Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/th ... l?tickers=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

And here's why:

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.

ATrain wrote:http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/th ... MT,XRT,DIA

And here's why:

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.

I'm of the opinion that most of those regulations were written using the blood, sweat and tears of the workers they protect. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to the quote, but I understand the effect it's having on companies looking to bring up profit.

The bottom line is that the true value of labor, like the true value of anything else, is based on what people would voluntarily pay for it without being coerced. As soon as government starts interferring it creates a situation where entities must pay more for labor in that government's jurisdiction than the labor is worth. So of COURSE the people who are purchasing the labor go elsewhere for it. Why would ANYONE willingly pay more for something than it is worth?

Benne wrote:

ATrain wrote:http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/th ... MT,XRT,DIA

And here's why:

I'm of the opinion that most of those regulations were written using the blood, sweat and tears of the workers they protect. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to the quote, but I understand the effect it's having on companies looking to bring up profit.

Maybe back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's but now some of the regulations are just ridiculous and savvy CEOs (i.e. like the one at Massey Energy) are going to be slick enough to get around them anyway. I also think it's sort of ironic that right to work states (i.e. Virginia, Texas) have significantly lower unemployment rates than union-favoring states.

ATrain wrote:

Benne wrote:
I'm of the opinion that most of those regulations were written using the blood, sweat and tears of the workers they protect. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to the quote, but I understand the effect it's having on companies looking to bring up profit.

Maybe back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's but now some of the regulations are just ridiculous and savvy CEOs (i.e. like the one at Massey Energy) are going to be slick enough to get around them anyway. I also think it's sort of ironic that right to work states (i.e. Virginia, Texas) have significantly lower unemployment rates than union-favoring states.

Really? Non-right to work states like NH, Vermont, Hawaii and Minnesota, Maine and Colorado all have lower unemployment rates than Virginia and Texas.

ATrain wrote:

Benne wrote:
I'm of the opinion that most of those regulations were written using the blood, sweat and tears of the workers they protect. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to the quote, but I understand the effect it's having on companies looking to bring up profit.

Maybe back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's but now some of the regulations are just ridiculous and savvy CEOs (i.e. like the one at Massey Energy) are going to be slick enough to get around them anyway. I also think it's sort of ironic that right to work states (i.e. Virginia, Texas) have significantly lower unemployment rates than union-favoring states.

Really? Tell that to mine and oil rig workers.

ATrain wrote:

Benne wrote:
I'm of the opinion that most of those regulations were written using the blood, sweat and tears of the workers they protect. I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to the quote, but I understand the effect it's having on companies looking to bring up profit.

Maybe back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's but now some of the regulations are just ridiculous and savvy CEOs (i.e. like the one at Massey Energy) are going to be slick enough to get around them anyway. I also think it's sort of ironic that right to work states (i.e. Virginia, Texas) have significantly lower unemployment rates than union-favoring states.

That attitude is exactly why eleven people burned to death on the BP rig and another couple of dozen were fried in Massey's mine.

JohnStOnge wrote:The bottom line is that the true value of labor, like the true value of anything else, is based on what people would voluntarily pay for it without being coerced. As soon as government starts interferring it creates a situation where entities must pay more for labor in that government's jurisdiction than the labor is worth. So of COURSE the people who are purchasing the labor go elsewhere for it. Why would ANYONE willingly pay more for something than it is worth?

A higher standing of living, a clean environment, and because they're not greedy and it's the right thing to do.

Of course government can be overbearing, but you seem to never acknowledge the value of living in our country.

kalm wrote:
A higher standing of living, a clean environment, and because they're not greedy and it's the right thing to do.

Of course government can be overbearing, but you seem to never acknowledge the value of living in our country.

How does spending more than something is worth help what you listed above?

In addition to some overbearing enviornmental regulations, I think the spirit of the article was more inline with something like this

Etherly said Coca-Cola officials are committed to working with city officials to determine what to do with the building, but said no official plans have been made.

The two-story building, built in 1939, was designated as a protected historical property in 2008 and any changes to it would have to be approved by the Board of Architectural Review, said Mary Joy Scala, preservation and design planner with the city.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/ ... ar-352413/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You add aesthetic limitations to already strict safety standards (which are a good thing WHEN ENFORCED AND CEOs HELD ACCOUNTABLE), environmental regulations (some good, some not so good), and unions that are politically powerful enough to get over-the-top pay and benefits for employees (i.e. a verizon customer service rep I dated with no degree was making about $60,000/year, and took a month off for "mental health," reasons-and it was a union facility here in VA-hopefully he was just an anomaly b/c I'd hate to think Verizon call center customer service reps made a lot more than I do) and you have companies that just throw their hands up over the frustration and time it takes dealing with the government, plus the costs.

The story I posted above is about one company leaving a city and going to another b/c they couldn't expand. Part of the reason they couldn't expand were b/c it'd be cost prohibitive to get expansion approved and follow through to keep the building's "historical," designation.

ATrain wrote:In addition to some overbearing enviornmental regulations, I think the spirit of the article was more inline with something like this

Etherly said Coca-Cola officials are committed to working with city officials to determine what to do with the building, but said no official plans have been made.

The two-story building, built in 1939, was designated as a protected historical property in 2008 and any changes to it would have to be approved by the Board of Architectural Review, said Mary Joy Scala, preservation and design planner with the city.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/ ... ar-352413/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You add aesthetic limitations to already strict safety standards (which are a good thing WHEN ENFORCED AND CEOs HELD ACCOUNTABLE), environmental regulations (some good, some not so good), and unions that are politically powerful enough to get over-the-top pay and benefits for employees (i.e. a verizon customer service rep I dated with no degree was making about $60,000/year, and took a month off for "mental health," reasons-and it was a union facility here in VA-hopefully he was just an anomaly b/c I'd hate to think Verizon call center customer service reps made a lot more than I do) and you have companies that just throw their hands up over the frustration and time it takes dealing with the government, plus the costs.

The story I posted above is about one company leaving a city and going to another b/c they couldn't expand. Part of the reason they couldn't expand were b/c it'd be cost prohibitive to get expansion approved and follow through to keep the building's "historical," designation.

Sounds like it's you who is in the wrong job - maybe he can get you in.

What is it that you do that isn't as important as a verizon customer rep, if you don't mind me asking?

From the class of 09 wrote:

kalm wrote:
A higher standing of living, a clean environment, and because they're not greedy and it's the right thing to do.

Of course government can be overbearing, but you seem to never acknowledge the value of living in our country.

How does spending more than something is worth help what you listed above?

Frankly I find this whole argument of blaming off-shoring on stringent regulations and greedy American workers rather silly.

American workers are overpriced compared to what, indentured servants in communist dictatorships and/or third world countries that lack our infrastructure and environmental regulations?

If we had trade policies similar to some our competitors, the wages in these countries would have to come up as well. The loser in that case would be the multi-national corporations that are taking advantage.

You need to weigh the entire system and the standard of living to make these type of comparisons.

houndawg wrote:

ATrain wrote:
Maybe back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's but now some of the regulations are just ridiculous and savvy CEOs (i.e. like the one at Massey Energy) are going to be slick enough to get around them anyway. I also think it's sort of ironic that right to work states (i.e. Virginia, Texas) have significantly lower unemployment rates than union-favoring states.

That attitude is exactly why eleven people burned to death on the BP rig and another couple of dozen were fried in Massey's mine.

Both union jobs?

houndawg wrote:

ATrain wrote:In addition to some overbearing enviornmental regulations, I think the spirit of the article was more inline with something like this



http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/ ... ar-352413/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You add aesthetic limitations to already strict safety standards (which are a good thing WHEN ENFORCED AND CEOs HELD ACCOUNTABLE), environmental regulations (some good, some not so good), and unions that are politically powerful enough to get over-the-top pay and benefits for employees (i.e. a verizon customer service rep I dated with no degree was making about $60,000/year, and took a month off for "mental health," reasons-and it was a union facility here in VA-hopefully he was just an anomaly b/c I'd hate to think Verizon call center customer service reps made a lot more than I do) and you have companies that just throw their hands up over the frustration and time it takes dealing with the government, plus the costs.

The story I posted above is about one company leaving a city and going to another b/c they couldn't expand. Part of the reason they couldn't expand were b/c it'd be cost prohibitive to get expansion approved and follow through to keep the building's "historical," designation.

Sounds like it's you who is in the wrong job - maybe he can get you in.

What is it that you do that isn't as important as a verizon customer rep, if you don't mind me asking?

Disability Determinations for Social Security

However, he got laid off along in order to cut costs. Plus I'd rather go back to bartending than have to work with that spoiled brat who did nothing but complain about EVERY little thing.

kalm wrote:
Frankly I find this whole argument of blaming off-shoring on stringent regulations and greedy American workers rather silly.

American workers are overpriced compared to what, indentured servants in communist dictatorships and/or third world countries that lack our infrastructure and environmental regulations?

If we had trade policies similar to some our competitors, the wages in these countries would have to come up as well. The loser in that case would be the multi-national corporations that are taking advantage.

You need to weigh the entire system and the standard of living to make these type of comparisons.

I'm not sure that the only loser would be corporations as most of them sell there product to you and me. If they couldn't get cheaper labor many of the things we enjoy would be too expensive to afford.

You can make hypothetical comparisons in a world where every country and all the workers were the same, however in reality we all have advantages and disadvantages to where we are. So while we all should strive to improve the world we still must deal with the reality we currently live in. That being the case if a company can outsource some menially task to China and pay the workers the average wage why should I tell them not to? Because I would rather pay an American minimum wage to do it? So that way the Chinese worker has to take an even lower paying job? While nothing is ideal the value of work in today’s world must be calculated on the global scale not on some hypothetical dream world where everything and everybody is equal.

From the class of 09 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Frankly I find this whole argument of blaming off-shoring on stringent regulations and greedy American workers rather silly.

American workers are overpriced compared to what, indentured servants in communist dictatorships and/or third world countries that lack our infrastructure and environmental regulations?

If we had trade policies similar to some our competitors, the wages in these countries would have to come up as well. The loser in that case would be the multi-national corporations that are taking advantage.

You need to weigh the entire system and the standard of living to make these type of comparisons.

I'm not sure that the only loser would be corporations as most of them sell there product to you and me. If they couldn't get cheaper labor many of the things we enjoy would be too expensive to afford.

You can make hypothetical comparisons in a world where every country and all the workers were the same, however in reality we all have advantages and disadvantages to where we are. So while we all should strive to improve the world we still must deal with the reality we currently live in. That being the case if a company can outsource some menially task to China and pay the workers the average wage why should I tell them not to? Because I would rather pay an American minimum wage to do it? So that way the Chinese worker has to take an even lower paying job? While nothing is ideal the value of work in today’s world must be calculated on the global scale not on some hypothetical dream world where everything and everybody is equal.

Since you're such a hard-nosed realist, why don't you explain the part again about how, realistically, of course, to not starve on your so-called "global scale" wages, with American-style expenses for food and shelter.

houndawg wrote: Since you're such a hard-nosed realist, why don't you explain the part again about how, realistically, of course, to not starve on your so-called "global scale" wages, with American-style expenses for food and shelter.

If your only talent is non-skilled labor you can’t make enough to survive living the average American life style. You better develop some useful job skills if you’re living in America because you’re going to need them. I thought that was obvious when you look at all the outsourcing being done in the manufacturing field.

Sorry if that hurts your utopian world view.

Ruined my whole life.

houndawg wrote:

Since you're such a hard-nosed realist, why don't you explain the part again about how, realistically, of course, to not starve on your so-called "global scale" wages, with American-style expenses for food and shelter.

Well, that is the problem. Many people think of "American-style expenses" for food and shelter to be something that should be automatically given to people. And that "style" is having everyone get their own home eating expensive packaged food out the wazoo, dinners out, 2 cars, multiple cell phones (yes, some people deem that a necesssity....in fact there is a program in Philly that gives away free phones - that means taxpayers pay for it - to poor people). Middle class families used to stay together for a longer time...and share expenses...and save their money. Not anymore.

Middle class is not disappearing...it is being redefined. The poor have more than ever, but that isn't good enough...you have to steal form the middle class in order to give poor people things that used to be considered luxuries.

Pathetic.

Cluck U wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Since you're such a hard-nosed realist, why don't you explain the part again about how, realistically, of course, to not starve on your so-called "global scale" wages, with American-style expenses for food and shelter.

Well, that is the problem. Many people think of "American-style expenses" for food and shelter to be something that should be automatically given to people. And that "style" is having everyone get their own home eating expensive packaged food out the wazoo, dinners out, 2 cars, multiple cell phones (yes, some people deem that a necesssity....in fact there is a program in Philly that gives away free phones - that means taxpayers pay for it - to poor people). Middle class families used to stay together for a longer time...and share expenses...and save their money. Not anymore.

Middle class is not disappearing...it is being redefined. The poor have more than ever, but that isn't good enough...you have to steal form the middle class in order to give poor people things that used to be considered luxuries.

Pathetic.

I'm just talking about rent and groceries. And it isn't the poor putting the squeeze on the middle class.

From the class of 09 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Frankly I find this whole argument of blaming off-shoring on stringent regulations and greedy American workers rather silly.

American workers are overpriced compared to what, indentured servants in communist dictatorships and/or third world countries that lack our infrastructure and environmental regulations?

If we had trade policies similar to some our competitors, the wages in these countries would have to come up as well. The loser in that case would be the multi-national corporations that are taking advantage.

You need to weigh the entire system and the standard of living to make these type of comparisons.

I'm not sure that the only loser would be corporations as most of them sell there product to you and me. If they couldn't get cheaper labor many of the things we enjoy would be too expensive to afford.

You can make hypothetical comparisons in a world where every country and all the workers were the same, however in reality we all have advantages and disadvantages to where we are. So while we all should strive to improve the world we still must deal with the reality we currently live in. That being the case if a company can outsource some menially task to China and pay the workers the average wage why should I tell them not to? Because I would rather pay an American minimum wage to do it? So that way the Chinese worker has to take an even lower paying job? While nothing is ideal the value of work in today’s world must be calculated on the global scale not on some hypothetical dream world where everything and everybody is equal.

We don't have to let companies externalize their true costs of manufacturing by outsourcing. They still need our markets. Slap a tariff on goods we are capable of producing here and you might see some manufacturing return to our shores.

As for the affordability of things, when worker's wages go up, so does their purchasing power. And as both Cluck and Dawg pointed out many of these things are not truly neccessities, but people go into debt over their aquisition anyways. That's a materialistic problem.

(kalm, bringing Cluck and Dawg together since 2010)

ATrain wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Sounds like it's you who is in the wrong job - maybe he can get you in.

What is it that you do that isn't as important as a verizon customer rep, if you don't mind me asking?

Disability Determinations for Social Security

However, he got laid off along in order to cut costs. Plus I'd rather go back to bartending than have to work with that spoiled brat who did nothing but complain about EVERY little thing.

Stop the presses: were you by any chance dating UNHWildcats?

kalm wrote:

From the class of 09 wrote:
I'm not sure that the only loser would be corporations as most of them sell there product to you and me. If they couldn't get cheaper labor many of the things we enjoy would be too expensive to afford.

You can make hypothetical comparisons in a world where every country and all the workers were the same, however in reality we all have advantages and disadvantages to where we are. So while we all should strive to improve the world we still must deal with the reality we currently live in. That being the case if a company can outsource some menially task to China and pay the workers the average wage why should I tell them not to? Because I would rather pay an American minimum wage to do it? So that way the Chinese worker has to take an even lower paying job? While nothing is ideal the value of work in today’s world must be calculated on the global scale not on some hypothetical dream world where everything and everybody is equal.

We don't have to let companies externalize their true costs of manufacturing by outsourcing. They still need our markets. Slap a tariff on goods we are capable of producing here and you might see some manufacturing return to our shores.

As for the affordability of things, when worker's wages go up, so does their purchasing power. And as both Cluck and Dawg pointed out many of these things are not truly neccessities, but people go into debt over their aquisition anyways. That's a materialistic problem.

(kalm, bringing Cluck and Dawg together since 2010)

Then the costs of many goods bought in the US will skyrocket, and people won't be able to afford them or as much of them anymore. It will also lead to more inflation, which will lead to demands higher wages, which will lead to higher prices of good & services, which will lead to more inflation, which will lead to demands for further higher wages, which will lead to further increases in the costs of goods and services & more inflation and on and on.....

You want protectionism and trade wars. That isn't the way to go.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
We don't have to let companies externalize their true costs of manufacturing by outsourcing. They still need our markets. Slap a tariff on goods we are capable of producing here and you might see some manufacturing return to our shores.

As for the affordability of things, when worker's wages go up, so does their purchasing power. And as both Cluck and Dawg pointed out many of these things are not truly neccessities, but people go into debt over their aquisition anyways. That's a materialistic problem.

(kalm, bringing Cluck and Dawg together since 2010)

Then the costs of many goods bought in the US will skyrocket, and people won't be able to afford them or as much of them anymore. It will also lead to more inflation, which will lead to demands higher wages, which will lead to higher prices of good & services, which will lead to more inflation, which will lead to demands for further higher wages, which will lead to further increases in the costs of goods and services & more inflation and on and on.....

You want protectionism and trade wars. That isn't the way to go.

Why not? We're getting our asses kicked without them.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
We don't have to let companies externalize their true costs of manufacturing by outsourcing. They still need our markets. Slap a tariff on goods we are capable of producing here and you might see some manufacturing return to our shores.

As for the affordability of things, when worker's wages go up, so does their purchasing power. And as both Cluck and Dawg pointed out many of these things are not truly neccessities, but people go into debt over their aquisition anyways. That's a materialistic problem.

(kalm, bringing Cluck and Dawg together since 2010)

Then the costs of many goods bought in the US will skyrocket, and people won't be able to afford them or as much of them anymore. It will also lead to more inflation, which will lead to demands higher wages, which will lead to higher prices of good & services, which will lead to more inflation, which will lead to demands for further higher wages, which will lead to further increases in the costs of goods and services & more inflation and on and on.....

You want protectionism and trade wars. That isn't the way to go.

Yes, I want to protect American manufacturing.