What happened to the jobs?

[Samson]

Said by someone who apparently can't see the link between the state of the economy, the money in your pocket and what things cost.

You mean The Rich.

No. I mean people who can't seem to grasp basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost. If we all restrict ourselves to buying only american, american products that cost more than their foreign made susbstitutes, then everyone will have LESS money, not more. Not sure how that is going to turn the 'ol economy around.

The rich will have less money buying American.

Obviously, the rich, by definition, give little thought to cost comparisons between a shirt made in America, and one made in Bangladesh.

 

[Bern80]

You mean The Rich.

No. I mean people who can't seem to grasp basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost. If we all restrict ourselves to buying only american, american products that cost more than their foreign made susbstitutes, then everyone will have LESS money, not more. Not sure how that is going to turn the 'ol economy around.

The rich will have less money buying American.

Obviously, the rich, by definition, give little thought to cost comparisons between a shirt made in America, and one made in Bangladesh.

No, EVERYONE will have less money. It will just hurt the poor and middle class the hardest.

 

[Samson]

No. I mean people who can't seem to grasp basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost. If we all restrict ourselves to buying only american, american products that cost more than their foreign made susbstitutes, then everyone will have LESS money, not more. Not sure how that is going to turn the 'ol economy around.

The rich will have less money buying American.

Obviously, the rich, by definition, give little thought to cost comparisons between a shirt made in America, and one made in Bangladesh.

No, EVERYONE will have less money. It will just hurt the poor and middle class the hardest.

I doubt the Rich are going to be too concerned about having less money after they buy an American made shirt for $50 vs a Bangladeshi made shirt for $20.

 

[Bern80]

The rich will have less money buying American.

Obviously, the rich, by definition, give little thought to cost comparisons between a shirt made in America, and one made in Bangladesh.

No, EVERYONE will have less money. It will just hurt the poor and middle class the hardest.

I doubt the Rich are going to be too concerned about having less money after they buy an American made shirt for $50 vs a Bangladeshi made shirt for $20.

Probably not. But just because it doesn't effect them as much doesn't mean they don't pay attention to it. That's what people don't understand about most people who would be considered rich. Part of how they got that way is by being notoriously frugal. If they can get the same for less, they will, because frankly pay more to one company for the same product sold for less by another, is stupid. The segment of the population that would be conisidered rich is NOT comprised mostly of people who buy gucci bags just because they can.

The middle class and poor who would be hit more by such a policy would. Hence why buy American sounds all nice and patriotic, but will only make a lot of people more miserable.

 

[Brutus]

Bern 80:
That's what people don't understand about most people who would be considered rich. Part of how they got that way is by being notoriously frugal.

Brutus:
this is very true. If you read "The Millionaire Next Door", a best seller for 25 years, you will discover the rich get that way very slowly and with great effort, and for the most part they transfer those values to the next generation.

 

[Brutus]

basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost.


Brutus: good point!! the cheaper things are the more we can buy and the richer we all get. Imagine if business was instructed to move to where production costs were most expensive.

 

[asterism]

basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost.


Brutus: good point!! the cheaper things are the more we can buy and the richer we all get. Imagine if business was instructed to move to where production costs were most expensive.

I just don't get why unions refuse to innovate and refuse any innovation.

 

[Samson]

basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost.


Brutus: good point!! the cheaper things are the more we can buy and the richer we all get. Imagine if business was instructed to move to where production costs were most expensive.

I just don't get why unions refuse to innovate and refuse any innovation.

It's like asking: "Why don't buggy whip makers innovate?"

 

[MaggieMae]

basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost.


Brutus: good point!! the cheaper things are the more we can buy and the richer we all get. Imagine if business was instructed to move to where production costs were most expensive.

I just don't get why unions refuse to innovate and refuse any innovation.

It's not up to unions to do the innovating; that's management's job. Unions represent worker benefits, period.

 

[MaggieMae]

If they can't bring themselves to admit that corporate greed plays a huge part, I think the right is going to have to come up with another scapegoat, since union membership in the private sector has fallen to under 9% in recent years, the lowest since 1932.

 

[Samson]

basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost.


Brutus: good point!! the cheaper things are the more we can buy and the richer we all get. Imagine if business was instructed to move to where production costs were most expensive.

I just don't get why unions refuse to innovate and refuse any innovation.

It's not up to unions to do the innovating; that's management's job. Unions represent worker benefits, period.

I can see why management likes robotics.

 

[Brutus]

basic economic concepts like the less substitutes there are for something the more that thing will cost.


Brutus: good point!! the cheaper things are the more we can buy and the richer we all get. Imagine if business was instructed to move to where production costs were most expensive.

I just don't get why unions refuse to innovate and refuse any innovation.

Thats easy! The purpose of a union is to use government supported violence to get higher wages, not to encourage workers to work harder, smarter, or more innovatively.

If we made Democratic unions illegal they'd have to sell their labor on the free market for what its worth just like 90% of Americans do.

 

[Brutus]

I just don't get why unions refuse to innovate and refuse any innovation.

Samson:
It's not up to unions to do the innovating; that's management's job. Unions represent worker benefits, period.[/QUOTE]

Brutus:
Sorry not true. A worker on a shop floor will always be in a good position to see better ways to do the work he's doing. But, if he's a lazy union slob with job security and higher wages guaranteed by Democratic violence why should he care. 100 million starved to death in the USSR and Red China because the liberals destroyed the incentive to care.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Unemployment has dropped to 8.8%

A record drop since 1964 over a 4 month period.

What happened 4 months ago?

The GOP took the House with some actual conservatives.

Can you imagine how far the drop would have been had they taken the Senate?

 

[Samson]

I just don't get why unions refuse to innovate and refuse any innovation.

Samson:
It's not up to unions to do the innovating; that's management's job. Unions represent worker benefits, period.

Brutus:
Sorry not true. A worker on a shop floor will always be in a good position to see better ways to do the work he's doing. But, if he's a lazy union slob with job security and higher wages guaranteed by Democratic violence why should he care. 100 million starved to death in the USSR and Red China because the liberals destroyed the incentive to care.[/QUOTE]

WTF is wrong with you?

If you hit the "QUOTE" button, then you can respond to a "quote"

 

[Brutus]

It's not up to unions to do the innovating; that's management's job. Unions represent worker benefits, period.

Sorry not true. A worker on a shop floor will always be in a good position to see better ways to do the work he's doing. But, if he's a lazy union slob with job security and higher wages guaranteed by Democratic violence why should he care. 100 million starved to death in the USSR and Red China because the liberals destroyed the incentive to care. Now the liberals are bringing that mentality here with unions and welfare programs.

Under Republican capitalism everyone is encouraged to contribute, not to leech.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's not up to unions to do the innovating; that's management's job. Unions represent worker benefits, period.

Sorry not true. A worker on a shop floor will always be in a good position to see better ways to do the work he's doing. But, if he's a lazy union slob with job security and higher wages guaranteed by Democratic violence why should he care. 100 million starved to death in the USSR and Red China because the liberals destroyed the incentive to care. Now the liberals are bringing that mentality here with unions and welfare programs.

Under Republican capitalism everyone is encouraged to contribute, not to leech.

Tell that to the people who got swindled by the big investment houses a couple of years ago. You know, the ones -- rich and poor -- whose home values are about a quarter their worth because of their GREED a 'la capitalism run amok.

 

[Brutus]

Tell that to the people who got swindled by the big investment houses a couple of years ago. You know, the ones -- rich and poor -- whose home values are about a quarter their worth because of their GREED a 'la capitalism run amok.

actually housing crisis was caused by Fed and Fanny Freddie. If you disagree please say why or admit that as a liberal you can't. Thanks

 

[Trajan]

It's not up to unions to do the innovating; that's management's job. Unions represent worker benefits, period.

Sorry not true. A worker on a shop floor will always be in a good position to see better ways to do the work he's doing. But, if he's a lazy union slob with job security and higher wages guaranteed by Democratic violence why should he care. 100 million starved to death in the USSR and Red China because the liberals destroyed the incentive to care. Now the liberals are bringing that mentality here with unions and welfare programs.

Under Republican capitalism everyone is encouraged to contribute, not to leech.

Tell that to the people who got swindled by the big investment houses a couple of years ago. You know, the ones -- rich and poor -- whose home values are about a quarter their worth because of their GREED a 'la capitalism run amok.

without playing the blame game

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3478806-post1.html

 

[Brutus]

without playing the blame game what happened to the jobs

the liberals destroyed them by

1) allowing unions to raise wages and ship 30 million off shore

2) by allowing illegals to come in and take 15 million of them