa.

They're not after a skill set! They're after a price range!!

And the range has been correctly identified by Ed as being just about exactly 1/20th of what they are paying american workers, right now!

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

That's not really a simple question to answer, Will. Firstly, our tax system has little to do with fairness, anyway. It's based on political efficacy, which more or less balances the desires of the different groups of people who live in this country. In the end, it's what they think is "fair," weighted by size and segments of the population. You may not agree. That's politics.

Putting that aside for a moment, the rich DON'T get the same benefits as everyone else. They get a workforce with adequate education, pre-paid. They get security for their money and property, which are much larger than the average amounts of each. In fact, they get a lot more of almost everything: infrastructure, opportunities that are based on money (they use a LOT more public air-traffic control services than most of us ), and so on.

It really permeates throughout the society. Maybe the easiest way to think of it is to consider what the CEO of Boeing would be worth if he applied his diligence, intellect, and good fortune to the opportunities in another country -- take Afghanistan, for example. I don't doubt that he would rise in that society, based on his abilities. Maybe he would corner the opium trade, or do whatever else he could do if he were educated in a madrassa.

The point is, we tend to underestimate how much the society makes things possible for people of ability and drive. That's not to denigrate what they accomplish. It's only to point out that most of what they earn, in income, is a margin over what they'd make in some pesthole of the world where they didn't have the elaborate and expensive social structure and physical structure that our political and economic system has made available to them here.

So, say he makes $20 M/yr. as a CEO in the US, and maybe he would make $5 M/yr. as the opium king of Kabul. How much of the $15 M difference does he owe to the society that made it possible? That's a philosophical question with no right answer, but it's something to think about.

Nobody ever made $20 M/yr. because he just worked harder than somebody else. It takes a whole society of support structures and systems to let it happen.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Hell Ed..even YOU come up with an interesting comment once in a while. So dont knock Bortz.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Reply to
Gunner

Yup.

Question for Ed:

Will a flat tax of hummm 17% across the board bring in more or less revenue?

Will a sales tax across the board bring in more or less revenue.

Is either one fundamentally unfair to anyone, including the rich or poor?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Reply to
Gunner

"So, say he makes $20 M/yr. as a CEO in the US, and maybe he would make $5 M/yr. as the opium king of Kabul. How much of the $15 M difference does he owe to the society that made it possible? "

That is a good point, and I'll have to admit I don't think I've thought of it that way before. But someone may owe *everything* they own to capatalism and the society that made it possible, but if you took away everything that they "owe" to society, it wouldn't be capatalism. And could you not also say that no one could make more than a certain amount of income in a society other than ours, and then take away whatever they earn above that? You can earn up to 50,000 a year, and after that it belongs to society, because you couldn't have made the extra million withough society's help? You can't take money from someone just because you helped them out. I do agree that much of the economics and politics is very arguable (and I don't know a whole lot about either) but I am convinced that the closer we are to a lower, flat percentage tax, the better our economy will be. The more money people are allowed to spend in the market, the better everyone will be.

Reply to
Will

Outstanding job Gunner!

Dan (Eccentric by Nature)

Reply to
Dan

Ah, but what your scenario doesn't point out is that the CEO who is running and building the business that makes him rich is also responsible for CREATING jobs for the remainder of society. So, one might actually argue that the wealthy generally PROVIDE more to the society at large than they take out of it.

Robert

everything:

Reply to
Siggy

And there you've put your finger on it. The trick is to strike the right balance, the one that provides incentives, that fuels the economic engine (in our case, the capitalist engine), and that fulfills our sense of fairness. It's a real balancing act.

We once tried to do that. During the '60s, the marginal tax rates on the rich were outrageous and confiscatory. It didn't work out very well. It made a lot of people who weren't rich feel guilty about it and it led the rich to pull a lot of tax tricks to keep their shirts. And so it was changed. The balance was re-struck.

Yes, but those two things contradict each other. Flat taxes increase taxe rates on the middle class and kill consumption. But that's another argument.

Overall, I don't think we disagree, Will. We just strike the balance at somewhat different points on the curve. I wouldn't argue with your conclusions.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

I don't know, but we could charge a fee for the use of each, here in the Corporate States of America, LLC.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Ah, are you congratulating him for writing it, or for catching a new blog in his gill net?

Here's a hint: He didn't write it.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

That's an interesting thought, Robert. Does that mean that, if they lay off their workforce and move the jobs overseas, they have to give it all back?

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

I think it was fairly obvious that I didnt write it Ed, as my name is not Neal Boortz.

As to "blog" then any editorial or article is a blog, including yours.

So..did MM pay you to write blogs?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Reply to
Gunner

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.