Bob Bain <····@tpg.com.au> writes:
> On 28 Apr 2005 18:12:33 -0700, "CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote:
>
>>You need to get a job.The lowest of the low are losers like yourself
>>who think you should live for free!!!
>
> Only since the industrial revolution. Prior to this people lived in
> close-knit communities or as serfs on an estate or were commissioned
> into the army (lucrative but dangerous).
> The lowest of the low aren't those who can't find a suitable place
> within the system given that the fact that "the system" doesn't care
> very much, but those who (usually young, complacent and possibly well
> fed) haven't thought for a single moment that in some time in their
> future they too will be the "bludgers" of "the system".
>
> You too will die. You may at some time in the future (possibly
> tomorrow) encounter great misfortune or calamity such that no-one will
> employ you or even consider you worthy of attention.
True.
There is a programmer who calls himself "Richard Maas" who posts in the lisp group
who has been unable to get a job for 13 years.
This is despite trying regularly ( in a rather misguided way IMHO )
to land employment.
Kent Dolan with his five years of unemployment as a programmer is
probably just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Let me say this again,If you are Homeless,you take ANY damn job you can
get!!!!As far as the other guy goes it's up to him to make sure he
don't stay on the same misguided course.Anyone that is able bodied and
homeless,needs to get a job!
On 29 Apr 2005 14:45:17 -0700, "CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote:
>Let me say this again,If you are Homeless,you take ANY damn job you can
>get!!!!
Employers tend not to employee the homeless. Jobs tend to be handed
out to those in more fortunate circumstances.
Once you're in a spiral of poverty and hopelessness you tend to
remain there. The jobs the homeless are likely to find will be jobs
where greedy employers (often rich) pay the minimum wage possible
against any fair wage laws that exist in your so called freedom loving
country.
Anf if you live in the United States of America I suggest you
consider migrating....
... if any other nation will take you that is !!
Bob Bain wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2005 14:45:17 -0700, "CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Let me say this again,If you are Homeless,you take ANY damn job you can
>>get!!!!
>
>
> Employers tend not to employee the homeless. Jobs tend to be handed
> out to those in more fortunate circumstances.
Sad but true.
> Once you're in a spiral of poverty and hopelessness you tend to
> remain there.
Yes.
> The jobs the homeless are likely to find will be jobs
> where greedy employers (often rich) pay the minimum wage possible
> against any fair wage laws that exist in your so called freedom loving
> country.
>
> Anf if you live in the United States of America I suggest you
> consider migrating....
For some reason much more people *want* to immigrate to the USA
every year...
--
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
consent. -- Abraham Lincoln
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
····················@individual.net...
> Bob Bain wrote:
> > On 29 Apr 2005 14:45:17 -0700, "CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Let me say this again,If you are Homeless,you take ANY damn job you can
> >>get!!!!
> >
> >
> > Employers tend not to employee the homeless. Jobs tend to be handed
> > out to those in more fortunate circumstances.
>
> Sad but true.
>
> > Once you're in a spiral of poverty and hopelessness you tend to
> > remain there.
>
> Yes.
>
> > The jobs the homeless are likely to find will be jobs
> > where greedy employers (often rich) pay the minimum wage possible
> > against any fair wage laws that exist in your so called freedom loving
> > country.
> >
> > Anf if you live in the United States of America I suggest you
> > consider migrating....
>
> For some reason much more people *want* to immigrate to the USA
> every year...
That's because not everybody is a crybaby loser who wants to spend his/her
life as a victim. Some of us are willing to get off our asses and make an
effort...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:59:33 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > Anf if you live in the United States of America I suggest you
>> > consider migrating....
>> For some reason much more people *want* to immigrate to the USA
>> every year...
>That's because not everybody is a crybaby loser who wants to spend his/her
>life as a victim. Some of us are willing to get off our asses and make an
>effort...
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States or it's
attraction as place a person may wish to migrate to.
Believe it or not if the United States of America disappeared off the
map and was a tent based based areas of land occupied by "indigenous"
peoples the majority of the world's population would hardly notice,
although in many nations those fortunate/unfortunate enough to own
television sets might notice an improvement in the programs being
shown :-)
World population ?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html
"The World" 6,446,131,400
China 1,306,313,812
The United States 295,734,134
(about 96% of "the world" aren't American).
The "Vatican" population -> 291.
The Vatican's influence is arguably greater than that of the United
States of America, and it's pope possibly the most influential man in
the world. Almost every leader in the world attended the pope's
funeral.
The Roman Empire lives !
I suspect the reason so many wish to migrate to America results from
the portayals of American life created by "Hollywood moguls" and other
illusionists !
On 30 Apr 2005 16:04:11 -0700, "CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote:
>What matters now is we are a great country and people do come here for
>the reasons he mentioned!
You are on vacation (or have migrated) and you wish to advise us of
the fortunate circumstances of those in your destination of choice ?
If you write home and assuming home is the United States remember:-
a) The trade in human flesh indulged in by those in the Southern
States.
b) The Wall Street crash which was capitalism being tested.
c) Many corporate failures due to greed and ignorance
d) Prohibition
e) The curtailment of freedom of speech and the stifling of belief
during the era following World War II.
f) The Iraq war and the lust for oil.
On Sun, 01 May 2005 12:31:14 +1000, Bob Bain <····@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>On 30 Apr 2005 16:04:11 -0700, "CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote:
>
>>What matters now is we are a great country and people do come here for
>>the reasons he mentioned!
>
> You are on vacation (or have migrated) and you wish to advise us of
>the fortunate circumstances of those in your destination of choice ?
>
> If you write home and assuming home is the United States remember:-
>
> a) The trade in human flesh indulged in by those in the Southern
>States.
Hmmm..Seems one has forgotten those "Slaves" were sold into slavery
by their fellow countrymen. Hee hee hee.
>
> b) The Wall Street crash which was capitalism being tested.
Gee, that occured in 1929..wow! That's over 75 years ago!
>
> c) Many corporate failures due to greed and ignorance
Ignorance> What were they ignorant of?? Oh, maybe the LAW which
caught them and yse, they hurt many investors, but let this be a
lesson to those who put their eggs in one basket.
>
> d) Prohibition
Which (Now DO correct me if I wrong) was repealed by all but a few
counties.
>
> e) The curtailment of freedom of speech and the stifling of belief
>during the era following World War II.
Really? Then who is building the church down the street? The water
works society??
>
> f) The Iraq war and the lust for oil.
I take it, you only listen to See B S News. :)
>
Most of what you said is in the past.Also the trade in flesh,you would
have very few if any countries that don't do that.We are still the
greatest and Capitalism has survived!!!
"CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote in message ·····························@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
*snip*
> We are still the greatest and Capitalism has survived!!!
>
Tell that to Ayn Rand...
--
Geoff
"Geoffrey Summerhayes" <·······@NhOoStPmAaMil.com> writes:
> "CM1" <········@walla.com> wrote in message ·····························@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> *snip*
> > We are still the greatest and Capitalism has survived!!!
> >
>
> Tell that to Ayn Rand...
>
The 80's called, they want their pop psychology back...
Gregm
Bob Bain <····@tpg.com.au> writes:
> I suspect the reason so many wish to migrate to America results from
>the portayals of American life created by "Hollywood moguls" and other
>illusionists !
If you live in Mexico, you can't go to Switzerland... ;-)
(at least not by a smuggler's pickup truck or your feet).
mkb.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:06:46 +0200, Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de>
wrote:
>> I suspect the reason so many wish to migrate to America results from
>>the portayals of American life created by "Hollywood moguls" and other
>>illusionists !
>If you live in Mexico, you can't go to Switzerland... ;-)
>(at least not by a smuggler's pickup truck or your feet).
Ummm.... but Switzerland has never been Mexican. Much of what is now
the United States has been and in the minds of many from that area of
the world the United States of America is an occupying power.
Here's a web page for contemplation...
http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.html
-----------------------------------------------
"English-speaking America, with its high ideals and Protestant
Christian ethics, would do a better job of running things than the
Native Americans or Spanish-speaking Catholic Mexicans. Manifest
Destiny did not necessarily call for violent expansion. In both 1835
and 1845, the United States offered to purchase California from
Mexico, for $5 million and $25 million, respectively. The Mexican
government refused the opportunity to sell half of its country to
Mexico's most dangerous neighbor."
------------------------------------------------
"The second basic cause of the war was the Texas War of Independence
and the subsequent annexation of that area to the United States. Not
all American westward migration was unwelcome. In the 1820's and
1830's, Mexico, newly independent from Spain, needed settlers in the
underpopulated northern parts of the country. An invitation was issued
for people who would take an oath of allegiance to Mexico and convert
to Catholicism, the state religion. Thousands of Americans took up the
offer and moved, often with slaves, to the Mexican province of Texas."
-----------------------------------------------
The "Mexican Province of Texas" ??
An offer of $25 million to purchase California ??
Manifest Destiny ??
"Bob Bain" <····@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:06:46 +0200, Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de>
> wrote:
>
> >> I suspect the reason so many wish to migrate to America results from
> >>the portayals of American life created by "Hollywood moguls" and other
> >>illusionists !
>
> >If you live in Mexico, you can't go to Switzerland... ;-)
> >(at least not by a smuggler's pickup truck or your feet).
>
> Ummm.... but Switzerland has never been Mexican.
Thanks for letting us know you don't have a clue.
"Bob Bain" <····@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:59:33 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Anf if you live in the United States of America I suggest you
> >> > consider migrating....
>
> >> For some reason much more people *want* to immigrate to the USA
> >> every year...
>
> >That's because not everybody is a crybaby loser who wants to spend
his/her
> >life as a victim. Some of us are willing to get off our asses and make an
> >effort...
>
> That has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States or it's
> attraction as place a person may wish to migrate to.
>
> Believe it or not if the United States of America disappeared off the
> map and was a tent based based areas of land occupied by "indigenous"
> peoples the majority of the world's population would hardly notice,
You wish.
"Stan de SD" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Believe it or not if the United States of America disappeared off the
>> map and was a tent based based areas of land occupied by "indigenous"
>> peoples the majority of the world's population would hardly notice,
> You wish.
The low IQ kind might miss the movies that Hollywood produce,
but everything else would go on as usual.
The temps don't care if you are more or less fortunate!!!There are
other jobs that are the same way.When they prove themselves then they
can have a better job!
If people tend to stay homeless that is because they are lazy and
useless!!!
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:21:53 -0500, BR wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:12:15 -0700, CM1 wrote:
>
>> If people tend to stay homeless that is because they are lazy and
>> useless!!!
>
> Or are mentally ill.
that's so sad/true ... :|
(i'm not mentally ill btw.)
--
mvh,
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> that's so sad/true ... :|
> (i'm not mentally ill btw.)
Lack of insight is a common feature of psychotic disorders :-)
On Sun, 01 May 2005 03:04:57 +0000, vermicule wrote:
> Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> that's so sad/true ... :|
>> (i'm not mentally ill btw.)
>
>
> Lack of insight is a common feature of psychotic disorders :-)
i know - that's why i added the stuff in the paranthesis
--
mvh,
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
On Sun, 01 May 2005 16:07:56 -0700, CM1 wrote:
> Again most of them are not mentally ill!!!
ok, whateveryousay - or maybe they are both .. i don't know
--
mvh,
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
BR <··········@comcast.net> writes:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:12:15 -0700, CM1 wrote:
>
>> If people tend to stay homeless that is because they are lazy and
>> useless!!!
>
> Or are mentally ill.
OMG - for a group of people who pride themselve on being smart enough
to use a language such as lisp despite the general resistance from the
mainstream, I'm disapointed to find such narrow minded closed
thinking!
While its is unfortunately true that many of the homeless are mentally
ill, the homeless are made up of a lot more diversity than the
mentally ill, lazy and useless. Anyone who can make the statement that
those who tend to stay homeless are lazy or useless are obviously
speaking from a position of profound ignorance and know nothing about
the homeless. It would be better if they kept their ill informed
attitudes to themselves.
This is totally off topic for this group, so I will now withdraw and
leave it to you all.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
"CM1" <········@walla.com> writes:
> If people tend to stay homeless that is because they are lazy and
> useless!!!
A lot of them are mentally ill.
The closure of mental health hospitals in Australia
has resulted in the menatally ill being in prisons or on the roadside.
In a well publicised case, a mentally ill woman was locked up for a year
as an illegal immigrant.
> The jobs the homeless are likely to find will be jobs
> where greedy employers (often rich) pay the minimum wage possible
> against any fair wage laws that exist in your so called freedom
loving
> country.
Wages aren't determined by what employers would like to pay, no matter
how greedy they are. Wages are set by the same mechanism as all
prices, namely, supply and demand. Microsoft would love to pay its
programmers $5/hr., but they'd just go elsewhere. Even a monopolist
like Microsoft can't escape competition for workers, which drives wages
up to the market-clearing price, where supply equals demand.
The market-clearing wage for some unskilled workers is under the
minimum wage, which results in either illegal work (thereby denying the
poor legal protection) or involuntary unemployment. By raising the
floor on wages, fair-wage or "living-wage" laws only make the problem
worse, by creating even more unemployment; as a thought experiment,
imagine the effects of, say, a $50/hr. minimum wage. If eliminating
poverty were really as a simple as declaring a high minimum wage by
legislative fiat, we would have achieved that goal long ago.
It may be counter-intuitive, but a simple way to help the poor would be
to eliminate the minimum wage. (There are much more effective and
economically sound methods available to help the poor, such as the
Earned Income Tax Credit.) Unfortunately, a proposal to eliminate the
minimum wage would be politically untenable, and, ironically, those
most concerned for the poor would likely be its staunchest opponents.
Michael
On 30 Apr 2005 00:24:17 -0700, "Michael Hartl"
<······@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Wages aren't determined by what employers would like to pay, no matter
>how greedy they are.
Salaries (as opposed to wages) for senior executives in coroporations
are often set by the board members. Arguably this is based on the
supply and demand for "executive talent" but with so many corporate
collapses in recent times I'm wondering why the market values them so
highly. Some senior executive offices are now in prison for not taking
due dilligence with regards to their duties. I understand that in the
United States there is a Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002.
http://www.techlistings.net/xlist/tech/bizsoft/compliance/sox?id=1
which will possibly pull some of the underachievers into line. In
Australia we have some sort of minimum wages laws but I'm not overly
familiar with them.
http://www.hresquire.com/sarbanes-oxley-act.htm
"The Act provides tough new tools to expose and punish acts of
corporate corruption, promote greater accountability by financial
auditors, and protect small investors and pension holders."
This is perhaps getting away from the homeless but some senior
exective officers in Australia are now less than homeless. They are
in prison !
When they emerge from prison aged in their 70's it may be somewhat
difficult for some of them to find employment.
> Wages are set by the same mechanism as all prices, namely, supply
> and demand.
That's the theory but it's not the fact. There's a theory of
multiples that I'm currently studying. "Multiples" states that if you
can't determine what the "correct" rate should be you simply mirror
what others are paying. This doesn't create equity or fairness and
there is something referred to in some literature as "the triple
bottom line" which ethical organisations attempt to emulate.
In the wages race the losers are always deemed to be teachers and
nurses in Australia and the winners are often corporate executives.
The way things work is that a great deal of effort is spent by many
in early life acquiring skills over many years, only to find them "not
in demand" in later years. This is often a "furphy". The "demand"
has often been recategorised to better represent the class of person
the employer finds attractive.
> Microsoft would love to pay its programmers $5/hr.
> but they'd just go elsewhere.
Not really. People will work at Microsoft at minimum wages simply
for the experience the fact they can say "I worked for Microsoft".
Microsoft are picky and from recollection wages aren't the major
component of any package of remuneration they negotiate.
> Even a monopolist like Microsoft can't escape competition for
> workers,
Some companies don't even advertise for staff. When was the last
time you saw a job ad for Microsoft ?
>The market-clearing wage for some unskilled workers is under the
>minimum wage, which results in either illegal work (thereby denying the
>poor legal protection) or involuntary unemployment.
Not simply unskilled workers but those who are unable due to
circumstances to find employment in their field.
>If eliminating poverty were really as a simple as declaring a
>high minimum wage by legislative fiat, we would have achieved that goal long ago.
It would drive up inflation and have unforseen economic effects.
>It may be counter-intuitive, but a simple way to help the poor would be
>to eliminate the minimum wage.
The minimum wage is too all intents and purpose only important in the
minds of some in government. It has some impact on the market but
only some. It's more a statement of social values.
> (There are much more effective and economically sound methods
> available to help the poor, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.)
I have no idea what that might be but if it's a tax based "incentive"
payable only at year end when tax returns are submitted to a
government I don't believe it's much of an incentive at all.
>Unfortunately, a proposal to eliminate the minimum wage would be
>politically untenable, and, ironically, those most concerned
>for the poor would likely be its staunchest opponents.
As I mentioned if there is a "minimum wage" then it is to all intents
and purposes a social statement rather than something that is
enforced.
One is as "poor" as one feels. Kent often appears happier than some
multi-millionaire entrepeneurs many of whom regard "wealth" and it's
perusal as the ultimate goal in life. Was Howard Hughes a happy man
in the final years of his life. I don't believe so.
There is a balance between human population, wealth, welfare and
happiness but I'm not certain what the equation is. Karl Marx
attempted to isolate it. Other economists have also attempted to
isolate it, but true wealth is found in the appreciation of the
sunlight, the free availability of air and sometimes a bicycle ride to
Arizona !
"For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses
or forfeits his own self?" (Luke 9:25).
"What does man gain from all his labor in which he labors under the
sun?" (Ecclesiastes 1:3)
"Bob Bain" <····@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On 30 Apr 2005 00:24:17 -0700, "Michael Hartl"
> <······@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >Wages aren't determined by what employers would like to pay, no matter
> >how greedy they are.
>
> Salaries (as opposed to wages) for senior executives in coroporations
> are often set by the board members.
Who are elected by the stockholders.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:22:35 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Salaries (as opposed to wages) for senior executives in coroporations
>> are often set by the board members.
>Who are elected by the stockholders.
You've got to be kidding. Shareholders review operations but it's
the directors who seek capital, which can come from equity
(shareholders) or can come from debt.
Corporate executives regard shareholders in much the same light as
other providers of finance. Dividends are something they may or may
not pay these poor people and remember that the liability of the
corporation to pay them is limited and has been since the South Sea
Bubble.
Many shareholders are not private individuals but other corporations.
"Bob Bain" <····@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
·······································@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:22:35 GMT, "Stan de SD"
> <········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> Salaries (as opposed to wages) for senior executives in coroporations
> >> are often set by the board members.
>
> >Who are elected by the stockholders.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Shareholders review operations but it's
> the directors who seek capital, which can come from equity
> (shareholders) or can come from debt.
>
> Corporate executives regard shareholders in much the same light as
> other providers of finance. Dividends are something they may or may
> not pay these poor people and remember that the liability of the
> corporation to pay them is limited and has been since the South Sea
> Bubble.
>
> Many shareholders are not private individuals but other corporations.
My point still stands. Sounds like you are a pissy little socialist
resentful of other's money...
"Stan de SD" <········@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Many shareholders are not private individuals but other corporations.
>My point still stands. Sounds like you are a pissy little socialist
>resentful of other's money...
Can we please move this thread off comp.lang.lisp where it is
off-topic?
F-up to: talk.bizarre.
mkb.
On Sun, 01 May 2005 00:02:09 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<········@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Corporate executives regard shareholders in much the same light as
>> other providers of finance. Dividends are something they may or may
>> not pay these poor people and remember that the liability of the
>> corporation to pay them is limited and has been since the South Sea
>> Bubble.
>> Many shareholders are not private individuals but other corporations.
>My point still stands. Sounds like you are a pissy little socialist
>resentful of other's money...
I'm not any sort of 'ist. I am however studying commerce and the
structure of corporations as part of a Master's Degree.
If you study the Enron collapse you'll discover there were some 3,500
"special purpose entities".
I don't think of other's money other than when I'm paid to do so.
Bob Bain wrote:
> Salaries (as opposed to wages) for senior executives in coroporations
> are often set by the board members. Arguably this is based on the
> supply and demand for "executive talent" but with so many corporate
> collapses in recent times I'm wondering why the market values them so
> highly.
If I were a stock holder I would probably protest these overly
high wages, at least if the execs aren't *that* great in their
performance.
It would be nice if the stockholders would vote on how much of a
bonus the execs get an the end of the year :)
>>Wages are set by the same mechanism as all prices, namely, supply
>>and demand.
>
>
> That's the theory but it's not the fact. There's a theory of
> multiples that I'm currently studying. "Multiples" states that if you
> can't determine what the "correct" rate should be you simply mirror
> what others are paying. This doesn't create equity or fairness and
> there is something referred to in some literature as "the triple
> bottom line" which ethical organisations attempt to emulate.
But if you mirror that, people might or might not come to you. If
you pay more than others, you might attract the better workers
(indeed most workers would try to apply for your jobs then). If
you pay less, you might get what's left over.
> In the wages race the losers are always deemed to be teachers and
> nurses in Australia and the winners are often corporate executives.
That might be because teacher wages are fixed. A private school
might (and often does) pay different wages to attract good
teachers. Now of course there are cries that private schools are
elitist and expensive. Privateness of schools is completely
orthogonal to the issue of state- or parent-funding. I'm for
private schools with a fixed state-funding per student (equal for
every school).
> The way things work is that a great deal of effort is spent by many
> in early life acquiring skills over many years, only to find them "not
> in demand" in later years. This is often a "furphy". The "demand"
> has often been recategorised to better represent the class of person
> the employer finds attractive.
Well, it's everybody's choice if they study med, nursing, CS, or
art. If you're good, usually you aren't affected by being out of
demand. If you suck, then it might be a good idea to get used to
not getting paid incredibly much.
> Not really. People will work at Microsoft at minimum wages simply
> for the experience the fact they can say "I worked for Microsoft".
> Microsoft are picky and from recollection wages aren't the major
> component of any package of remuneration they negotiate.
If they are willing to work for that fact, then that's fine, isn't
it? I guess they do it because it gives them better chances in
the future, or they wouldn't do it.
>>Even a monopolist like Microsoft can't escape competition for
>>workers,
>
>
> Some companies don't even advertise for staff. When was the last
> time you saw a job ad for Microsoft ?
They don't even advertise, and workers *still* apply for them?
They can't be that evil to workers, then.
>>The market-clearing wage for some unskilled workers is under the
>>minimum wage, which results in either illegal work (thereby denying the
>>poor legal protection) or involuntary unemployment.
>
>
> Not simply unskilled workers but those who are unable due to
> circumstances to find employment in their field.
What's "their" field? If I don't find an IT job, I might go for
marketing, or even teaching. I don't know. Do IT students have a
*right* to a well-paid job in that field?
Again, your own choice what you learn/study and where you apply,
if you think a cleaning job is ok for a while or permanently, or not.
>>Unfortunately, a proposal to eliminate the minimum wage would be
>>politically untenable, and, ironically, those most concerned
>>for the poor would likely be its staunchest opponents.
>
>
> As I mentioned if there is a "minimum wage" then it is to all intents
> and purposes a social statement rather than something that is
> enforced.
Is it? I don't know anybody who offers below-minimum wage jobs...
But then I'm usually looking for jobs at or above �8/h.
> One is as "poor" as one feels. Kent often appears happier than some
> multi-millionaire entrepeneurs many of whom regard "wealth" and it's
> perusal as the ultimate goal in life. Was Howard Hughes a happy man
> in the final years of his life. I don't believe so.
The philosopher Diogenes (answering to some king what his one wish
was): please go out of the sun!
--
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
consent. -- Abraham Lincoln
Bob Bain wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:23:00 -0500, Ulrich Hobelmann
> <···········@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>>It would be nice if the stockholders would vote on how much of a
>>bonus the execs get an the end of the year :)
>
>
> I doubt if the average stockholder has the ability to determine
> executive remuneration. Some packages are based on performance
> factors and naturally stockholders are only going to be interested in
> financial returns to themselves, either directly by way of dividends
> or indirectly by way of the stock price rising.
>
> If there is just one stockholder then the vote would be a meaningful
> one. If there are numerous stockholders with shares (as we call them)
> changing hands frequently (no long term holding) then the shareholders
> (as we know them) wouldn't be overly interested in the executives
> remuneration apart from possibly taking it into account in analysing
> the share price.
The shareholders could vote. Short-term holding is just
speculation. Long-term holding is investment in a *share* of the
company, so those people should have an interest, unless they only
have very few shares, but again the big shareholders probably
should care. If they think everything's fine: great!
>>> In the wages race the losers are always deemed to be teachers and
>>>nurses in Australia and the winners are often corporate executives.
>
>
>>That might be because teacher wages are fixed. A private school
>>might (and often does) pay different wages to attract good
>>teachers.
>
>
> Most teachers in Australia are paid by the government. They often
That's the problem.
> seek parity with other professions but the State government with a
> budget on it's mind won't shift their position very much.
>
> The private school will possibly do this if they believe that
> academic results (the means by which they are judged) justifies the
> extra expense.
An excellent teacher might end up at a more expensive school that
can afford to pay more.
>>Well, it's everybody's choice if they study med, nursing, CS, or
>>art.
>
>
> Not entirely. You need to be in the higher rankings of academic
> achievement to study "med". Art as I understand it doesn't require
Sure. People who suck might not be accepted by the university...
That's life ;)
> academic expertise but good artists aren't so much education but born
> with a gift. When it comes to jazz music for instance I prefer the
> music from often undereducated but emotional souls that created what
> has become an art form. The jazz music produced by those who enter
> academia is often stilted and sadly lacking. The best that can be said
> for it is that it's well constructed and "interesting".
Yes, and even though I love music (and studied some theory, at
which I wasn't bad) I *decided* not to be an artist because I
would suck at it.
> Some of the "great composers" started writing music at an age when
> they would be entering elementary school in modern society. Most of
> them were from the "well to do" aristocracy and were nurtured in that
> environment. Others "starved in the garret" before their works were
> recognised (often by the wealthy who sometimes have no eye for art).
OTOH most Jazz and Gospel came out of poorer classes, didn't it?
Brass used to be cheaper than a piano.
>>If you're good, usually you aren't affected by being out of
>>demand. If you suck, then it might be a good idea to get used to
>>not getting paid incredibly much.
>
>
> Then there's the age factor. It's something that affects many
> including myself. As it was expressed to me some years ago "There's
> no age discrimination in Australia it's illegal but we have an
> abundance of people with extensive experience on our books".
Then companies are stupid. Older workers are much more
experienced, usually stay longer in one company (loyal), care
because they might have a family to feed, and often are less often
absent and more punctual than young people.
Likewise women statistically are less often absent from work (even
calculating in pregnancy) than men, so I would hire them (if they
are good at the job).
If a company discriminates, people should boycott them. If all
companies do, well... that's hard. But companies who don't
discriminate should have an advantage, as I said.
>>Again, your own choice what you learn/study and where you apply,
>>if you think a cleaning job is ok for a while or permanently, or not.
>
>
> Much depends on your family and your upbringing and the expectations
> of family and friends as well. There are jobs where experience counts
> more than study. Sadly the concept of "learning on the job" is fast
> disappearing and occupations where this was the "norm" now require
> university or college (nursing is an example).
F*** expectations! When worker family kids don't go to college
(assuming that they could, intelligence-wise), that's fully their
own responsibility.
It's true that the single most determining factor in wealth is the
education of your parents. That's why schools need to teach
things that kids might not (be able to) learn at home.
It's well known that listening to Mozart as a kid supposedly makes
you more clever. If people still don't do it, because they prefer
the newest artificial pop-group: their decision. I see lots of
people of studying age who just don't appreciate any culture at
all. Their decision. I think lots of music and literature is
both entertaining and educative. Of course then you don't have
time for trash TV shows. Tough s***!
> Those who stream across the Mexican border are after jobs where
> minimum wages aren't discussed and where "no questions are asked".
And the government asks no questions? I think in Germany you'd
get severe problems, like if you employ people without declaring
that (and without paying taxes). They are really cracking down on
that.
> This not only applies to Mexican/US immigration. There is still a
> great deal of child labour in the world and in some countries such as
> India it is a cultural norm.
Yes, that's sad. We should block all trade with countries like that.
--
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
consent. -- Abraham Lincoln
CM1 wrote:
> Let me say this again,If you are
> Homeless,you take ANY damn job you can
> get!!!!
How sad for your uninformed opinion that those paid
as their job of work to find employment for the
homeless and other disadvantage give exactly the
opposite advice: if you have a profession, focus on
your profession, not on dreck jobs.
But then, your record of blowing smoke long passed
100%.
xanthian.
On 30 Apr 2005 10:54:41 -0700, "Kent Paul Dolan" <········@well.com>
wrote:
>
>CM1 wrote:
>> Let me say this again,If you are
>> Homeless,you take ANY damn job you can
>> get!!!!
>
>How sad for your uninformed opinion that those paid
>as their job of work to find employment for the
>homeless and other disadvantage give exactly the
>opposite advice: if you have a profession, focus on
>your profession, not on dreck jobs.
>
I have yet to met a professional who was homeless, much less in dire
straights.