Where are good jobs going - DPChallenge Forums

06/08/2004 11:27:09 AM · #51

How do you know that these companies pay their janitors that much? Is this common public knowledge?

Originally posted by David Ey:

Lockheed...General Motors...Ford...Nasa...etc....etc.....etc

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Where do janitors get $30/hr with bennies? The janitors I know get paid much less and work with harsh irritating and sometimes dangerous chemicals. They have hard jobs and many have to moonlight to make ends meet.

Originally posted by David Ey:
sweeping the floor is not worth 30 bucks with benefits in any part of the world

06/08/2004 11:33:48 AM · #52

Originally posted by WebHorn:

There's nothing I like about corporate globalization. It's going to lead to corporations controlling world resources...including labor, water, and food and will only bring about equal opportunity for low paying wages while the few rich get richer and the poor will get only poorer. The environment will suffer and there will be no government powerful enough to stand up to the corporations.

Define "control." Is the labor market not already under the control of corporations? Employment is a two-way street, and individuals have the ability to choose who they work for and what salary they demand.

If the environment suffers it is because the People are not willing to trade the money in their pocketbooks for products from companies that respect the environment. If "the People" voted enough with their wallets for products that were "green," all products would be green. It is not the fault of the corporation for delivering the product desired by the market - fault the People for not having the same values you hold for the environment.

The Government is just another word for the People. Until corporations can vote, they will never be as powerful as the People. Hence, Government (at least Representative Democracies like the USA) will always have the "power" to stand up to corporations. The point is that the power is better exercised by the Market and restrictions imposed by the Gov't are impediments to the Free Market exercising her will (note: I am in favor of limited Gov't regulation in certain areas)

Shifting control over water collection and food production from communities and the public to commercial, corporate interests creates corporate states-states that usurp resources from people for meeting vital needs and put them in the hands of private corporations for making profits through the privatization of essential services. This will certainly be the downfall of democracy in areas where people can't afford to pay for these necessary requirements of life and will certainly be a tool for repression of a self-governing people. Food and water insecurities will also lead to wars.

Most people don't have the ability to decide who they work for or demand a certain salary.

Yes, the people have to start demanding green products, but that takes an informed buying public and an informing media.

Corporations are already voting with their pocketbooks.

06/08/2004 11:41:17 AM · #53

Originally posted by WebHorn:

Democratic governments are more beholden to these companies than the people of their respective countries because through corporation monies that they are paying out to politicians, they are getting elected and re-elected. Far from democracy or true capitalism. There is a tremendous amount of corruption now both in business and in government.

True statements. But it is this way because the People via the Market desire it to be so, and so it is. The People could change it if there was consensus otherwise...

The people desire their democracies to be controlled by corporations through the market? How do you know that? The people are acquiesing to corruption in government and the corporate culture? Ask Enron employees how they feel about that. The people are trying to change things, but it's difficult to do when politicians are beholden to business interests and not to their constituencies.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

06/08/2004 11:49:10 AM · #54

Originally posted by WebHorn:

How would you feel if, god forbid, you needed medical care, and the hospital got someone to care for you or do some proceedures from a person that was less qualified than other personnel, but could do the job for half the salary?

I would go to a hospital and pay a higher rate to get a doctor I knew was qualified.

I'm happy to say you have no idea about the harsh realities of healthcare and illness. It means you are well and have not been in hospitals as of late and that's a good thing. I can attest through personal experience and knowledge, however, that you can not just pick yourself up and go get another doctor or nurse so easily when you are ill as you would, for example, just buy another computer when your current one fails you.

dimitrii

Nikon D70

06/08/2004 11:58:18 AM · #55

Where did personal responsibility disappeare?
I didn't like working for my salary at my former employer I quite, and switched careers (and I do have resposibilities, such as a child on the way), I am concernered about the environment so I drive a flue efficient car and not an SUV, I try to learn new skills and languages to be marketable in the global economy.

How about less complaining, and more effort?

And one more point, since when is money everything? I personally don't want more than I need to be happy.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/08/2004 01:40:49 PM · #56

I chose to work for the company that offers me the best combination of: pay, benefits, job satisfaction and location. If I don't like the way my company does business or treats me I can chose to leave and find another job. I chose to buy products and services from companies that give me the best product at the best price. If I chose to boycott a company becuse I am dissatisfied with them I can. Every American has those exact same rights.
I would hate to see the government tell me I can't buy a Japanese car or I can't hire a company from India to build my web page. Companies have the same rights I have. If you take their rights away, what will happen to mine?

And for the person that said always buy American? Where was your computer and all it's parts built? Do you own a car, TV, DVD player?

06/08/2004 02:40:48 PM · #57

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by WebHorn:

How would you feel if, god forbid, you needed medical care, and the hospital got someone to care for you or do some proceedures from a person that was less qualified than other personnel, but could do the job for half the salary?

I would go to a hospital and pay a higher rate to get a doctor I knew was qualified.

I'm happy to say you have no idea about the harsh realities of healthcare and illness. It means you are well and have not been in hospitals as of late and that's a good thing. I can attest through personal experience and knowledge, however, that you can not just pick yourself up and go get another doctor or nurse so easily when you are ill as you would, for example, just buy another computer when your current one fails you.

I'm happy to report that you have no idea of the circumstances of my life or experiences. As a matter of fact, my wife had a major tumor removed just last year. At that time I was thankful that we had chosen to pay for insurance that afforded us the care, skills, 2nd and 3rd opinions, and surgery that it did. Thankfully she is 100% recovered today with no complications.

We took personal responsibility for our care, paid our dues, and got the best. This is the difference between socialists like yourself and realists like myself - I believe in what I earn, you believe in what people "deserve." If the day ever came where I required care that I couldn't afford, I would go to friends, family, my church, my company, and the multitude of public charities that exist to help. You would turn to mother Government and "universal healthcare" to address your ills.

I will address the rest of your posts later.

06/09/2004 01:29:25 AM · #58

Originally posted by WebHorn:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by WebHorn:

How would you feel if, god forbid, you needed medical care, and the hospital got someone to care for you or do some proceedures from a person that was less qualified than other personnel, but could do the job for half the salary?

I would go to a hospital and pay a higher rate to get a doctor I knew was qualified.

I'm happy to say you have no idea about the harsh realities of healthcare and illness. It means you are well and have not been in hospitals as of late and that's a good thing. I can attest through personal experience and knowledge, however, that you can not just pick yourself up and go get another doctor or nurse so easily when you are ill as you would, for example, just buy another computer when your current one fails you.

I'm happy to report that you have no idea of the circumstances of my life or experiences. As a matter of fact, my wife had a major tumor removed just last year. At that time I was thankful that we had chosen to pay for insurance that afforded us the care, skills, 2nd and 3rd opinions, and surgery that it did. Thankfully she is 100% recovered today with no complications.

We took personal responsibility for our care, paid our dues, and got the best. This is the difference between socialists like yourself and realists like myself - I believe in what I earn, you believe in what people "deserve." If the day ever came where I required care that I couldn't afford, I would go to friends, family, my church, my company, and the multitude of public charities that exist to help. You would turn to mother Government and "universal healthcare" to address your ills.

I will address the rest of your posts later.

Iâ��m not sure where you got the idea that Iâ��m a socialist (not true). Nor am I sure where you got the idea that I donâ��t believe in personal responsibility but rather believe in getting a free handout from â��mother government.â�� My posts above had more to do with corporate corruption and the politicians that take money from them. I take personal responsibility and my family and friends do as well. Iâ��m happy to hear that you do so too and that your wifeâ��s medical problem worked out. I know many people who Iâ��ve worked with over the years that have worked very hard all their lives and now have ailments related to their jobs. Some canâ��t work any longer, some have chronic pain and donâ��t enjoy their lives because of it. These repetitive stress injuries could have been prevented but their companies wanted to eek out every last drop of blood from them.

I was not referring in my post about free national healthcare insurance but rather that when you are sick enough to be in a hospital that often a person is not always well enough, or does not have the support, to leave to get better healthcare someplace else. If such a person is not being treated well because of insufficient staffing or poorly trained staff, that would be a problem, imo. But certainly, with 40 million people with no healthcare insurance, many people out of work and more and more companies requiring their employees to pay for more of their health insurance bill, it is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed.

Since you brought up the issue of turning to â��mother governmentâ�� for handouts, lets see about what corporations do as far as that goes. You know, tax and spending subsidies that corporations get, or when the public has to pay for the mess (pollution) that corporations leave behind. Here are some websites that deal with corporate welfare.

Website #1
â��In a world of global production, capital and commerce, government subsidies to corporations eventually erode the competitive position of both the industries that receive them AND those that don't. [2, pg. 3] Unsubsidized companies find themselves at a competitive disadvantage relative to subsidized companies. And, in a global economy, companies at a competitive disadvantage will often move some operations and jobs abroad, where labor and materials are cheaper or subsidies are available. Thus corporate welfare harms the entire U.S. economy. â�� â��Spending and tax subsidies, along with trade protections and certain forms of economic regulation, all shield domestic industries from the global competition that drives foreign rivals to upgrade their products and production. Subsidies and protections, therefore, leave their beneficiaries LESS able to succeed.â��

Website #2

Website #3

Message edited by author 2004-06-09 01:30:32.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

06/09/2004 01:42:33 AM · #59

Originally posted by WebHorn:

If the day ever came where I required care that I couldn't afford, I would go to friends, family, my church, my company, and the multitude of public charities that exist to help. You would turn to mother Government and "universal healthcare" to address your ills.

So you are saying then that if you were down and out you would turn to others for a handout. Although, it's unlikely that most of them could even come up with 10% of the cost of a medical proceedure. Would you take money from a charity that received a good deal of it's monies that came from the government? Would you take money from the church?

So it seems you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it's ok for you to take money but it's not ok if someone else who's down and out takes money from the government.

Prof_Fate

06/09/2004 03:26:41 AM · #60

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

I have two questions for everyone outraged by American companies moving work overseas:

1. If tomorrow morning you got a call from someone offering you a job -- the same responsibilities as the job you have now, similar commute, same job security, but at a 25% increase in pay and benefits, would you take it? Assume the ONLY two differences between the jobs are the compensation and the company that issues the paycheck.

2. Are you equally outraged that, for example, Japanese car companies outsource some of their manufacturing to the United States? Is Honda, for example, abdicating some responsibility to Japanese workers to provide them with jobs?

-Terry

US car companies are moving the manufacturing to other countries, dor many reasons (old plants, unions, wages, environemntal, etc) The japanese and germans are building plants HERE. I think the koreans are doing the same. Somebody is playing games somewhere that makes it economically smart to build toyotas and nissans here but we build fords and chevy's in mexico.

The US has had a very high standard of living for a long time, and we have tried for decades to help 'third world' countries catch up. Now they are. The fall of communism has helped this process along as well. We started this ball rolling, so we gotta ride it out.

We all make indivisual decisions every day that affect the world at large when added together. I shop at a Super Walmart. My local grocery store is definitely suffering...i care, BUT my money goes farther at Walmart so it is my personal choice to shop there. I know the ramificationa, but Walmart is not the evil empire - someone will come along with a better mousetrap and do them in (see: montgomery ward, sears, Kmart - all at one time #1 retailer, now 1 is gone, 1 going and 1 hanging on).

No one stays on top for ever. US Steel is no longer the #1 producer of steel in teh US - it held the title for 100 years, but no more.
The Pennsylvania RR was the largest corporation for 100+ years...long gone now as well.
The list is a long one. No one can predict the eventual outcome of the current globalization.

If it were up to me, NO non-US citizen would go to college here. If this is the information age, why are we training the world to beat us at our own game?

Prof_Fate

06/09/2004 03:32:30 AM · #61

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

More than everything else I am worried about the enviroment, but in that, I trust mother nature. No money has the power to beat her. I think with this global worming we see and feel today, she is only showing us her teeth, she is just warning us, but in the near future if we keep ignoring her, she will retaliate. I predict we will see such unexpected metheorological phenomenoms we never imagined before, and we will be lucky if the human species will even survive. I'm sure she will.

A) the ENTIRE eastern us was stipped of ALL timber by 1870. Take a drive through the allegheny mountains..lots o trees there. Momma nature will prevail.

B)Global warming is a farce, a red herring. Why do i say that? 2 reasons. One, back in the late 70s every scientist was predicting a new ice age - we had the worst winters in 100+ years. THe last few years here in Pennsylvania have been colder than average, and this past winter was one of the worst ever. Scientists will also tell you, if you ask the right questions, that temp swings wider than we are experiencing over teh past 100 years have happened a number of times of the centuries. humans had no impact then, and less now than our egos would have you believe.

C)environmental worries: south american rain forest deforestation. Possibly acid mine drainage only because the Romans had mines that are still draining acid 1700+ years later!

frumoaznicul

Canon EOS-20D

06/09/2004 03:45:06 AM · #62

A. I live in Romania, and I have no ideea about the eastern us, but I belive you if you say so. :))

B. Call it global warming call it whatever you want, I can feel it. Actualy where I live I feel it like a global cooling, because it is alot colder than it used to be when I whas a kid. Back then starting the end of November until late January, there whas 1 m deep snow everywhere, year after year. This and the last year we had not 1 day with snow. And that because it never snows when it is too cold. When I whas a kid also, I remember every year by my birthday in the middle of march, I whas going out in shorts and t-shirt, now it is almost July and I'm stil wearing my winter jacket. So call it whatever you like, something is clearly going on, when we have this cold weather, Canada is slowly turning into Ibiza, and it snows in the deserts.

C) ...among many others...

Originally posted by bestagents:

06/09/2004 01:25:18 PM · #63

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by WebHorn:
If the day ever came where I required care that I couldn't afford, I would go to friends, family, my church, my company, and the multitude of public charities that exist to help. You would turn to mother Government and "universal healthcare" to address your ills.

So you are saying then that if you were down and out you would turn to others for a handout. Although, it's unlikely that most of them could even come up with 10% of the cost of a medical proceedure. Would you take money from a charity that received a good deal of it's monies that came from the government? Would you take money from the church?

So it seems you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it's ok for you to take money but it's not ok if someone else who's down and out takes money from the government.

I am all for anyone in a time of need getting money from where-ever they can, including the Gov't, since our current system is set up that way. It would be stupid not to take advantage of the system if you need it and the resources are right there in front of you. The problem is not with the distribution of money - it is with the collection.

What I am saying is that the system is flawed. In all my examples, the money I would be theoretically getting (from the Church, charity, family) would be voluntarially given by people to help fill my need.

The Gov't, on the other hand, forces you to give via the power of tax. This will sound harsh, but, I don't want to be forced to pay for your sex change operation or heart transplant. Because the raw truth is, I don't care about you, I care about my family and friends. The money I would pay in the form of taxes that go to fund your operation is better spent feeding my family or paying for my medicine. Think about it: if inefficient social programmes were disbanded, and the tax "refunded" to the People, there would be extra money in your wallet to afford better care or contribute to a charity to pay for those who need it.

06/09/2004 01:35:33 PM · #64

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Since you brought up the issue of turning to â��mother governmentâ�� for handouts, lets see about what corporations do as far as that goes. You know, tax and spending subsidies that corporations get, or when the public has to pay for the mess (pollution) that corporations leave behind. Here are some websites that deal with corporate welfare.

re: "Corporate Welfare" we are in agreement. I find the whoring out of tax monies to businesses just as abhorrent in its current form as traditional welfare.

Message edited by author 2004-06-09 13:36:51.

06/09/2004 01:40:28 PM · #65

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Price fixing, price gouging, collusion to fix markets, or forcing a product on customers and other dubious business practices are what defeat the competetion. Your ideas are wonderful ideologies, but do not seem to be the common practice of many of the big companies. I would be happy to go to the competition for a product, but most often in today's markets there really isn't much choice. Many companies are subsidiaries of other major corporations. An example would be Clear Channel in radio, which now owns a major percentage of the airwave licenses for many different markets in the nation. They have also given lots of money to politicians so that laws get passed for their benefit. Competition is dwindling in this country and fast.

Then pay for XM or Sirris radio and bypass them.

06/09/2004 02:39:15 PM · #66

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

This is the paragraph that made me (incorrectly) assume you were socialist. This depends on how you define control. Does a corporation that leases your farmland to grow crops control the food resources, or do you since you are leasing to them? If they purchase your land they will control it yet you made a choice to sell to them...see where I am going?

The reason corporations exist is to profit so I do not fault them that fact. I disagree that the privitization of essential services will be the downfall of Democracy. I believe the downfall will come when the the poor vote to siphon more and more tax from the successful to fund their social programmes, welfare, and lifestyles until the benefit of becoming rich is overburdened by the cost of getting there. Which will result in the successful moving their businesses, investments, and leadership elsewhere and threatening what makes America great.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Most people don't have the ability to decide who they work for or demand a certain salary.

Unless you are a slave, you have a choice. Did you mean to say "Most people don't have the ability to demand a salary they feel they deserve because their skills are easily replaced and someone will do the job for less?"

Message edited by author 2004-06-09 14:41:45.

06/09/2004 07:19:26 PM · #67

Originally posted by WebHorn:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Price fixing, price gouging, collusion to fix markets, or forcing a product on customers and other dubious business practices are what defeat the competetion. Your ideas are wonderful ideologies, but do not seem to be the common practice of many of the big companies. I would be happy to go to the competition for a product, but most often in today's markets there really isn't much choice. Many companies are subsidiaries of other major corporations. An example would be Clear Channel in radio, which now owns a major percentage of the airwave licenses for many different markets in the nation. They have also given lots of money to politicians so that laws get passed for their benefit. Competition is dwindling in this country and fast.

Then pay for XM or Sirris radio and bypass them.

The airwaves belong to the people and the broadcast companies license out those frequencies for a specified period of time. There is no reason why I should have to pay for XM or Sirrus when Clear Channel is buying up most of the licenses, broadcasting crappy programming that has nothing to do with the local communities that they are supposed to serve. Their programming is the same whether you listen in an urban area or rural area. Besides, they are big contributors to politicians to to get legislation for their benefit.

06/09/2004 07:39:30 PM · #68

Originally posted by WebHorn:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Shifting control over water collection and food production from communities and the public to commercial, corporate interests creates corporate states-states that usurp resources from people for meeting vital needs and put them in the hands of private corporations for making profits through the privatization of essential services. This will certainly be the downfall of democracy in areas where people can't afford to pay for these necessary requirements of life and will certainly be a tool for repression of a self-governing people. Food and water insecurities will also lead to wars.

This is the paragraph that made me (incorrectly) assume you were socialist. This depends on how you define control. Does a corporation that leases your farmland to grow crops control the food resources, or do you since you are leasing to them? If they purchase your land they will control it yet you made a choice to sell to them...see where I am going?

Agribusiness companies are leasing out land from farmers? That's news to me. Small family run farms are a rare species today because they can't compete with the big agribusiness companies. First, these big agribusiness companies get big subsidies from the government and are able to cut prices way below what a family farmer can. Secondly, these big agribusiness companies are buying up all the heirloom seeds and are producing genetically engineered crops. This in itself will go a long way to controlling the production of food in the world. Family run farms, or other kinds of farms, will not have the access to heirloom seeds, as these seeds will have all been bought up by agribusinesses and their genetic code will be owned by these companies. So any farmer wanting to use them will either have to pay out a huge sum for their use, or will have to purchase the genetically engineered seeds. See where I'm going with this???

The reason corporations exist is to profit so I do not fault them that fact. I disagree that the privitization of essential services will be the downfall of Democracy. I believe the downfall will come when the the poor vote to siphon more and more tax from the successful to fund their social programmes, welfare, and lifestyles until the benefit of becoming rich is overburdened by the cost of getting there. Which will result in the successful moving their businesses, investments, and leadership elsewhere and threatening what makes America great.

The poor have lifestyles? You mean lifestyles like the rich and famous? Give me a break, man! The benefit of becoming rich will become overburdened??? You have to be kidding me here. Poor joke, at that. Awww...the poor rich people overburdened by the poor...Yeah, right.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Most people don't have the ability to decide who they work for or demand a certain salary.

Unless you are a slave, you have a choice. Did you mean to say "Most people don't have the ability to demand a salary they feel they deserve because their skills are easily replaced and someone will do the job for less?"

06/09/2004 07:42:30 PM · #69

Originally posted by WebHorn:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Most people don't have the ability to decide who they work for or demand a certain salary.

Unless you are a slave, you have a choice. Did you mean to say "Most people don't have the ability to demand a salary they feel they deserve because their skills are easily replaced and someone will do the job for less?"

Tell all the unemployed people in this country they have a choice. Guess you're another one who thinks that the reason people don't work is because they're lazy.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

06/09/2004 08:41:07 PM · #70

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The benefit of becoming rich will become overburdened???

This has happened in the past in the UK. Taxation at certain income brackets reached 98%

The people earning at those levels simply left the country, moving their businesses offshore. This is not the best interest of any sector of the society, rich or poor.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

06/09/2004 11:20:47 PM · #71

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The benefit of becoming rich will become overburdened???

This has happened in the past in the UK. Taxation at certain income brackets reached 98%

The people earning at those levels simply left the country, moving their businesses offshore. This is not the best interest of any sector of the society, rich or poor.

I remember reading somewhere about 20 years ago (it may have been the Guiness Book Of World Records) that Norway had the world's highest income tax rates, actually exceeding 100% for the top bracket.

06/09/2004 11:34:33 PM · #72

The Guiness Book of World Records...that's certainly an authoritative source.

Originally posted by frychikn:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

The benefit of becoming rich will become overburdened???

This has happened in the past in the UK. Taxation at certain income brackets reached 98%

The people earning at those levels simply left the country, moving their businesses offshore. This is not the best interest of any sector of the society, rich or poor.

I remember reading somewhere about 20 years ago (it may have been the Guiness Book Of World Records) that Norway had the world's highest income tax rates, actually exceeding 100% for the top bracket.