See we told you.. Mcdonalds is ordering 7K touch screen to replace cashiers

[Uncensored2008]

They are here because their governments pay FULL TUITION.
And THEN we send them back and bring them back HERE as low wage business visas.
It's incredibly clever.

That may be true for Saudi Arabia and Iran, but the Indian government sure isn't paying for anyone, nor is China, Korea, et al.

And most who come here for an education, stay - often illegally.

We do have a major social issue, as whites and Asians are continuing to be an educated elite with the high birth-rate Hispanics filling a role as an uneducated underclass. Without menial labor, this creates a powder keg. Yet we continue to import the uneducated, third world peasantry with great haste.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, American tech companies are still kinda pissy about credentials. A native Pakistani engineering kid with a degree from Univ. of Bangalore doesn't really have a ticket to come here. But a Pakistani kid with a RECENT DEGREE FROM Georgia Tech -- well they'll bust buns to keep him here with an H1B Visa.

The foreign educated tech people are used IN-PLACE where they live.

We should stop fighting about the H1Bs and start concentrating on filling those College slots with OUR kids.. The alternatives are very very grim...

One of the major problems is that those slots are RESERVED for foreign born and minority students.

For University of California schools, whites and Asians need not apply.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, American tech companies are still kinda pissy about credentials. A native Pakistani engineering kid with a degree from Univ. of Bangalore doesn't really have a ticket to come here. But a Pakistani kid with a RECENT DEGREE FROM Georgia Tech -- well they'll bust buns to keep him here with an H1B Visa.

The foreign educated tech people are used IN-PLACE where they live.

We should stop fighting about the H1Bs and start concentrating on filling those College slots with OUR kids.. The alternatives are very very grim...

One of the major problems is that those slots are RESERVED for foreign born and minority students.

For University of California schools, whites and Asians need not apply.

That is definitely one of the problems. Universitiy entry requirements should be to accept the brightest and the best regardless of whether they are a white WASP from the Hamptons or a Hispanic gang banger from East L.A. or a black kid from Kansas. Artificially creating diversity with racial quotas and/or via lowering entry requirements for some groups is inevitably dumbing down America and replacing excellence and quality with multiculturalism.

Those kids earning that minimum wage at McDonalds are given a great opportunity to learn somethng of how the world works, the concept of value for labor, as well as developing a work ethic and insights on how to get ahead. Without that opportunity they might go straight through school and into college without ever holding a paying job and such people are at a disadvantage when it comes to achieving honest and real success. Having on my resume those highschool jobs and whatever odd jobs I could pick up in college, all at very low wages, served me well in getting my foot in the door later on.

We should be encouraging businesses to hire the young and otherwise unemployable that we make much more difficult to do by artificially increasing the entry level wages.

 

[Synthaholic]

I just explained that. You're arguing that government spends money, and that creates jobs.

I'm arguing that jobs are created due to the functioning of government. Whether it's a titty bar outside a Marine base gate, or a sign company in DC printing Stop Abortion signs, or caterers in Madison, WI providing food for Governor Walker's event.

And I addressed that like three times now. The money spent on defense did not appear from nowhere, it was taking OUT of the economy. If it had been left in, it would have been spent economically efficiently in pursuit of a profit. And that would have entailed the earners of the money spending the same amount government did. So you'd have the same indirect benefit. However, your way, there is no direct benefit. The military itself did not make a profit.

Of course you're picking the military because that's something even a libertarian doesn't oppose. I want it smaller, but not gone. But the military still doesn't exist to create wealth, it exists to protect us. It is like insurance, to protect what we have. Seriously, you don't get this?

Businesses would have spent the same amount of money, and created the same amount of jobs. In addition, they also made a profit, which creates more jobs. That profit will be invested (and put back in the economy), reinvested (and spent) or distributed to shareholders who will reinvest it or spend it. It's simple. And you are only a socialist because you don't understand it. If you did, you'd realize that freedom comes from capitalism, not government.

That's crazy talk. No business spends as much as government.

All the money spent on government was taken out of the economy. That one company wouldn't spend the amount government does is irrelevant. In aggregate, all the money taken would have been spent in the private sector.

Oh, I get it now: this is all just a rant against paying taxes.

 

[flacaltenn]

I see, so if we offshore every job in America we'll be just dandy.

You had a liberal moment there, RKM? Oh, broccoli is good for you? So if you eat nothing but broccoli you'd be immortal?

Actually, if you read the full argument I made, it said it's good when and only when it's done for economic efficiency. When it's done to avoid punitive taxes, regulations and mandates from government then it's bad. I'm having a hard time seeing every job being off-shored as economically efficient. In fact, all the jobs I ever off-shored did not eliminate every American job even for those jobs. As I said, they changed processes, and those processes include American jobs, just fewer of them. And they allowed businesses to to spend more money on profitable projects that grow the economy by lowering internal support costs that don't.

If you can figure out how to add to your question on how off-shoring "every job" an idea of how that can be done in an economically efficient manner so you're actually addressing the argument I actually made, let me know.

BTW, the logical fallacy you just committed is called "appeal to ridicule."

How about we start by offshoring your job first?

Bam! Now you're talking! You're asking the wrong guy this question. As a career manager and management consultant, from my first day on every job, the first job on my radar to eliminate was my own. BTW, I created far more jobs than I eliminated or off-shored. I just turned 50, and until the last four years when I owned my own business, I was never in my entire career in a job longer than two years and a month or two. I worked for the same company longer than that, including 11 years at GE, just not the same job.

The name for this fallacy BTW is pretty basic, "appeal to fear." The left love that one you may have noticed. Problem is, I'm not afraid. Nice try.

So now you are trying to back track on your statement that "offshoring creates jobs" by patting yourself on the back and qualifying that offshoring is only good for the country when done for efficiency reasons and when the worker, who's job is offshored, gets a better job.

You think I'm supposed to be impressed at your management expertise to move jobs to cheap labor countries? WTF is wrong with you? Offshoring of 8million jobs in 2years, none of which were replaced was a good thing for the good ole USA? How much do they pay you to do this great service to America?

Appeal to fear? Says the jerk who appeals to using cheap foreign labor over American labor for "efficiency reasons." Seriously, how about we take every management consultant job, hell, every management position and move it to india. Damn paper pushing managers who think they are doing us a favor when they move work to china while we have 25% real unemployment.

As to the solution... that's pretty damn obvious. Break up the monopolies, move from income tax to sales tax and import duties and restrictions. This to promote local jobs and local production. What good does it do to have an anti-pollution regulation if all that does is move the exact same production to china where that regulation does not exist?

Actually the guilty ARE getting punished. As Cheap Labor dies out in China due to wage hikes and inflated costs of biz -- the BIGGEST tragedy was that China recieved invaluable Intellectual Property that they proceeded to steal and copy. And companies are re-evaluating the costs associated with CREATING their own competition.

Cheap labor is a passing transistion to 21st manufacturing. China giant manufacturer Foxconn -- the folks that make all of Apple's stuff..

Foxconn to employ 1 million robots in 3 years - Shenzhen Post

Foxconn Technology Group held a hip-hop party at the headquarter in Longhua Shenzhen last Friday night, on which Chairman Terry Gou disclosed, Foxconn is making efforts to increase its robot workforce on production line to replace non-technical workers. Foxconn currently has 10000 robots and plans to increase the number to 30000 next year. The company also announced it plans to have one million robots in three years.

The robots that have been put into operation on the production line is “Foxconn Shenzhen No. 1” that is independently developed by the company in 2006.

“On the Foxconn’s flow lines, many simple and repeated works, such as repeated clicks of one button, used to be done by workers. Now these works are all done by robots with high efficiency and controllability,” an insider of Foxconn said.

Foxconn currently has nearly 1.2 million employees, of which over 1 million are from the mainland.

See -- the Chinese are smart enough to know that workers that come from 600 miles away and need to be fed and dormed -- and who don't really understand the details of their task -- are no great bargain.. And MILLIONS are gonna get displaced in the manufacturing hubs in the next decade.. Cheap labor is over. Many US companies are turning to 21st manufacturing automation HERE in the US.

Totally different workforce composition. Maybe slightly less net jobs. But BETTER jobs if we decide not to roll over, whine, but to compete..

Not gonna happen unless government gets the hell out of the way in this country. And STOPS SUBSIDIZING the giants and starts encouraging folks to RISK CAPITAL on SAVING jobs in this country..

 

[HenryBHough]

Kleptomaniacs don't pay sales taxes.

Maybe that's why liberals are so in favour of them.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually, I said that repeatedly. I'm backtracking on nothing. Look, I don't expect you to go back and read the whole discussion, which is why I told you what I was arguing. However, denying the rest of the discussion exists is bull and beneath you.

As for your rant, I don't care what you are or are not impressed by, I was telling you my experience in the subject.

As to the solution... that's pretty damn obvious. Break up the monopolies, move from income tax to sales tax and import duties and restrictions. This to promote local jobs and local production. What good does it do to have an anti-pollution regulation if all that does is move the exact same production to china where that regulation does not exist?

I also support the fair tax if that is what you are referring to by a sales tax.

I don't know what "monopolies" you are referring to.

I am not in favor of your arrogance of dictating standards to other countries.

I'll take you on your word as to your meaning. My point was to the quoted statement that I cited, not prior statements that you feel limited the context of the post I responded to.

>> As for your rant, I don't care what you are or are not impressed by, I was telling you my experience in the subject.

And I was doing the same in replying to your rant.

>> I also support the fair tax if that is what you are referring to by a sales tax.

No, I meant sales tax on products purchased, such as the sales taxes of my state. The so called fair tax became a joke.

>> I don't know what "monopolies" you are referring to.

That would be monopolies affecting the OP.

I said: "Break up the monopolies, move from income tax to sales tax and import duties and restrictions. This to promote local jobs and local production. What good does it do to have an anti-pollution regulation if all that does is move the exact same production to china where that regulation does not exist?"

In response you said you are not in favor of my arrogance of "dictating standards to other countries."

Where did I say to dictate standards? What I clearly said is use sale taxes (instead of income taxes), import duties, and restrictions on imported goods. A USA regulation (be it income tax, epa rules, etc.) that does not apply to imported goods amounts to a dictate to move said production off-shore. Moving said production off-shore does not eliminate the undesirable activity. It just makes producing in America undesirable from a financial pov. This is simple math. Why should we give other countries the benefit of price advantage in selling products produced using processes that are illegal in this country?

 

[Againsheila]

Once upon a time, manufacturing jobs paid very little. People were forced to shop at the company store. There was no safety on the job. Children were used up before they even became adults. Then unions came along. They gave us the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, on the job safety, and livable wages.

Then our government changed corporate laws. Corporations stole from their employees pension plans. They offshored jobs. They closed down factories and built them up in 3rd world nations where those people are treated the same way we were before unions. Pay for executives skyrocketed while pay for the workers stagnated. Meanwhile service industry jobs became the base of our employment industry. How can you expect their workers to keep working when they can't make a living and there are no middle class jobs left to be had? Now it's time for unions to make those service industry jobs good jobs, the same way the did the manufacturing jobs. The only other alternative is going back to the gilded age, which, BTW, we already are. The gilded age BTW, led to the great depression. Perhaps we are already in the next great depression.

I can't believe the number of people on here defending low paying jobs as "starting wages". How are they starting wages where there is no place to advance to? How middle class jobs are gone. Do you really want to live in a 3rd world country? Because that's where we are headed, if we're not already there.

 

[flacaltenn]

Once upon a time, manufacturing jobs paid very little. People were forced to shop at the company store. There was no safety on the job. Children were used up before they even became adults. Then unions came along. They gave us the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, on the job safety, and livable wages.

Then our government changed corporate laws. Corporations stole from their employees pension plans. They offshored jobs. They closed down factories and built them up in 3rd world nations where those people are treated the same way we were before unions. Pay for executives skyrocketed while pay for the workers stagnated. Meanwhile service industry jobs became the base of our employment industry. How can you expect their workers to keep working when they can't make a living and there are no middle class jobs left to be had? Now it's time for unions to make those service industry jobs good jobs, the same way the did the manufacturing jobs. The only other alternative is going back to the gilded age, which, BTW, we already are. The gilded age BTW, led to the great depression. Perhaps we are already in the next great depression.

I can't believe the number of people on here defending low paying jobs as "starting wages". How are they starting wages where there is no place to advance to? How middle class jobs are gone. Do you really want to live in a 3rd world country? Because that's where we are headed, if we're not already there.

Plenty of room for advancment.. A country that attempts to promote a service economy has no meaning in International commerce.. One that innovates and lands on the moon does..

It's the PEOPLE that need to be promoted.. Not the jobs..
Things are different in the 21st Century.. And we will become irrelevent if we dont adapt.

 

[RKMBrown]

Once upon a time, manufacturing jobs paid very little. People were forced to shop at the company store. There was no safety on the job. Children were used up before they even became adults. Then unions came along. They gave us the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, on the job safety, and livable wages.

Then our government changed corporate laws. Corporations stole from their employees pension plans. They offshored jobs. They closed down factories and built them up in 3rd world nations where those people are treated the same way we were before unions. Pay for executives skyrocketed while pay for the workers stagnated. Meanwhile service industry jobs became the base of our employment industry. How can you expect their workers to keep working when they can't make a living and there are no middle class jobs left to be had? Now it's time for unions to make those service industry jobs good jobs, the same way the did the manufacturing jobs. The only other alternative is going back to the gilded age, which, BTW, we already are. The gilded age BTW, led to the great depression. Perhaps we are already in the next great depression.

I can't believe the number of people on here defending low paying jobs as "starting wages". How are they starting wages where there is no place to advance to? How middle class jobs are gone. Do you really want to live in a 3rd world country? Because that's where we are headed, if we're not already there.

Plenty of room for advancment.. A country that attempts to promote a service economy has no meaning in International commerce.. One that innovates and lands on the moon does..

It's the PEOPLE that need to be promoted.. Not the jobs..
Things are different in the 21st Century.. And we will become irrelevent if we dont adapt.

We are doing just fine, and will be doing a heluva lot better when we kick these authoritarians to the curb.

 

[Againsheila]

Once upon a time, manufacturing jobs paid very little. People were forced to shop at the company store. There was no safety on the job. Children were used up before they even became adults. Then unions came along. They gave us the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, on the job safety, and livable wages.

Then our government changed corporate laws. Corporations stole from their employees pension plans. They offshored jobs. They closed down factories and built them up in 3rd world nations where those people are treated the same way we were before unions. Pay for executives skyrocketed while pay for the workers stagnated. Meanwhile service industry jobs became the base of our employment industry. How can you expect their workers to keep working when they can't make a living and there are no middle class jobs left to be had? Now it's time for unions to make those service industry jobs good jobs, the same way the did the manufacturing jobs. The only other alternative is going back to the gilded age, which, BTW, we already are. The gilded age BTW, led to the great depression. Perhaps we are already in the next great depression.

I can't believe the number of people on here defending low paying jobs as "starting wages". How are they starting wages where there is no place to advance to? How middle class jobs are gone. Do you really want to live in a 3rd world country? Because that's where we are headed, if we're not already there.

Plenty of room for advancment.. A country that attempts to promote a service economy has no meaning in International commerce.. One that innovates and lands on the moon does..

It's the PEOPLE that need to be promoted.. Not the jobs..
Things are different in the 21st Century.. And we will become irrelevent if we dont adapt.

Again, where are they suppose to be promoted to??????

 

[kaz]

I'm arguing that jobs are created due to the functioning of government. Whether it's a titty bar outside a Marine base gate, or a sign company in DC printing Stop Abortion signs, or caterers in Madison, WI providing food for Governor Walker's event.

And I addressed that like three times now. The money spent on defense did not appear from nowhere, it was taking OUT of the economy. If it had been left in, it would have been spent economically efficiently in pursuit of a profit. And that would have entailed the earners of the money spending the same amount government did. So you'd have the same indirect benefit. However, your way, there is no direct benefit. The military itself did not make a profit.

Of course you're picking the military because that's something even a libertarian doesn't oppose. I want it smaller, but not gone. But the military still doesn't exist to create wealth, it exists to protect us. It is like insurance, to protect what we have. Seriously, you don't get this?

That's crazy talk. No business spends as much as government.

All the money spent on government was taken out of the economy. That one company wouldn't spend the amount government does is irrelevant. In aggregate, all the money taken would have been spent in the private sector.

Oh, I get it now: this is all just a rant against paying taxes.

No, you don't get it, but why would that change now?

You're just going down the lame, typical liberal path that when pushed to defend government, you go to something that even a libertarian supports, as if that somehow means that since government can do anything, government can to everything.

 

[kaz]

I'll take you on your word as to your meaning. My point was to the quoted statement that I cited, not prior statements that you feel limited the context of the post I responded to.

Which is why I told you what my argument was. I do not feel compelled to repeat my entire position in every post. I didn't get irked either, I just clarified my view. And you responded someone pissed in your cereal this morning. You can either take my word for it or read the discussion and you will see me endlessly repeat that off-shoring driven by economic efficiency is good, when it's driven by government abuse of businesses it's bad. But no, I didn't state that in every post in the discussion, nor should I need to.

>> I also support the fair tax if that is what you are referring to by a sales tax.

No, I meant sales tax on products purchased, such as the sales taxes of my state. The so called fair tax became a joke.

What does that mean? How has the fair tax "become a joke?"

>> I don't know what "monopolies" you are referring to.

That would be monopolies affecting the OP.

I read the rest of your post, but I still don't know who you are referring to as a "monopoly."

I understand better what you are saying, but I disagree that government should have the power to make the decisions to even out pricing. And the answer why not to do that is also points that I covered. Lower costs mean American consumers benefit from lower prices, investors benefit from higher profits and American companies can compete better with foreign competitors (it's a global economy if you like or or not) and higher sales means more jobs.

Not one company I ever worked with offshoring IT jobs was net laying off IT people. They were hiring higher end better paid people who contributed more to the business than infrastructural people maintaining servers and that sort of thing did.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not one company I ever worked with offshoring IT jobs was net laying off IT people. They were hiring higher end better paid people who contributed more to the business than infrastructural people maintaining servers and that sort of thing did.

So you never worked with a company that uses H1B visas or off-shores work and you don't know of any monopolies, and you are managing consultants for IT?

lol cmon... stop with the obfuscation.

 

[Againsheila]

Not one company I ever worked with offshoring IT jobs was net laying off IT people. They were hiring higher end better paid people who contributed more to the business than infrastructural people maintaining servers and that sort of thing did.

So you never worked with a company that uses H1B visas or off-shores work and you don't know of any monopolies, and you are managing consultants for IT?

lol cmon... stop with the obfuscation.

You know, it'd be easier to ignore kaz if you didn't quote kaz. It's getting more and more difficult not to insult kaz's intelligence, or lack thereof.

 

[kaz]

Not one company I ever worked with offshoring IT jobs was net laying off IT people. They were hiring higher end better paid people who contributed more to the business than infrastructural people maintaining servers and that sort of thing did.

So you never worked with a company that uses H1B visas or off-shores work

strawman

and you don't know of any monopolies, and you are managing consultants for IT?

lol cmon... stop with the obfuscation.

I asked what monopolies YOU are referring to. You made the statement twice. That I should already know isn't an answer.

 

[flacaltenn]

Once upon a time, manufacturing jobs paid very little. People were forced to shop at the company store. There was no safety on the job. Children were used up before they even became adults. Then unions came along. They gave us the 40 hour workweek, overtime pay, on the job safety, and livable wages.

Then our government changed corporate laws. Corporations stole from their employees pension plans. They offshored jobs. They closed down factories and built them up in 3rd world nations where those people are treated the same way we were before unions. Pay for executives skyrocketed while pay for the workers stagnated. Meanwhile service industry jobs became the base of our employment industry. How can you expect their workers to keep working when they can't make a living and there are no middle class jobs left to be had? Now it's time for unions to make those service industry jobs good jobs, the same way the did the manufacturing jobs. The only other alternative is going back to the gilded age, which, BTW, we already are. The gilded age BTW, led to the great depression. Perhaps we are already in the next great depression.

I can't believe the number of people on here defending low paying jobs as "starting wages". How are they starting wages where there is no place to advance to? How middle class jobs are gone. Do you really want to live in a 3rd world country? Because that's where we are headed, if we're not already there.

Plenty of room for advancment.. A country that attempts to promote a service economy has no meaning in International commerce.. One that innovates and lands on the moon does..

It's the PEOPLE that need to be promoted.. Not the jobs..
Things are different in the 21st Century.. And we will become irrelevent if we dont adapt.

Again, where are they suppose to be promoted to??????

I've got a real optimistic view of that. If you give an inner city H.S. kid a Midi Synthesizer and an Audio Editing system -- there's a good chance they will make music, do the DJ thing or even compose. BECAUSE --- they are motivated to learn how to use it.

That's the same basic skills that are required to "train" or write scripts for industrial robots. Not much difference.. So no more lever pulling jobs at the factories, but MORE opportunities to make CUSTOM or special products that require someone to "teach" the robotics how to customize products for example.

It's good to optimistic for a change. I believe you could teach a Burger King register clerk to program or to run BioChemistry in a lab or to even run a 3D printer. 3D printing is a technology that allows a small biz to replicate stuff TODAY -- just like the replicators on the StarShip Enterprise.. ((I'm deadly serious, not tripping)) So today, you have the tools that only huge corporations had a decade ago.. It DEMOCRATIZES commerce.

We need folks to EXPLOIT all that.. To create and innovate.. Not just pull levers and flip burgers.. THAT'S how you promote people.

 

[RKMBrown]

So I take it then, Kaz, that you don't know what a strawman is, you don't know what a monopoly is, and you are equally clueless as to what an OP is. Yet, you are a manager. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

 

[kaz]

Not one company I ever worked with offshoring IT jobs was net laying off IT people. They were hiring higher end better paid people who contributed more to the business than infrastructural people maintaining servers and that sort of thing did.

So you never worked with a company that uses H1B visas or off-shores work and you don't know of any monopolies, and you are managing consultants for IT?

lol cmon... stop with the obfuscation.

You know, it'd be easier to ignore kaz if you didn't quote kaz. It's getting more and more difficult not to insult kaz's intelligence, or lack thereof.

Maybe instead of getting mad when you're called a liberal, you should wonder why you always argue on the side of liberals.

I am a libertarian, but I am fine with being called a conservative in fiscal discussions because I am a fiscal conservative.

In other discussions, I argue against the wars and our military presence overseas, on the pro-choice side of abortion and other things which are not conservative.

 

[kaz]

So I take it then, Kaz, that you don't know what a strawman is, you don't know what a monopoly is, and you are equally clueless as to what an OP is. Yet, you are a manager. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

I never said the things I said were a strawman. Hence my use of the word strawman.

I asked you what you meant by monopoly, and you're deflecting. My asking you who you mean by a monopoly does not imply I don't know what a monopoly is. It implies that I don't know what you meant when you used the term. So I asked you.

I don't know who you are referring to as a "monopoly" regarding off-shoring. Who are you talking about? No, I do not see any "monopolies" in off-shoring. Maybe if you would say what you meant, I would get it.

Obviously you have some personal connection to off-shoring, I've never seen you like this, you're usually pretty laid back.