| Author | Message | ||
     Cerbero |
Johnny: Please re-read my post. I wasn't implying that the "Made in Usa" claim was true, just that the city does exist. As a package designer it's my JOB to understand labeling laws, so I know without a doubt that you could never get away with what that urban legend claims. As an aside, I've typed "Made in China" about eleventy-billion times more often than I've typed "Made in USA" (all caps, mind you) and I find that very sad, indeed. (Message edited by cerbero on December 01, 2005) | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
The US & to a slightly lesser extent western Europe, have a "Live now, pay later" society, everybody wants the latest thing now & as cheap as possible, well sooner or later someone's gotta pay. One of the reasons jobs get out-sourced is pay scales, another is insurance, the Rates in the US are extremely high, due to your extremely litigious system, it's happening slowly here too. My point is, will your ambulance chasing lawyer go for an easy domestic target or a difficult foreign one? It's just another factor in the equation. Road Transport here in Europe is in crisis, due to out-sourcing, we have trucking companies closing daily, as they can't compete with drivers who get paid a 1/3 of what they pay their own nationals. These are Hungarian, Polish, Czech, for the most part; Warnings were sounded long before they joined the EC this year but nobody took any notice because it was politically expedient not to. Now these countries are also looking over their shoulders at the next wave, due for admission in a few years time. I'm lucky to be financially secure, but I wonder what my kids & their kids, if they have any, are going to contend with. | ||
| Lowflyer |
Okay, so the town in question is indeed in Japan. I found it on MapQuest. However, Japan is NOT China. The assertion was that there "is/was a mini-city in China." | ||
| Brucelee |
I love the irony of this. A EU "official" lectures the private sector on how they must compete with the Chinese. No mention of what the EU might do to help Germans more competitive. Perhaps they could write regulations to MAKE the car makers more competitive. Hypocrits. EU's Vice Pres:EU Car Industry Must Adapt To China Threat DOW JONES NEWSWIRES December 1, 2005 9:53 a.m. BRUSSELS -- The European Union's car industry is under threat from China and must learn to adapt quickly to the new source of competition, European Commission Vice President Guenter Verheugen said Thursday. "We have seen the first models (of Chinese cars) and they are not yet up to our standards," he told a gathering of business leaders in a speech at the Lisbon Council, a Brussels-based pro-market think tank. "But we should have no illusions. Unless we adapt, the future of the European automotive sector is clearly at risk." The first Chinese automobiles marketed in Europe arrived this summer in the form of sport utility vehicles made by Jiangling Motors Group (000550.SZ). Verheugen's task at the Commission has been to simplify E.U. regulation - especially in the car industry where he recently proposed scrapping 35 sector rules - and to push governments to spend more money on research and development. Europe, Verheugen insisted, must "rely on quality." He also complained about the hypocrisy of "European politicians who don't admit that globalization is a policy we insisted on." European policy makers, he said, "no longer want to protect industry against competition." Instead, businesses need to adapt, and government should spend more money on research and development. Verheugen also said the Commission is committed to making sure the E.U.'s newest members don't bear the brunt of cuts in the E.U.'s 2007-2013 budget, now under negotiation. "You can't be a champion of enlargement unless you're willing to pay the bill," he said. In the previous Commission, Verheugen won plaudits for his role expanding the E.U. to 25 from 15 member countries. -By John W. Miller, Dow Jones Newswires; 322-741-1483; john.miller@dowjones.com | ||
| Dragon_slayer |
He,HE, so many soap boxes, so little time.  | ||
| Rocker_atc |
WALMART anti union and anti AMERICAN um stayin out no matter how much they try and sucker me in>> ROCKER  | ||
| Brucelee |
Nicely said, from the Wall Street Journal: Is Wal-Mart Good for America? December 3, 2005; Page A10 It is a testament to the public-relations success of the anti-Wal-Mart campaign that the question above is even being asked. By any normal measure, Wal-Mart's business ought to be noncontroversial. It sells at low cost, albeit in mind-boggling quantities, the quotidian products that huge numbers of Americans evidently want to buy -- from household goods to clothes to food. Wal-Mart employs about 1.3 million people, about 1% of the American work force. Its sales, at around $300 billion a year, are equal to 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic product. It is not, however, an especially profitable company. Its net profit margins, at about 3.5% of revenue, are broadly in line with the rest of the retail industry. In fiscal 2004, Microsoft made more money than Wal-Mart on just one-eighth of the sales. The company's success and size, then, do not rest on monopoly profits or price-gouging behavior. It simply sells things people will buy at small markups and, as in the old saw, makes it up on volume. We draw your attention to that total revenue number because, in a sense, it tells you most of what you need to know about Wal-Mart. You may believe, as do service-worker unions and a clutch of coastal elites -- many of whom, we'd wager, have never set foot in a Wal-Mart -- that Wal-Mart "exploits" workers who can't say no to low wages and poor benefits. You might also accept the canard that Wal-Mart drives good local businesses into the ground, although both of these allegations are more myth than reality. But even if you buy into the myths, there's no getting around the fact that somewhere out there, millions of people are spending billions of dollars on what Wal-Mart puts on its shelves. No one is making them do it. To the extent that mom-and-pop stores are threatened by Wal-Mart, it's because the same people who supposedly so value their Main Street hardware store find that Wal-Mart's selection, or prices, or parking lot -- something about it -- is preferable. Wal-Mart can't make mom and pop shut down the shop any more than it can make customers walk through the doors or pull out their wallets. You don't sell $300 billion a year worth of anything without doing something right. What about the workers? In response to long-running criticisms about its pay and benefits, Wal-Mart's CEO, Lee Scott, recently called on the government to raise the minimum wage. But as this page noted at the time, Wal-Mart's average starting wage is already nearly double the national minimum of $5.15 an hour. So raising it would have little effect on Wal-Mart, but calling for it to be raised anyway must have struck someone in the company as a good way to appease its political critics. (Bad call: Senator Ted Kennedy quickly pocketed the concession and kept denouncing the company.) The fact is that the company's starting hourly wages not only aren't as bad as portrayed, but for many workers those wages are only a start. Some 70% of Wal-Mart's executives have worked their way up from the company's front lines. The company has also recently increased its health-care options for employees on the bottom rungs of the corporate ladder. Starting in January, one of those options will be a high-deductible health-savings account, which is a great way to insure yourself if you're relatively young, relatively healthy and yet want to protect against the onset of some catastrophic illness. Mr. Kennedy, who recently called Wal-Mart one of the most "anti-worker" companies around, has been a chief opponent of these pro-worker, pro-market health insurance vehicles. But suppose Wal-Mart did look more like the company its detractors would like it to be, with overpaid workers, union work rules, and correspondingly higher prices on goods. It would not only be a less attractive place to shop, and hence a considerably smaller company. It would drive up the cost of living for the millions who shop there, thus hurting those in the bottom half of the income-distribution tables that Wal-Mart's critics claim to be speaking for. One might expect this fact to trouble the anti-Wal-Mart forces, except that their agenda is very different from what they profess it to be. As our Holman W. Jenkins Jr. pointed out in a recent column, the vanguard of the Wal-Mart haters is composed of unions that have for decades kept retail wages and prices artificially high, especially in the supermarket business. Those unions have had next to no success organizing Wal-Mart employees and see Wal-Mart's push into groceries as a direct threat to their market position. And on that one score, they may be right. But seen it that light, it becomes clear that much of the criticism is simply a form of special-interest lobbying in socially conscious drag. And why an outside observer should favor the interests of unionized supermarket employees over those of Wal-Mart shoppers and employees is far from clear (unless you're a politician who gets union contributions). Any company as successful as Wal-Mart will invariably run afoul of such vested interests. It is in the nature of the rise of a new giant on the scene that it disrupts established ways of doing things and in the process upsets established players. So it was with Standard Oil at the beginning of the 20th century, IBM in the middle and Microsoft at the end of the century. Wal-Mart, perhaps because it restricted itself to towns of less than 15,000 people as a matter of policy into the 1990s, at first avoided and later seemed blindsided by the attacks that have come its way. The company has never been shy about defending its interests. But some of its recent ripostes -- such as Mr. Scott's call for hiking the minimum wage or its gestures toward fighting global warming -- seem to be addressed to the wrong audience. Its customers don't need to be told what they like about Wal-Mart. But the company's management would do well to bear in mind that it is those millions of shoppers, and not the elites with which the company has sometimes of late been seen to be currying favor, that have made the company what it is. | ||
| Brucelee |
And another! A MINORITY VIEW BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2005, AND THEREAFTER DEAD-END JOBS Click here to Print | Certain jobs are derisively referred to as "burger flipper" or "dead-end" jobs. I'd like someone to define a dead-end job. For example, I started out as a professor of economics at California State University, Los Angeles and then at Temple University and for the past 25 years at George Mason University. It seems as though my employment might qualify as a dead-end job, for all I'll ever be is a professor of economics. Those who demean so-called dead-end jobs probably aren't talking about my job. They're mockingly referring to jobs such as clerks at Wal-Mart, hotel workers, and food handlers and counter clerks at McDonald's. McJobs is the term applied to these positions. The term has even found its way into Merriam-Webster and the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Putting down so-called dead-end jobs is a destructive insult to honest work. How dead-end is a McDonald's job? Jim Glassman, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, wrote an article in the Institute's June 2005 On The Issues bulletin titled "Even Workers with 'McJobs' Deserve Respect." He listed some well-known former McDonald's workers. Among them: Andy Card, White House chief of staff; Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com;Jay Leno, "Tonight Show" host; Carl Lewis, Olympic gold medalist; Joe Kernan, former Indiana governor; and Robert Cornog, retired CEO of Snap-On Tools. According to Glassman, some 1,200 McDonald's restaurant owners began as crew members, and so did 20 of McDonald's 50 top worldwide managers. These people and millions of others hardly qualify as dead-enders. The primary beneficiaries of so-called McJobs are people who enter the workforce with modest or absent work skills in areas such as: being able to show up for work on time, operating a machine, counting change, greeting customers with decorum and courtesy, cooperating with fellow workers and accepting orders from supervisors. Very often the people who need these job skills, which some of us might trivialize, are youngsters who grew up in dysfunctional homes and attended rotten schools. It's a bottom rung on the economic ladder that provides them an opportunity to move up. For many, the financial component of a low-pay, low-skill job is not nearly as important as what they learn on the job that can make them more valuable workers in the future. Some demagogues charge that jobs at Wal-Mart and McDonald's only pay the minimum wage. That's plain wrong, as are many other things said about jobs that start at the minimum wage. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Moreover, only three percent of all hourly workers and two percent of wage and salary earners earn minimum wages. Most minimum wage earners are young -- 53 percent are between the ages of 16 and 24. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; 40 percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes of $60,000 and higher, and over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents. My stepfather used to tell me that any honest work was better than begging and stealing. As a young person, I worked many jobs from shining shoes and picking blueberries to delivering packages and washing dishes. Today's tragedy for many a poor youngster is that the opportunities I had for learning the world of work and moving up the economic ladder have either been destroyed through legislation or demeaned by today's do-gooders. | ||
| Court |
Be nearly impossible to organize the work force of Wal-Mart. | ||
| Brucelee |
I don't believe there is any real future for Unions in America (save the govt unions). I think that is why the UAW is trying to organize workers in China (see earlier posts). | ||
| Jsunstar |
wall mart does suck. DONT SUPPORT THEM! shop at the local stores! walmart is anti small business. they gangbust into an area, make all the products they sell cheaper than everyone, then when all the local mom and pop business go under from walmart selling a cheaper (usually crap quality)items, they can then raise the prices to whatever they want because they are the only place to get stuff from... This is all outlined in Walls book... i know this first hand, wall mart sells pet supplies cheaper than I can buy them wholesale! ive had customers wanting me to match wall marts prices and I couldnt... of course most of the quality is low and they have to buy another one within a short time and they return to wall mart again!!!! i dont have that store anymore...too much competition from places like wallmartsuperkmartpetcoconglomeration inc. and the likes... i dont shop at wallmart ever, id rather put my money into the local small business that will take their time and treat me like a customer. customer service! (you get none at wallmart) enough of that, this soapbox is making my fingers hurt... jason in the burg | ||
| Lowflyer |
"DONT SUPPORT THEM...walmart is anti small business." Why is small business any better (more moral/ethical/whatever) than big business? Business is business. Some of you need to learn that there is really very little, if any, moral high ground in choosing where to spend your money for everyday goods and services. Those of you who say, "I support my local businesses" are only fooling yourselves. Buying and selling is the name of the game. Those local businesses shop for the best deal. Then, they pass that deal plus their mark-up, which includes enough to cover their overhead and a profit, on to the consumer. They are, in effect doing your Wal-Marting for you and charging you extra for it. For your extra money, you get a good feeling about yourself (like you just did something wonderful for mankind) and you get to log onto Badweb and tell everyone what a great guy you are for not shopping at Wal-Mart.   "Wal-Martyrs" (people who pay more for stuff simply to avoid Wal-Mart out of principle) really crack me up. Tell you what, I will become a Wal-Martyr myself and never shop at a Wal-Mart again just as soon as I move to a communist country. Until then, I will shop where the price is lowest for the particular item that I want. In truth, have no interest in supporting anyone but myself and my family with my day-to-day purchasing. When I do support someone outside my immediate family, it usually involves giving my time and money to the Church or to a charitable organization. That, my friends is where the moral high ground is. If you are indeed looking for reasons not to shop from Wal-Mart, there are many from which to choose. My chief disagreement with the above post is that there is some sort of high purpose to supporting small business as opposed to big business. I am also opposed to the absurd assertion that it is somehow wrong for Wal-Mart to enter a market and compete with local businesses. It sucks for the business owners who refuse or are unable to adapt and overcome, but that is capitalism after all. Love it, or move to Cuba. | ||
| Brucelee |
Well, as I said before, the great thing about America is that we have so many choices about our experience of living. So for example, I don't tend to shop at Walmart as it is just not pleasant for me. I don't like the experience. I also don't shop at many so called local stores for the same reason. I am free to choose what experience I want based on the fact that it is MY MONEY and the fact that in America, you are allowed to be in business as long as you can compete (ie make money over time). To my knowledge, no one gave Sam Walton any customers. When I was a boy, shoot, we had never heard of WM. So, boo hoo and all that but as far as I can see, WM has done OK by itself and as long as it continues to meet customer needs, it will do so. The cool thing is that you are never too big to fail. Just ask Kmart, Sears, Kresge, etc,etc. If WM falters (ie doesnt satisfy customers)over time, they will be replaced quite quickly. And BTW-they hammered Sears, Kmart etc, fair and square. So be it. | ||
| Jsunstar |
you can shop where you want. im not trying to sway your shopping tendencies. apparently you have never owned a small business and apparently, your not in support of your local community. small businesses are the backbone of a community. they are neccessary for growth. im not saying every one is good, im saying they are neccessary. ive seen many places that look like ghost town because of these types of stores... without these businesses, towns have too many vacant store fronts which makes people stay away and it drops property values or YOUR HOUSE and mine... like i said, walmart comes in, drops prices, after there is no other competition, they jack up the prices. by buying your "cheap" (read: inexpensive junk) stuff there, your killing local small businesses which in time will not be there for competition and your "cheap" items will no longer be so cheap but they will still be junk. this is my opinion, ive seen it in many communities where walmart will claim eminent domain and start tearing stuff down for the "greater good of the community". so when they come to your neighborhood and plow your kids' playground down or, heaven forbid, your house (all for the greater good of the community) you can come back here and complain about it, and it will be your opinion. my moralality stands with my community (my church and my friends who own and shop small businesses). again, this is my opinion, which im glad to be allowed to have (since its not cuba) i appreciate your comments and your opinion... its good you have the choice to have one.. if this was wallmart, we would only have one opinion offered, and even at a discount, id rather have mine! | ||
| Brucelee |
Well, I am self employed and own two businesses, both very small. In one, I compete with huge businesses and if I am not competitive, I don't eat. Having said that, there is nothing "moral" about my being a small business, I simply prefer it that way. I am not the "backbone" of the community and I am not any more moral than my larger competitors. We are all just trying to make some dough the best way we know how. As far as WM goes, as I indicated, I don't really shop there. At the same time, when I bought my last big ticket LCD TV, I did not pay an extra $200 to the local TV shop, I paid less and got more at Circuit City. If that makes me immoral, so be it. PS-WM cannot invoke eminent domain. If this is happening, your beef is with your local town pols, not WM. | ||
| Sarinstructor |
In my local community when the Wal Mart opened it drove two "mom and pop's" out of business. One re-opened as a jewelry store (only one in the area) and the other as an outdoor grilling type store (also the only one in the area). Across the street a strip mall opened with all sorts of new stores that didn't exist before. Why? The business that Wal Mart generated turned a neglected piece of dirt across the street into a gold mine. Personally, I avoid Wal Mart like the plague. I hate the crowds. My wife shops there all the time so thankfully I don't have to. | ||
| Lowflyer |
Jsunstar, First, let me say that my post is just to provoke deeper thought on the issue and is not intended to disrespect you or your opinion in any way. "like i said, walmart comes in, drops prices, after there is no other competition, they jack up the prices." I know what you posted, I would like to see this backed up in fact. Anybody can make an accusation. I have lived in a small town where Wal-Mart came in and I did not witness the price jacking after they stamp out competition. If they were to do this, they would invite another Big Box into the area. Like blood in the water attracts sharks, high profit margins attract more businesses. Besides, if you don't shop at Wal-Mart how do you know this is a standard practice of theirs? "ive seen it in many communities where walmart will claim eminent domain" Fair enough, I would appreciate it if you could cite a web link or news article that confirms just one of these many cases you have seen. I don't mean to call you out, but I believe that no business in this country can enforce eminent domain. Eminent domain is a tool for government alone. It is true that businesses can profit from a local government proclaiming eminent domain. I have read some fear-mongering knee-jerk articles over the latest eminent domain legislation, but I have not heard of a case yet where Wal-Mart has indeed benefited from it. You are right, I have not tried to run my own business. However, I have studied business enough (read: MBA) to know what a bottom line is. The bottom line is that to stay in business you must compete, change, or die (in that order). Small business deserves no exemption from this fact of life. The businesses that survive a Big Box invasion are the ones that specialize successfully (read: differentiate) and stubbornly refuse to throw their hands up and conveniently blame it on the "evil" competitor. It is hard to have free enterprise if there is no competition. Though we like to line everything up under good and evil (thanks Hollywood), just because a small business cannot compete directly with a large one does not make the large one evil. The little guy either needs to put on a suit of armor and go to war (see movie: Tommy Boy), or he should just fill out an application. Just to clarify, I rarely shop at Wal-Mart, but that is because I generally don't like crowds. I do a lot of my shopping on the Internet which is also a problem for small businesses and communities. I have no cheap Chinese sh** in my house unless you want to count some of my Christmas tree ornaments, but if I were inclined to buy some, it would not be from a small shop in town, I would go to where the cheap sh** is the cheapest. | ||
| Jsunstar |
im not here to defy or defend, im stating facts. WM can and does claim eminent domain. check it out. its local politics... (look at the new one going in on route 65 in pittsburgh, pa. no one wants it, they are getting one anyway, to the changrin of the state land that was going to be used for public parks) they (local politicians) do what they want because its good for the person in the elected seat for the present economy, not the long term ecomomy (when they will not be in power) i dont care where you all shop, im just stating a fact that it is what it is. you can save your few dollars now, when the town you live in only has one store to shop in, you can all complain about it then. i for one will not be part of it. wake up people and stop thinking in the here and now, consider your future and the future of your childrens community. this is the last post for me on this, im out of it, apparently this is a topic best left to those that arent pinching every penny they can to leave their communities high and dry! VIVA WALL MART! (im sure that will spawn some serious posting!) im a motor head and small business owner, not into politics. if you want to discuss how cool and convienient wall mart is, save it for someone whos livelihood hasnt been affected by them. (its hard to "adapt and overcome" when you cant possibly buy quality products to compete with the inferior and horribly cheap(price and quality) product most superstores carry.) better yet, call me up and ill show you what the reprocussions of "big business" look like. stop hiding behind your feigned morality and stop being so cheap and stand by your community. they are the ones that educate your children and build your community, not wall mart. BTW, check out how wall mart takes life insurance policies out on their "senior" employees without their knowlege. guess whos the beneficiaries... wonder why they like hiring our elderly to meet and greet... do some homework... | ||
| Jsunstar |
ok, really, last post on this. Lowflyer, read sam waltons book and how he says how to run the competition out of town and capitalize on supply and demand... its his policy! i will find the facts and i will send them to you personally, im not wasting any more breath on this topic here, this is a buell website, i dont know why i even bothered posting, the world is full of people who dont get it... ive read and listened to radio shows (KDKA, check it out) and seen news of this happening alot! all the inforamtion is out there! when i get time to find something for you substantial to read, ill send it your way... i dont have it bookmarked but its all out there! read his book, granted, he was successful, and a great businessman but at what cost? last post, if you want a discussion, email me. i have a buell to build. | ||
| Jsunstar |
http://www.hel-mart.com heres some information, its all there. read it. | ||
| Brucelee |
Jsunstar, You can't have it both ways. To have a competitive system, folks win and lose. It is NOT a function of size, as a cursory look at data will tell you. To wit, go back and find out who was in the Dow Jones Index in the 80s. Then see, who is there now. Large companies, all with wonderful market position, now mostly also rans. Ditto the S and P 500. As a small businessman, if I can dominate my competition, I will. That is how this game is played. Vice versa. Your belief that the local businessman is somehow more moral than WM is just plain silly. Get off your sanctimonious high horse, stop complaining and compete. Or, as was said earlier, go fill out an application. | ||
| Blake |
Walmart began as a small family owned business. Don't hate. It just isn't beneficial to anyone, especially yourself. If you don't like a store, then don't shop there. That's what I do. I don't care for the big super-center stores. I don't shop there. Pretty simple. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
You all live in the "Land of the free" excercise your freedom, shop where you want, buy what you want, but don't complain when others do the same, & someone, Walmart or whoever, supplies that need. & when you've done your shopping, just nip into the arches for a Big Mac.  | ||
| Koz5150 |
Make sure you use a computer that runs something other then Microsoft Windows also. I am sure there is a mom and pop local computer store that sells Grandma's Operating System.  | ||
| Eboos |
Loins are anti antelope. Do not support loins. | ||
| Arbalest |
Brucelee, there is no future for unions in the US AS LONG AS the US workforce feels it it being treated fairly regarding pay and benefits. Companies typically have union drives when it's workforce feels that it is being taken advantage of. If a company wishes to stay non-union, all it has to do treat it's employees fairly. When WalMart first added groceries to it's stores, it hired meatcutters. When ONE store (in Canada, I believe) voted to join the meatcutters union, it fired ALL the meatcutters in every WalMart Superstore and switched to selling prepackaged meats. Sounds to me like killing flies with a shotgun. | ||
| Lowflyer |
"http://www.hel-mart.com heres some information, its all there. read it." I sincerely hope you were yanking my chain with this web link. I did a search myself and could not find one bona fide news article where Wal-mart claimed eminent domain. Below are a couple of sites that I found during that search to help support your argument. I believe everything I read on the Internet, see on TV, or hear at the local drinking establishment too.  http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/community/eminent.html http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_business/walmart_eminent_domain.html Seriously, eminent domain cannot be claimed by a private business. Private businesses may lobby local governments and may make slick deals with greasy local politicians, but they cannot come in and force anyone to move or sell their property. That forcing has to come from the government. Even then, it is difficult to obtain if people go to the meetings and get involved. BTW, this is the Quick Board. You can post whatever you want in here. There are other boards on Badweb if you don't like to scrap over political sh**. Arguing is fun and educational so long as the emotions remain in check.  | ||
| Bomber |
well, treating employees fairly can be seen very differently -- in my fair city landscape guys are paid by a scale that defies reason (mine, at least) -- folks that weild shovels, planint trees and shrubs and the like are getting paid 42 cash dollars american per hour worked -- now, I'm sure their pretty please about that, but the folks that support this pay scale (every employee and employer within the city limits) may feel otherwise | ||
| Brucelee |
Treating employees "fairly" is about as precise as a "living wages." Reality check-Who decides what fair is, anyway. As you pointed about above, if I am one of those taxpayers footing the bill for a $80K (plus benefits) shovel pusher, I am not feeling like I am being treated too "fairly." That is why the free market is normally a better way to sort this out. If there are lot of folks willing to pay a shovel pusher $40 an hour, well they must be worth that rate. If the payers are willing to pay $20, that would be fair too. I love capitalism. | ||
| Bomber |
sorry for the previous double post -- fat fingers, perhaps? Bruce -- yer right, of course -- capitalism would dictate that "fairly" wins the day -- clearly, my fair city is not run along the lines of pure capitalism ;-} |
