No. The U.S. has a middle class that dwarfs both the poor and the rich.

Sure. Cos u sez so.

No, because the U.S. society is a bell-shaped curve, usually divided into quintiles. The middle three quintiles (lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle) that make up the middle class are much larger than the other two:

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

You call it market, I call it exploitation.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Not everyone agrees with you, and they do as they wish, often regardless of what the law is, whether you like it or not.

Tariffs are the only way to have at least a certain amount of justice for the workers.

According to the U.S. numbers in 2004: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers."

Get that? Those "tariffs" meant nothing to 97.3 percent of hourly workers because they WERE PAID MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. In other words, the workers DIDN'T need tariffs as the only way to have a certain amount of justice.

And every company should be bound to them.

They aren't, and they never will be. Just like outlawing drugs didn't stop that market either.

That's why I support tariffs which have the same power as laws: tariffs every employer has to accept. Tariffs which say: same wages for the same work, which say people who are equally qualified and have an equal position have to be paid equally! And of course I also support sympathy strike actions - and even the idea of an General Strike to reach this goal.

Don't hold your breath. People aren't equal, and they never have been/or will be. They don't have the same looks, intelligence, experience, education, personality, et cetera, all of which helps determine what they earn.

What? You support such exploitation?

No Thorin, it's called fraud. But it's fraud REGARDLESS of the stupid laws. Even in pinko Germany, he STILL got away with it. Most employers don't treat their employees that way.

Keep praying, and then ask yourself why union membership has been falling for decades. Could it be because union employees are too expensive? Hmmmm?

Too expensive because they want to earn a living with the hours they work? Too expensive while wanting nothing less than to be able to pay their bills by working 40 hrs a week?

Yes Thorin, that may mean that they are too expensive. Period. If the work isn't worth that amount, they are too expensive. It's that simple, whether you like it or not.

The employers are just too greedy.

To you maybe. You can pay them whatever you want. No one is stopping you, or anyone that thinks as you do from doing so. Yet neither you nor they do so.

What use is a manager who is paid Millions, while all the work is done by his employees? None. What use is that Stock exchange poker? None. Those who say employees are too expensive should live one month in their situation before they can come up with such arguments!!!

We've had this discussion before and you didn't respond, but I'll put it here too. An example: There are plenty of empty auto factories. If those workers don't need the managers, or the shareholders, or the exchange, why aren't they running those plants themselves? Why doesn't the United Auto Workers Union and the AFL-CIO, instead of just bitching about their rapidly declining numbers, just build and sell cars themselves? What are they waiting for? There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of former members that could be building cars. Why aren't they? Why doesn't the UAW just stop bitching and hire all of those guys and pay them more than they were demanding from GM? I mean, nothing is stopping them now, all the managers, shareholders, and brokers are out of the way, so it should be easy, right?

But they don't. That's a real problem for your ideology.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

And yet they make more than most people in China and India.

And, because they live in the USA, their cost of living is higher than in China or India, you numpty.

You want more money? Get a better paying job.

You want someone to drive you around whilst you're drunk?
Be prepared to pay them what they charge you!

And why do you think a number of jobs have moved overseas?

I also have never needed a cab because I was to drunk to drive.

Explain to me why you think Cab drivers and rent-a-cops need to go on strike for more money? I've never had to go on strike for more money. I usually wait for the annual merit pay raise.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

Ask the people who strike,

Stand in their shoes for a day.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Ask the people who strike,

Stand in their shoes for a day.

Here's the basic problem I have with unions. A guy who does the best job he can, day in and day out, gets paid the same as a guy who just goes through the motions.

How fair is that?

Most unions seem to operate under the assumption that they are owed something. I operate under the assumption that I have to earn everything.

Take for example Teachers unions that balk at the idea that a teacher should have to pass a test on the subject material they teach. What about the union miner that won't wear a dust mask because he can't spit his chaw while he's wearing it?

What about union workers that refuse to cross-train? I was in a job once where we actually had to call a union guy just to change gas bottles. A job that would take me 5 minutes, that I had done at previous places of employment now took the better part of an hour. Wow, that's really productive! That was the first and last job that I worked in a union plant.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

One experience doesn't sum up every union or strike situation.

There are good and bad union policies/strike reasons.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Unions are no longer what they used to be. There are good and bad (just like people).

Lately in Aus we are hearing about all the bad things that unions do and stand for (especially since the new IR laws came in and the upcoming election, which has not yet been announced).

However, there used to be a reason for unions. To look after the individual worker. To help them get a 'fair wage' (your definition on fair will vary). The idea was that an individual can have trouble negotiating with a company boss for several reasons and having a union to back you would/could give you better a better outcome as the union has weight/influence that the individual doesn't.

The other reason for unions that made them popular was they looked out for workers rights, health and safety. If there was an accident most would not trust the company's investigation of the incident and what was to blame. The union does not answer to the company bosses and many workers probably feel that they could trust their investigation more.

Now in Aus it is difficult for unions to even check up on health and safety issues.

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

One experience doesn't sum up every union or strike situation.

There are good and bad union policies/strike reasons.

Going on strike because of unsafe working conditions => good strike.

Going on strike because of illegal payroll practices => good strike.

Going on strike for more money and/or benefits => bad strike.

If an employer regularly violates OSHA regulations, and the workers can't get satisfaction through the regular government channels, then a strike to publicize it is the right thing to do. Maybe public opinion can force the employer to follow the rules.

If an employer regularly violates things like overtime pay and forcing its workers to work 'off-the-clock' *cough*walmart*cough*, and the employees can't get satisfaction through regular government channels, then a strike to publicize it is the right thing to do. Maybe public opinion can force the employer to follow the law.

If employees at a company think they should be paid more for working, they need to work with the employer to do things like increasing their productivity. If the employees can increase the money per hour they 'make' for their employer, their employer might just pass some of those gains back to the employees... Maybe. The employer might just decide to give some people raises, and lay off the rest, as is their right. After all, it is the employer's business, not the employee's business. To strike wanting more money in this day and age is just plain stupid beyond belief. To cover the additional payroll expense, the employer would have to raise the prices that they charge their customers. This would cause their customers to tend to go elsewhere to purchase that product or service.

If anything, workers are overpaid in the USA, not underpaid. There are so many other costs involved in running a business in addition to direct payroll expenses that it just isn't funny. If a worker 'earns' $18.00/hr. for their employer, just how much should the worker be paid? Not a dime over $6.00/hr! There are many other expenses the employer has to pay, from the variable costs such as the employer's share of payroll taxes and benefits, to more fixed costs such as rent and utilities on the place of business. Plus, the employer must get his profit on that employee as well. If the employee doesn't make the employer a profit (or even enough of a profit), why should the employer either hire that employee or continue the employee's position?

You may say that the employer is just swimming in money. While this may be true of some of the largest corporations, the bulk of the people in the USA work for much smaller businesses which tend to be financially hanging by something between a thread and a hair. Employers in the USA pay what their employees are worth to them. If they underpay, they risk their employees being poached away by rivals. If they overpay, they risk going out of business.

Nobody owes you a job, much less a 'well-paying' job. If you think somebody does, well... screw you! If you want a job, you need to be 'worth' a lot more to an employer than you ask for as a wage. If you want a better job in your current industry, increase your 'worth' to your employer. If that isn't possible or has no results, retrain for another, higher-paying industry.

I've heard a LOT of complaining that it is not possible to live and support a family on a single minimum-wage job. Guess what? That is CORRECT. The 'minimum wage' was never intended to be anything more than a short-term, entry-level, training wage. It is not SUPPOSED to be possible. The minimum wage WAS intended to give young people without work experience or training a way to gain some work experience and training for a few months so that they qualify for a higher paying job. Heck, even burger-flippers at the local burger joint START at about $2.15/hr more than minimum wage. Yes, once upon a time, many, many years ago, I had a minimum-wage job... for about 3 weeks, until I got a better one.

If you are in a bad situation, get off your hiney and DO something about it. The world does NOT owe you a living. TANSTAAFL.

Sounds good on paper.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I've heard a LOT of complaining that it is not possible to live and support a family on a single minimum-wage job. Guess what? That is CORRECT. The 'minimum wage' was never intended to be anything more than a short-term, entry-level, training wage. It is not SUPPOSED to be possible.

And this doesn't make you think? The minimum level should be high enough that it's worth working: that the workers can begin to earn their living even if they can't change the job.

The minimum wage WAS intended to give young people without work experience or training a way to gain some work experience and training for a few months so that they qualify for a higher paying job. Heck, even burger-flippers at the local burger joint START at about $2.15/hr more than minimum wage.

This only shows me how LOW the minimum wage level must be.

Yes, once upon a time, many, many years ago, I had a minimum-wage job... for about 3 weeks, until I got a better one.

Lucky guy. Many people are not that lucky.

If a worker 'earns' $18.00/hr. for their employer, just how much should the worker be paid? Not a dime over $6.00/hr! There are many other expenses the employer has to pay, from the variable costs such as the employer's share of payroll taxes and benefits, to more fixed costs such as rent and utilities on the place of business. Plus, the employer must get his profit on that employee as well. If the employee doesn't make the employer a profit (or even enough of a profit), why should the employer either hire that employee or continue the employee's position?

Eek! Oh that pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor employer!
Who does all the work? The employer? WTF! They pay to get the job done that they don't have to do it them selves, that they don't have to make their exploiter-hands dirty.
Well, they want a job done? Then they better pay fairly! If a worker 'earns' $18.00/hrs he should get paid AT LEAST $8.00/hrs.
I agree the employer need some money to re-invest, to pay pay-roll taxes, etc pp... BUT: Does the profit they make of the business has to be hundred or even thousand times the salary they pay their workers who need second or third jobs to earn their living? NEVER! Does that mean the first thing employters think of when cutting costs have to be salaries? NEVER!
They want the job done, they get the job done by their employees who leave their families to give their power and time, sometimes even their health to the company - Well, the employers just OWE their employees enough money to pay their bills and support their families.

Going on strike because of unsafe working conditions => good strike.

Going on strike because of illegal payroll practices => good strike.

Going on strike for more money and/or benefits, if what you get ain't enough to support your family => good strike.

---

Account frozen...

Thorin, I have to disagree with you on at least one point here....

Going on strike for more money and/or benefits, if what you get ain't enough to support your family => good strike.

That is not a good reason for a strike.

I am a member of the union in our factory, and I am also one of the union stewards. If our union decided to strike every time someone decided that they didn't make enough money, the company would be forced out of business, and we would ALL be out of work.

Our company isn't exactly on great financial footing due to a number of factors including ( but by no means limited to ) the government allowing too many foreign imports of the product that we make.

If we, as a union, were ( at the next contract negotiations )to walk in demanding large pay increases, we would be S.O.L. in a hurry.

When the union demands more than the company can afford to pay ( the UAW and GM being the biggest example ) then the company has only a couple of options. They can go out of business, or they can lay off a bunch of people ( which isn't good for the workforce ) OR they can find a cheaper workforce.

The UAW was fine until GM realized that it really couldn't afford to pay a guy 50 bucks an hour to unload a truck. Keep in mind I said " unload ". The union contract had him classified as an " unloader ". There was a completely separate classification for a " loader ". Meaning another worker at 50 bucks an hour to do nothing if there were no trucks to be loaded. The UAW refused to see that they could no longer afford to demand that kind of pay, so GM simply took it's jobs elsewhere. That was their choice because they were free to do so.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

As part of the two-day strike, the cabbies will join with Allied Barton security guards at Temple University and the University of Pennsylvania's campuses for a rally on September 5th at 12PM at 13th Street and Berks Mall. The guards, who are forced to live on poverty wages, are rallying with Philly Jobs with Justice in order to get 5 sick-days. In the interview Blount explains the convergence. "Cab drivers and security guards are the face of new labor, they are the service workers that make this city run, but they are treated terribly." Ron continued, "It is time for us to get together and demand our rights as workers and humans."

I think these people would settle for far less.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Thorin, I have to disagree with you on at least one point here....

Going on strike for more money and/or benefits, if what you get ain't enough to support your family => good strike.

That is not a good reason for a strike.

I am a member of the union in our factory, and I am also one of the union stewards. If our union decided to strike every time someone decided that they didn't make enough money, the company would be forced out of business, and we would ALL be out of work.

Our company isn't exactly on great financial footing due to a number of factors including ( but by no means limited to ) the government allowing too many foreign imports of the product that we make.

If we, as a union, were ( at the next contract negotiations )to walk in demanding large pay increases, we would be S.O.L. in a hurry.

When the union demands more than the company can afford to pay ( the UAW and GM being the biggest example ) then the company has only a couple of options. They can go out of business, or they can lay off a bunch of people ( which isn't good for the workforce ) OR they can find a cheaper workforce.

The UAW was fine until GM realized that it really couldn't afford to pay a guy 50 bucks an hour to unload a truck. Keep in mind I said " unload ". The union contract had him classified as an " unloader ". There was a completely separate classification for a " loader ". Meaning another worker at 50 bucks an hour to do nothing if there were no trucks to be loaded. The UAW refused to see that they could no longer afford to demand that kind of pay, so GM simply took it's jobs elsewhere. That was their choice because they were free to do so.

Everyone note the last paragraph. This is what I mean about cross-training. If the primary classification for a worker is idle, they could do a secondary classification job. Most unions refuse to do this. Hence my problem with unions in general.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

[quote]I've heard a LOT of complaining that it is not possible to live and support a family on a single minimum-wage job. Guess what? That is CORRECT. The 'minimum wage' was never intended to be anything more than a short-term, entry-level, training wage. It is not SUPPOSED to be possible.

And this doesn't make you think? The minimum level should be high enough that it's worth working: that the workers can begin to earn their living even if they can't change the job.

The minimum wage WAS intended to give young people without work experience or training a way to gain some work experience and training for a few months so that they qualify for a higher paying job. Heck, even burger-flippers at the local burger joint START at about $2.15/hr more than minimum wage.

This only shows me how LOW the minimum wage level must be.

Again: According to the U.S. numbers in 2004: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers."

Get that? Those "tariffs" meant nothing to 97.3 percent of hourly workers because they WERE PAID MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. In other words, the market price was higher than the minimum wage. This is why big eeeevil Walmart supports a higher minimum wage; they already pay far more than the minimum wage and forcing it higher drives costs up for smaller businesses that can't afford it.

Eek! Oh that pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor employer!
Who does all the work? The employer? WTF! They pay to get the job done that they don't have to do it them selves, that they don't have to make their exploiter-hands dirty.
Well, they want a job done? Then they better pay fairly! If a worker 'earns' $18.00/hrs he should get paid AT LEAST $8.00/hrs.
I agree the employer need some money to re-invest, to pay pay-roll taxes, etc pp... BUT: Does the profit they make of the business has to be hundred or even thousand times the salary they pay their workers who need second or third jobs to earn their living? NEVER! Does that mean the first thing employters think of when cutting costs have to be salaries? NEVER!
They want the job done, they get the job done by their employees who leave their families to give their power and time, sometimes even their health to the company - Well, the employers just OWE their employees enough money to pay their bills and support their families.

One more time: We've had this discussion before and you didn't respond, but I'll put it here too. An example: There are plenty of empty auto factories. If those workers don't need the managers, or the shareholders, or the exchange, why aren't they running those plants themselves? Why doesn't the United Auto Workers Union and the AFL-CIO, instead of just bitching about their rapidly declining numbers, just build and sell cars themselves? What are they waiting for? There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of former members that could be building cars. Why aren't they? Why doesn't the UAW just stop bitching and hire all of those guys and pay them more than they were demanding from GM? I mean, nothing is stopping them now, all the managers, shareholders, and brokers are out of the way, so it should be easy, right?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

[quote]I've heard a LOT of complaining that it is not possible to live and support a family on a single minimum-wage job. Guess what? That is CORRECT. The 'minimum wage' was never intended to be anything more than a short-term, entry-level, training wage. It is not SUPPOSED to be possible.

And this doesn't make you think? The minimum level should be high enough that it's worth working: that the workers can begin to earn their living even if they can't change the job.

The minimum wage WAS intended to give young people without work experience or training a way to gain some work experience and training for a few months so that they qualify for a higher paying job. Heck, even burger-flippers at the local burger joint START at about $2.15/hr more than minimum wage.

This only shows me how LOW the minimum wage level must be.

Again: According to the U.S. numbers in 2004: "According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers."

Get that? Those "tariffs" meant nothing to 97.3 percent of hourly workers because they WERE PAID MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. In other words, the market price was higher than the minimum wage. This is why big eeeevil Walmart supports a higher minimum wage; they already pay far more than the minimum wage and forcing it higher drives costs up for smaller businesses that can't afford it.

Eek! Oh that pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor employer!
Who does all the work? The employer? WTF! They pay to get the job done that they don't have to do it them selves, that they don't have to make their exploiter-hands dirty.
Well, they want a job done? Then they better pay fairly! If a worker 'earns' $18.00/hrs he should get paid AT LEAST $8.00/hrs.
I agree the employer need some money to re-invest, to pay pay-roll taxes, etc pp... BUT: Does the profit they make of the business has to be hundred or even thousand times the salary they pay their workers who need second or third jobs to earn their living? NEVER! Does that mean the first thing employters think of when cutting costs have to be salaries? NEVER!
They want the job done, they get the job done by their employees who leave their families to give their power and time, sometimes even their health to the company - Well, the employers just OWE their employees enough money to pay their bills and support their families.

One more time: We've had this discussion before and you didn't respond, but I'll put it here too. An example: There are plenty of empty auto factories. If those workers don't need the managers, or the shareholders, or the exchange, why aren't they running those plants themselves? Why doesn't the United Auto Workers Union and the AFL-CIO, instead of just bitching about their rapidly declining numbers, just build and sell cars themselves? What are they waiting for? There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of former members that could be building cars. Why aren't they? Why doesn't the UAW just stop bitching and hire all of those guys and pay them more than they were demanding from GM? I mean, nothing is stopping them now, all the managers, shareholders, and brokers are out of the way, so it should be easy, right?

Well, the example of car factories: Sure they stand empty, but still they are the property of the company which closed them down - though it were just to take it under own management and resume work there. And even the unions could get a place to rise a new plant, and get the machines to build cars: the former employers of the car workers would give false statements that these cars were built by industrial espionage, using the "insider information" of their former employees. And they will get away with these false accusations because they have more and better lawyers.
The big companies do everything to make such things like union-owned factories never become true.

German constitution, Article 14, paragraph 2:

Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

---

Account frozen...

btw, mentioning Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart is one of the employers here in Germany who not only pay below the official tariffs, but who also fire employees or refuse to employ them at all if it becomes known that they are members of a union.

---

Account frozen...

One more time: We've had this discussion before and you didn't respond, but I'll put it here too. An example: There are plenty of empty auto factories. If those workers don't need the managers, or the shareholders, or the exchange, why aren't they running those plants themselves? Why doesn't the United Auto Workers Union and the AFL-CIO, instead of just bitching about their rapidly declining numbers, just build and sell cars themselves? What are they waiting for? There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of former members that could be building cars. Why aren't they? Why doesn't the UAW just stop bitching and hire all of those guys and pay them more than they were demanding from GM? I mean, nothing is stopping them now, all the managers, shareholders, and brokers are out of the way, so it should be easy, right?

Well, the example of car factories: Sure they stand empty, but still they are the property of the company which closed them down - though it were just to take it under own management and resume work there. And even the unions could get a place to rise a new plant, and get the machines to build cars: the former employers of the car workers would give false statements that these cars were built by industrial espionage, using the "insider information" of their former employees. And they will get away with these false accusations because they have more and better lawyers.

Dude, you are avoiding the question. The point was not for them to build ripoff GMs or Fords (although that happens every day in China and the big companies are nearly powerless to stop it), the point was for them to build and sell their own cars. Like you said, they don't need managers, shareholders, or brokers, so what are they waiting for?

The big companies do everything to make such things like union-owned factories never become true.

Absolutely nothing is stopping them. If the UAW wanted to buy a factory tomorrow, they could. If they wanted to buy the machinery from Mitsubishi tomorrow, they could. If they wanted to buy the parts from any number of manufacturers, they could. Nothing is stopping them, certainly not other auto manufacturers. They can just build their own--yet they don't. Oh, and rest assured, the UAW can afford their own very expensive attorneys...

German constitution, Article 14, paragraph 2: Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

Wow, another meaningless quote. Since we're posting meaningless quotes: "My cat's breath smells like cat food." --Ralph Wiggum.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

btw, mentioning Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart is one of the employers here in Germany who not only pay below the official tariffs, but who also fire employees or refuse to employ them at all if it becomes known that they are members of a union.

Exactly. They aren't willing to work with unions. Walmart isn't a union shop here, either, just like Whole Foods and the overwhelming majority of corporations. It's a waste of money.

Oh, but it does drive jobs overseas. That's a real good plan, right? Drive the costs up so high that it makes more sense to replace locals with robots and plants overseas? Did you ever wonder why BMW built their Spartanburg plant over here in the U.S.? Think that was maybe because the costs were too high in Germany?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

btw, mentioning Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart is one of the employers here in Germany who not only pay below the official tariffs, but who also fire employees or refuse to employ them at all if it becomes known that they are members of a union.

Exactly. They aren't willing to work with unions. Walmart isn't a union shop here, either, just like Whole Foods and the overwhelming majority of corporations. It's a waste of money.

Oh, but it does drive jobs overseas. That's a real good plan, right? Drive the costs up so high that it makes more sense to replace locals with robots and plants overseas? Did you ever wonder why BMW built their Spartanburg plant over here in the U.S.? Think that was maybe because the costs were too high in Germany?

It's not the costs being too high, it's they think they make not enough Million bucks of profit.

---

Account frozen...

btw, mentioning Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart is one of the employers here in Germany who not only pay below the official tariffs, but who also fire employees or refuse to employ them at all if it becomes known that they are members of a union.

Exactly. They aren't willing to work with unions. Walmart isn't a union shop here, either, just like Whole Foods and the overwhelming majority of corporations. It's a waste of money.

Oh, but it does drive jobs overseas. That's a real good plan, right? Drive the costs up so high that it makes more sense to replace locals with robots and plants overseas? Did you ever wonder why BMW built their Spartanburg plant over here in the U.S.? Think that was maybe because the costs were too high in Germany?

It's not the costs being too high, it's they think they make not enough Million bucks of profit.

Heh heh. That's right Thorin. Very good. Very good. Now, very slowly, let's take that a step further... when one lowers the costs (oh, say, ummmm, let's say by building a plant in Spartanburg, for example), what do you think happens to profits?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

btw, mentioning Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart is one of the employers here in Germany who not only pay below the official tariffs, but who also fire employees or refuse to employ them at all if it becomes known that they are members of a union.

Exactly. They aren't willing to work with unions. Walmart isn't a union shop here, either, just like Whole Foods and the overwhelming majority of corporations. It's a waste of money.

Oh, but it does drive jobs overseas. That's a real good plan, right? Drive the costs up so high that it makes more sense to replace locals with robots and plants overseas? Did you ever wonder why BMW built their Spartanburg plant over here in the U.S.? Think that was maybe because the costs were too high in Germany?

It's not the costs being too high, it's they think they make not enough Million bucks of profit.

Heh heh. That's right Thorin. Very good. Very good. Now, very slowly, let's take that a step further... when one lowers the costs (oh, say, ummmm, let's say by building a plant in Spartanburg, for example), what do you think happens to profits?

That's easy. Firstly, the company gets money from the state/community/whatever because building a plant means jobs. Then, the first jobs are mostly subsidized (at least for a certain amount of time) so that the company don't have to pay them at all by themselves. That means their already high profit climbs to ridiculous heights which still is not enough for these greedy locusts.

---

Account frozen...