NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
02:03:10 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott Stephenson wrote:

>> And all of that is a very non-Christian attitude and philosophy. Thanks for
>> showing the shallowness of your convictions.
>
>No dingleberry - thank you for showing us how far up George Bush's ass
>your nose is! The new industry in those countries is causing so many
>problems - pollution, workplace health and saafety problems, traffic
>gridlock, etc - so many of the problems that result from runaway
>economic growth even in a country where there is heavy government
>control of the economy.

If true, then it will eventually self-destruct, just as Japan did. That's how
a market works.

>> OK, Einstein- explain the shortcoming, as we sit with the strongest economy
>> in the world. ...
>
>Well numbnuts - we wont have the strongest economy for long at this
>rate.

What we've been doing has been working for decades, and will probably continue
to work.

>China is kicking our asses,

Not really.

>and the trade deficit is a sure sign
>that we are engaging in economic cannibalism - more money going out than
>going in. How long can that go on for? ...

For some time, buy the market will eventually compensate.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
19:30:39 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>... Clearly, the history of the USA shows that
>unregulated markets are bad and led to many more problems than were
>created when regulations were put in place. ...

The history of the USA actually shows that investment, free market principles,
and minimal regulation result in prosperity.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
02:32:08 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>>...

>Suicide - even economic suicide - isn't a Christian principle. Where do
>you get off saying that cutting your nose off to feed some poor starving
>cannibal is being a good Christian?

I don't say that.

>> Not at all clear, since your regulations tend to do more harm than good.
>
>What regulations are you referring to?

Such things as requiring governments to "buy American".

>You seem to think that all
>regulations do more harm than good.

Not true.

>Are you saying that regulations
>that require industries to clean up the air and water are bad?

Some are good; some are bad.

>Are you
>saying that it is better for us all to have dirty air and water?

No.

>Can
>you answer that simple question?

Done that.

>> No they aren't.
>
>Yes they are - where do you think they are getting the money to build
>their nuclear subs and ICBMs? Where do you think they got the money to
>buy arms from France, Germany and Russia?

From their own productivity.

>> What you advocate is counterproductive.
>
>how is taking care of yourself and your neighbors counterproductive yet
>selling out our country to the Chinese is productive?

It's counterproductive to engage in protectionism -- it simply doesn't work.
The solution is to make us more (not less) productive, which takes investment
and efficiency, not regulation.

>>>and a government that is not a fascist
>>>dictatorship that fools a buncha twits into voting for them.
>>
>> It's not"
>
>Yes it is! Can you back up your claims that it is not? Bush stole two
>eections, and owes his stolen office to the rich pukes who fixed it for
>him and they are running the government - remember what Mussolini said
>about fascism being caled corporatism instead - and why?

Nonsense not worthy of further comment.

>> Nonsense. Foreign trade is about efficiency.
>
>Maybe sometimes it is or has been, but right now it is not.

You're badly misinformed.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
02:39:46 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott Stephenson wrote:

>> If you are referring to 30 years ago as history, here's a clue- I not only
>> lived it, I remember it, and didn't read about it as you have. So, take
>> another clue- in order for me to explain to you the role of regulation and
>> taxes in the US economical system, I'll need you to spend a little more time
>> in school, and a ****load more time out of it. And I also noticed that you
>> failed to address a single thing I said, choosing instead to fill the post
>> with your lame attempt at mind reading. Try again- read a little slower and
>> have Mommy explain the big words. The welfare state has already proven
>> itself to be a huge failure. The fact that you are too young to remember it
>> doesn't mean we have to try it again for your benefit.
>>
>Again - go **** yourself. I was around 30 years ago too dingleberry -
>abut the time I got out of college. And probably have a better liberal
>arts education than you have

How could you possibly know that?

>and have much more capable than you to
>understand the role of reguation and taxes.

I liberal arts education doesn't give you that kind of understanding -- you
need economics.

>You only went back 30 years
>- I went back over a 100 years and clearly the USA is better off with
>reguation and taxes than without them.

I disagree.

>We don't have depressions, runs
>on the banks, air so dirty you can't see through it or water so foul
>that rivers catch fire.

Some basic regulation is good. Others are bad.

>The fact that we have Social Security which
>provides a safety net for older people that is more sound now than it
>was 30 years ago proves that some regulation is good and needs to stay
>in place and be strengthened up and not torn down proves you wrong.

Social Security as it exists today is actually a cruel shell game in which
promises are being made that can't possibly be fulfilled.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
21:32:07 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott Stephenson wrote:

>> That is not a product of regulation- it is a product of taxation. I thought
>> you said you understood this stuff?
>
>No actually dip**** - the ability to tax comes from laws which are
>passed which give an agency the ability to write regulations which
>govern how they do their job. You ever hear of the Code of Federal
>Regulations? Regulations control each and every single thing that the
>government does - from collecting Social Security to telling industry
>what they can and cannot do to pollute air or water.

That's utter nonsense.

>> I'm sorry- where did I ever mention Bush, partisan politics or an allegiance
>> to anyone? Did I vote for Bush? Hmmm....
>
>Anyone with such blind faith in the market has to be a Republican,
>because we Dems have much better critical thinking skills and don't
>place blind faith in much of anything.

That must be why you Dems are in such serious decline.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:42:36 -0800,
"Ron Marraccini" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think y'all should read a book written in the 1960s called "The Cold Cash
>War"
>
>It predicted that there would be 5-6 corporations w/ their own armies
>running the world in the end and, that governments would be mere figureheads
>kept in place to mollify the sheep, er, public into thinking they had some
>sense of control.
>
>Funny how things turn out isn't it?

How is a book that has proved to be dead wrong funny? I'd call it silly.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:56:42 -0800,
"Ron Marraccini" <[email protected]> wrote:

>2. We are in for really tough times if the medical community ie; doctors,
>hospitals, clinics/drug companies & the insurance industry companies remain
>unregulated. Perhaps it's time to nationalize them.

Shoot ourselves in both feet? How would that make sense?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004
> 05:02:13 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
>
>>>Nope- wouldn't say that. I'd just ask where those jobs exist in the new
>>>global economy. Are you saying that the government needs to mandate that
>>>those jobs return? At those wages? Whose going to buy products at 4 times
>>>the cost of comparable products? And where in the Constitution does the
>>>government gain power to control free market trade?
>
>
>>Companies move their operations overseas for a lot of reasons - skipping
>>out on paying taxes (the price of living in a civilized society), not
>>having to treat people humanely in the workplace, being able to dump
>>toxic crap into the air and water, etc. ...
>
>
> Nonsense -- companies go offshore primarily because of lower labor costs,
> secondarily because of lower materials costs.

Nope - sorry - companies can and do move their operations over to
countries where the taxes (an expense) are lower. The lower the taxes,
the more profit they make. And that is usually after they have aready
moved the company HQ to the Caymans where they can escape some but not
al taxes.
>
>
>>Well putting lots of Americans out of work, gutting whole communties
>>when large employers go belly up, and all the harm it does to the family
>> when their economic circumstance change for the worse - it's all
>>national security.
>
>
> That's not happening -- the US still has one of the lowest unemployment rates
> in the world.

Sorry - yes it is happening - go to any city or town that used to rely
on manufacturing economies and you will see empty houses, empty stores,
gutted downtown areas - try Pittsfield, MA for example.

And those unemployment figures are bogus anyway - they only measure
people who are elligible for unemployment compensation (which states are
making it harder to be elligible for). People who aren't working and
who max out of their benefits aren't counted in that figure.

People who are underemployed - who work one or more full or part time
jobs who don't earn what they used to earn when they had a manufacturing
job - they aren't counted in that figure.

Nor are people who have simply given up looking for work because they
can't find work in their community and may be can't afford to move to
where there is more work, or people who have taken IT training and then
find out that the IT job they wanted to get has been outsourced - they
aren't counted in those figures.
>
>
>>What could we do about it? Well, the Federal and State governments
>>could stop taking my tax dollars and spending those dollars to put my
>>fellow citizens out of work when they outsource services - they should
>>be required to spend all my tax dollars in the good ole USA buying
>>American and keeping Aericans employed. ...
>
>
> Really bad idea -- taxes would have to be raised substantially to pay for the
> higher costs, which would have a negative effect on the economy, and push even
> more jobs offshore. The solution is to make the US more productive (through
> investment), not more protectionist.

Sorry - taxes are gonna have to be raised substantially to pay off
Bush's mad plan, otherwise your kids and grandkids are gonna be paying
off even more money in years to come.

Also not a bad idea - having the government buy only from US suppliers
would have the effect of generating jobs here at home, which would
increase the tax based instead of shrinking it like is being done now.

As for this investment bull**** you cite - don't you know that the
reason why companies are closing here is because we can't compete with
slave labor in China and elsewhere for investment where the investors
expect a 40% return? That isn't possible here. When Dumbya gave his
big tax breaks for the rich, they took their money and invested it
overseas where they could get that higer rate of return. They didn't
invest it here in the USA.

US workers are already the most productive in the world, using whatever
measure you prefer. They just don't work for slave labor wages, and
shouldn't be working in dangerous working conditions, and generating all
sorts of filth as a byproduct of their work - or are you trying to say
that the way to be more productive in the US is to lower wages to slave
labor levels, get rid of all the workplace health and safety regs and
the environmental regs?

>
>>Now while we can't tax goods or services made overseas as a way to
>>increase jobs in the USA, we can tax profits made overseas to make it
>>more profitable for Americans to invest in companies that employ people
>>over here. ...
>
>
> No we can't -- businesses would just move offshore entirely.

**** em - let em do that - but when the US investors try and bring their
corporate profits back on shore they should get ****ed in the ass at tax
time. If they don't like that, let the investors renounce their
citizenship and move offshore and take their chances - they will really
become tax traitors!
>
>
>>Producing more things at home makes us more self sufficient and makes it
>>less likely that a foreign government or non-governental power could
>>threaten us at our ports.
>
>
> The only real self-sufficiency issue is energy, which can only be solved with
> more investment, not more regulation.
>
>
>>>I don't have my nose buried anywhere. Usenet Child has his head in a cloud-
>>>just haven't decided what kind of smoke he's inhaling.
>>
>>I don't smoke anything asshole - I have asthma that I got from breathing
>>the ****ty air, the quality of which has been gradually dereased due to
>>pressure from industry. ...
>
>
> You're not at fault for failing to move to a place with cleaner air?


Where am I gonna move that has fresher air? Air quality nationwide has
deteriorated. Just because I don't move right next to a smokestack
doesn't mean I don't get exposed to dirty air. And why the **** should
I have to move to a place with cleaner air - why can't the rude ****er
who is polluting my air stop polluting? It's like a smoker - let the
rude ****ers smoke in a place where only people who smoke want to hang
out. I got no problem with restricting smokers to fewer and fewer
places. They got no right to inflict the smoke from their cancer sticks
on me. You telling me that someone who decides to take a dump on my
front yard isn't in the wrong and that I have to pick up and move if I
don't like it?

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004
> 08:07:59 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
>>>05:28:50 GMT, "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>Who defined manfacturing jobs as 'good'? They are actually the bottom of
>>>>>the employment pool- no skills, little room for advancement, income
>>>>>restraints. Please try to understand something about the subject.
>>>>
>>>>My only comment is that it would seem that a $16-20 per hour
>>>>manufacturing job is better than an $8 per hour job at Wal-Mart,
>>>>Target or Home Depot.
>>>
>>>Such manufacturing jobs aren't available at the same skill level.
>>
>>Immaterial.
>>Those laid off from the disappearing high skill manufacturing jobs have
>>no choice but to accept the lesser jobs in the retail/service sector.
>>It's called being underemployed. There's a lot of that going around.
>
>
> That's just called being employed. It's not underemployed, because their
> skills don't justify higher pay.



What - are you gonna argue with Smiling Al Greenspan, who acknoweges
that there is underemployment in our economy?

It is called underemployment, because their skills do justify higher pay
but the jobs that use those skills aren't around anymore. If those
corporate scumbgs hadn't moved all the good paying jobs offshore,

Also, with all the ****ing illegal aliens coming into the USA working
for sub-minimum wages, it does have the effect of driving down
non-managerial wages across the board. If you got rid of all those
illegals, and forced employers to obey wage and hour laws and pay the
really unskilled workers a minium wage, the wages for all the jobs where
you need more than minimal skills would go up.

Also, the minimum wage hasn't kept pace with the cost of living. When I
was in college, the min wage went from $2.75 to $3.00 per hour.
Adjusted for inflation, that would be at least $8.00 to $9.00 per hour
almost twice what the current minimum wage is now. People who are just
starting out in the working world with little or no skills still have to
eat, they still need a place to live, a way to get to and from work, and
they still get sick. At today's minimum wage, they don't get paid
enough to afford to do half of that. They then go on welfare and food
stamps, or go to the ER, and we taxpayers end up subsidizing these big
corporations who profit by not paying a real living wage. These
companies - like Wal-Mart - are among the most profitible business
ventures in the country if not the world, and they do so by skipping out
on paying taxes.

Go to www.goodjobsfirst.org and check out Shopping for Subsidies:
How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
> 02:21:59 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>Business Competitiveness Index 2004 [page 12]
>>>
>>>1 United States
>>>...
>
>
>>If the USA is so competitive, how come Bush is screaming about how we
>>have to gut the current tax system, civil tort system, health care
>>system, etc., claiming that the way things are in the USA today makes
>>the USA less competitive?
>
>
> Politics presumably.

But is it true, or is Bush telling more lies again? Either we are more
productive with things the way they are now - as that list would have us
believe, or we are not as Bush would have us believe. You can't have it
both ways.
>
>
>>How come all the good manufacturing jobs have left the countries at the
>>top of the list and are going towards countries at the middle to the
>>bottom of the list?
>
>
> Because they've become more competitive at manufacturing.

Define "competitive". Does it mean cheaper and/or better made? I can
tell you that the **** sold in Wal Mart isn't better made than stuff
made in America years ago. Now if Wal Mart and other companies want to
sell me cheap **** that will break and wear out quickly so I have to
come back and buy more, I would rather buy higher quality goods and have
them last longer. The thing is, I can't find it, because the companies
that sold the good stuff made in America couldn't compete with the
companies that make crap in China and elsewhere. But not on the quality
of the goods - they couldn't compete for investment money with the
overseas companies. It's not about the goods and services - it's about
the money! The countries overseas compete with America only for lower
costs - little or no taxes and slave labor wages because the people over
there don't live in a democracy and don't have high expectations like
American workers. American companies can't afford to pay investors a
40% return on investment like the companies based overseas are set up to
pay.
>
>
>>That's literally the "rce to the bottom"!
>
>
> Only if countries head in the wrong direction. There's no future in low skill
> manufacturing.


What countries are you talking about - and what is the wrong direction?
We can't all be rocket scientists and getting everything made
overseas is getting to be a threat to our national security because too
much is at stake if a dirty bomb in the Port of Los Angeles could cause
our economy to grind to a halt.

People who can't work in IT or who don't want to need to have jobs that
they can work at and pay their way in the world. And manufacturing jobs
to require skills - have you ever worked in a modern factory with
computer-aided manufacturing and seen how much skill you need for those
jobs?

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> John Navas wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 23
Dec 2004
> > 05:02:13 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Scott Stephenson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Nope- wouldn't say that. I'd just ask where those jobs exist in the
new
> >>>global economy. Are you saying that the government needs to mandate
that
> >>>those jobs return? At those wages? Whose going to buy products at 4
times
> >>>the cost of comparable products? And where in the Constitution does
the
> >>>government gain power to control free market trade?
> >
> >
> >>Companies move their operations overseas for a lot of reasons - skipping
> >>out on paying taxes (the price of living in a civilized society), not
> >>having to treat people humanely in the workplace, being able to dump
> >>toxic crap into the air and water, etc. ...
> >
> >
> > Nonsense -- companies go offshore primarily because of lower labor
costs,
> > secondarily because of lower materials costs.
>
> Nope - sorry - companies can and do move their operations over to
> countries where the taxes (an expense) are lower. The lower the taxes,
> the more profit they make. And that is usually after they have aready
> moved the company HQ to the Caymans where they can escape some but not
> al taxes.

Fine- back up the claim. Provide documented facts to prove the statement
you just made, that show that corporations do not move operations to take
advantage of cheaper labor and material costs.

> >
> >
> >>Well putting lots of Americans out of work, gutting whole communties
> >>when large employers go belly up, and all the harm it does to the family
> >> when their economic circumstance change for the worse - it's all
> >>national security.
> >
> >
> > That's not happening -- the US still has one of the lowest unemployment
rates
> > in the world.
>
> Sorry - yes it is happening - go to any city or town that used to rely
> on manufacturing economies and you will see empty houses, empty stores,
> gutted downtown areas - try Pittsfield, MA for example.

Been to Pittsfield, MA- quite a few times, AAMOF. Lived north of there ofr
many years. Its an old mill town.

Now I'm starting to understand why you whine- very interesting.


>
> And those unemployment figures are bogus anyway - they only measure
> people who are elligible for unemployment compensation (which states are
> making it harder to be elligible for). People who aren't working and
> who max out of their benefits aren't counted in that figure.

They are bogus- they fail to measure how many of those people are
unemployable.

>
> People who are underemployed - who work one or more full or part time
> jobs who don't earn what they used to earn when they had a manufacturing
> job - they aren't counted in that figure.

Get off the manufacturing job kick- manufacturing is officially a dead
occupation in the northeast. As I siad, it now makes sense. Which company
moved operations out of Pittsfield and let you unemployed?

>
> Nor are people who have simply given up looking for work because they
> can't find work in their community and may be can't afford to move to
> where there is more work, or people who have taken IT training and then
> find out that the IT job they wanted to get has been outsourced - they
> aren't counted in those figures.

If you're only looking in Pittsfield, its your fault. Most of the mill
towns in that area are suffering the same thing. A few have been smart and
found a way to entice new employers.

> >
> >
> >>What could we do about it? Well, the Federal and State governments
> >>could stop taking my tax dollars and spending those dollars to put my
> >>fellow citizens out of work when they outsource services - they should
> >>be required to spend all my tax dollars in the good ole USA buying
> >>American and keeping Aericans employed. ...
> >
> >
> > Really bad idea -- taxes would have to be raised substantially to pay
for the
> > higher costs, which would have a negative effect on the economy, and
push even
> > more jobs offshore. The solution is to make the US more productive
(through
> > investment), not more protectionist.
>
> Sorry - taxes are gonna have to be raised substantially to pay off
> Bush's mad plan, otherwise your kids and grandkids are gonna be paying
> off even more money in years to come.
>
> Also not a bad idea - having the government buy only from US suppliers
> would have the effect of generating jobs here at home, which would
> increase the tax based instead of shrinking it like is being done now.

Isolationism- liberals playing ostrich.

>
> As for this investment bull**** you cite - don't you know that the
> reason why companies are closing here is because we can't compete with
> slave labor in China and elsewhere for investment where the investors
> expect a 40% return? That isn't possible here. When Dumbya gave his
> big tax breaks for the rich, they took their money and invested it
> overseas where they could get that higer rate of return. They didn't
> invest it here in the USA.

Dubya? THe flight took place when Dubya was still gov of Texas. I believe
Slick Willy was in office.

>
> US workers are already the most productive in the world, using whatever
> measure you prefer. They just don't work for slave labor wages, and
> shouldn't be working in dangerous working conditions, and generating all
> sorts of filth as a byproduct of their work - or are you trying to say
> that the way to be more productive in the US is to lower wages to slave
> labor levels, get rid of all the workplace health and safety regs and
> the environmental regs?

You are showing how little you know about economics- you might want to stop
making a fool of yourself.

>
> >
> >>Now while we can't tax goods or services made overseas as a way to
> >>increase jobs in the USA, we can tax profits made overseas to make it
> >>more profitable for Americans to invest in companies that employ people
> >>over here. ...
> >
> >
> > No we can't -- businesses would just move offshore entirely.
>
> **** em - let em do that - but when the US investors try and bring their
> corporate profits back on shore they should get ****ed in the ass at tax
> time. If they don't like that, let the investors renounce their
> citizenship and move offshore and take their chances - they will really
> become tax traitors!

Are you including all of the little people who have their retirements
invested in these companies? Wouldn't that create pain for the very people
you are trying to help?

> >
> >
> >>Producing more things at home makes us more self sufficient and makes it
> >>less likely that a foreign government or non-governental power could
> >>threaten us at our ports.
> >
> >
> > The only real self-sufficiency issue is energy, which can only be solved
with
> > more investment, not more regulation.
> >
> >
> >>>I don't have my nose buried anywhere. Usenet Child has his head in a
cloud-
> >>>just haven't decided what kind of smoke he's inhaling.
> >>
> >>I don't smoke anything asshole - I have asthma that I got from breathing
> >>the ****ty air, the quality of which has been gradually dereased due to
> >>pressure from industry. ...
> >
> >
> > You're not at fault for failing to move to a place with cleaner air?
>
>
> Where am I gonna move that has fresher air?

If you live in Pittsfield, you have many options.

> Air quality nationwide has
> deteriorated. Just because I don't move right next to a smokestack
> doesn't mean I don't get exposed to dirty air. And why the **** should
> I have to move to a place with cleaner air - why can't the rude ****er
> who is polluting my air stop polluting? It's like a smoker - let the
> rude ****ers smoke in a place where only people who smoke want to hang
> out. I got no problem with restricting smokers to fewer and fewer
> places. They got no right to inflict the smoke from their cancer sticks
> on me. You telling me that someone who decides to take a dump on my
> front yard isn't in the wrong and that I have to pick up and move if I
> don't like it?

I see- everybody is to blame but you, and you are not responsible for any of
the problem andshould not have to fix it. Let everybody else do it to your
standards. Interesting.

>

"USENET READER" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
> Where am I gonna move that has fresher air? Air quality nationwide has
> deteriorated. Just because I don't move right next to a smokestack
> doesn't mean I don't get exposed to dirty air. And why the **** should
> I have to move to a place with cleaner air - why can't the rude ****er
> who is polluting my air stop polluting? It's like a smoker - let the
> rude ****ers smoke in a place where only people who smoke want to hang
> out. I got no problem with restricting smokers to fewer and fewer
> places. They got no right to inflict the smoke from their cancer sticks
> on me. You telling me that someone who decides to take a dump on my
> front yard isn't in the wrong and that I have to pick up and move if I
> don't like it?

Here you go- clean air, and being given away. You should be in heaven- its
the type of entitlement program any lib would die for:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/22/real...ex.htm?cnn=yes

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
> 02:17:00 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>... The government doesn't even
>>study whether the new jobs that are being created pay the same or have
>>the same benefits as the old jobs that were lost.
>
>
> Actually it does.

no it doesn't - they sure don't spill that data do they?
>
>
>>Certainly, when you
>>lose a good-paying manufacturing job with benefits, and replace it with
>>a job at Wal-Mart, you are underemployed.
>
>
> No, you're simply employed. You're "unqualified" (not "underemployed") when
> you aren't qualified for higher-paying jobs that are available

No dumb ass - when you lose your job at a factory that paid you $16-20
an hour and there are no jobs that pay as high that are stil around and
you have to work at $8 an hour, you are underemployed. Are you gonna
argue with a solid economc theory just because it doesn't jibe with your
own personal political and economic views?
>
>
>>Yu don't know what the **** you are talking about -
>
>
> I'm afraid you have that backwards.

No you have it backwards - from
http://www.investorwords.com/5835/underemployment.html

underemployment is: A situation in which a worker is employed, but not
in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or
level of skill and experience. While not technically unemployed, the
underemployed are often competing for available jobs.

And by the way dumbass - there are plenty of IT people who worked at
hi-tech jobs who are working blue-collar or service jobs because there
are no jobs they are trained for that they can do. The jobs are being
sent overseas, and the employers who claim there are no qualified people
to do them are not telling the truth - that they can't find anyone in
the USA to do them for ten cents on the dollar!

And from http://news.com.com/2100-1017-832553.html

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in
the United States was 5.6 percent in January--relatively low for a
recession, which typically generates unemployment rates of 8 percent or
more in the United States.

But hidden behind the not-so-grim unemployment rate is a harsher
reality: Many workers are waiting out the downturn in jobs that are far
below their previous salaries or professional aspirations.

Reliable statistics on underemployment are difficult to find, in part
because the government doesn't discriminate between people who have jobs
and those who have jobs below their skill set. But underemployment seems
to be a particular problem for technology workers.

Human resource experts say the underemployment trend in the current
economic cycle is just starting to emerge. Many workers got the ax when
mass layoffs peaked in the summer and fall of 2001, and they coasted on
several months of severance and unemployment insurance, which generally
lasts six months. With the tech job market still in the doldrums,
they're now considering new gigs as waitresses, bartenders, forklift
drivers or baby sitters--anything to pay the rent.

"I'm seeing people take jobs they don't want or even like because
they're looking for short-term help until the market improves," said
Ilya Talman, president of Chicago-based Roy Talman & Associates, a
recruitment firm specializing in information technology workers. "They
don't feel they have any choice. If they've been out of work for a year,
they get desperate."

>
>
>>why don't you go out
>>and talk to the people who used to work in good paying manufacturing,
>>textile and even now the computer industry and see how they are doing?
>
>
> While you at it, ask them why they didn't upgrade their skills.

Dickhead - there aren't neccessarilly any jobs even with the new skills
- they can be outsourced too simply to make more profit for greedy
investors. 5% to 10% wasn't enough for American investors - they wanted
more and when the tinpot dictators in third world countries opened their
doors and enabled their people to be exploited for a higher return on
their investment, the capital jumped ship.
>
>
>>They can do math and read quite well -
>
>
> It now takes much more than that.
>
>
>>the one thing they can't do is
>>work for 10 cents on the dollar or worse like the slave labor in China does.
>
>
> Of course they can.

You are not only a dick but a selfish and heartless prick besides.
Could you live on 10% of what you make now, or on what the slave labor
wages in China are? Can you imagine the economic impact on the entire
country if that continues to happen?
>
>
>>If there are no good jobs - how can people support themselves when they
>>lose a job?
>
>
> There are good jobs.

No there are not. Not in manufacturing, and fewer and fewer jobs in IT
that are here. Haven't you heard of "outsourcing" in the IT industry?
>
>
>>And if an entire community has several ndustries close
>>down, what is everybody gonna do - work as greeters at Wal-Mart? What
>>happens when there are no employers in a community that pay as good as
>>Wal-Mart?
>
>
> Move to a place with better opportunities.

There are not neccearily any places with better ops. And what happens
when you use up your money to move for another job and that job vanishes
in a few months? That does happen - from the same article:

Peter Peets has a different take on layoffs. The Chapel Hill, N.C.,
resident took a job in December 2000 as product manager for software
development in a regional office of Cisco Systems. He got laid off four
months later in a downsizing that eliminated 8,500 Cisco positions, and
he spent the summer fretting about his mortgage and how he'd fund the
college education of his three children.

So what do you do if you get laid off, get trained for a newer and maybe
better job, maybe you even have to move to get the training and the job
(two moves possibly) and then you get laid off again. You are making an
investment in yourself that might not pay off. You can only keep doing
that for so long before you don't have the economic resources to do th
at anymore.
>
>
>>Tell you what asshole - the day is coming when the divide between rich
>>and poor is gonna get so great that the poor people are gonna get pissed
>>off! ...
>
>
> How absurd -- as you noted in another post, poor people are doing whatever
> they can to get here because we have some of the best opportunities in the
> world. The ones getting pissed off are middle class people that haven't
> justified their life style.

No - these peope who come here ilegally are not coming here for the best
opportunities - they are not coming here to become computer programmers.
They are coming here because there are people here who will break the
law and hire illegals to exploit them economically at the expense of
screwing their fellow citizens.

It isn't just people in the middle class who are pissed because they are
losing out on jobs - it's working class people with blue collar jobs in
the lower/lower middle/middle classes, and the people who work at
supervisory/managerial jobs in the lower middle and middle classes and
the people who work in the IT jobs in the middle and upper middle
classes - people who make salaries up to the 100K level (like a very
talented friend in IT who was current in all his skills and learned new
ones who was out of work for 13 months). There just wern't any jobs -
no one was hiring - at least not people who were citizens. They did
hire people on the H1B visas who would work for cheap, claiming that
there weren't enough qualified people who could do the work in the USA.
The employers lied - they just didn't want to share the wealth.
>
>
>>So numbnuts - are you gonna let things get so bad that you are gonna be
>>against the wall with a bullet in your head, or are you gonna try to
>>restore some equity to the system? Some regulation is needed unless you
>>think that the frequent depressions, runs on teh bank, and terrible
>>quality of food, water and air were good enough for you in the days
>>before reguation.
>
>
> Basic regulation has its place, but not the kind of regulation you advocate,
> which would only make things worse.

Not really - we won't know until we put those regs in place.

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
> 02:03:10 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
>
>>>And all of that is a very non-Christian attitude and philosophy. Thanks for
>>>showing the shallowness of your convictions.
>>
>>No dingleberry - thank you for showing us how far up George Bush's ass
>>your nose is! The new industry in those countries is causing so many
>>problems - pollution, workplace health and saafety problems, traffic
>>gridlock, etc - so many of the problems that result from runaway
>>economic growth even in a country where there is heavy government
>>control of the economy.
>
>
> If true, then it will eventually self-destruct, just as Japan did. That's how
> a market works.
>
>
>>>OK, Einstein- explain the shortcoming, as we sit with the strongest economy
>>>in the world. ...
>>
>>Well numbnuts - we wont have the strongest economy for long at this
>>rate.
>
>
> What we've been doing has been working for decades, and will probably continue
> to work.
>
>
>>China is kicking our asses,
>
>
> Not really.
>
>
>>and the trade deficit is a sure sign
>>that we are engaging in economic cannibalism - more money going out than
>>going in. How long can that go on for? ...
>
>
> For some time, buy the market will eventually compensate.

The problem with that thinking is that if you let the market alone it
wil compensate itself. The problem with that is if you little or no
regulations, you end up with catastrophic compensations like depressions
and all the tragic consequences that result from that. I would hope
that we have learned enough from past mistakes to not repeat them in the
future, and that means regulating the economy to prevent the super highs
and the tragic lows.

Do you really want to have depressiona-era unemployment lines,
hyper-inflation, Hoovervilles, etc?
>

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004
> 19:30:39 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>... Clearly, the history of the USA shows that
>>unregulated markets are bad and led to many more problems than were
>>created when regulations were put in place. ...
>
>
> The history of the USA actually shows that investment, free market principles,
> and minimal regulation result in prosperity.

Actually, the history of the USA has shown that unregulated investment
and free market principles tends to result in prosperity for some, and
powerty for a great many people. All throughout our country's history,
we have had periods of great booms and busts, with runs on banks, mass
migrations due to economic busts or freak weather that created slums or
incredible rural poverty (which remains and increases in some places
even today). Our market is not truly free when it can be manipulated by
few people for their own benefit - like ENRON, TYCO and WORLDCOM. And
can anyone remember how great it was for the US taxpayers when the
Savings and Loan industry was deregulated? It was only great for those
who plotted and schemed - most investors and the taxpayers got ****ed!
Those businesses actually needed much more regulation to prevent them
from blowing up - or just enriching the few at the expense of the many.