|
|
|
|
|
[51] Posted by edward ohare 07-11-2003, 05:34 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:59:25 -0500, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
wrote: >On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:19:27 GMT, "Stan de SD" ><standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: >>So McDonalds is cutting back due to a weak economy. Your >>point, or did you have one to make? >> >Just that McD's is not so successful as you believe. > >You know, one of the things that did make Ford successful >when he began his mass manufacturing was paying his >workers enough so that they could buy his products. As long >as the mass retailers think that paying people a non-living >wage will make them more profitable, that equation is being >ignored. That may be what they think, but a rational company will pay a wage high enough to attract and keep workers of the quality they desire. This is part of McD's problem. They aren't achieving service standards in part due to employee quality, but also in part due to a store system inadequate to effectively handle recent product proliferation. It was easier to have good service when they only had to cook two sizes of hamburger pattys and got seven product out of that. Back to the wage issue, the problem is lack industrial jobs that would pay a bit more. Many people will not tolerate they physical considtions in industrial environments (heat, cold, noise) but many people currently working in customer service type jobs who are ill suited for them would both do fine in industrial jobs and would make a better wage. The effect of that would also be an increase in wages for low paying service jobs. But those industrial jobs went away, mostly in the 80's during the Reagan administration. The problem was Reagan's trickle down economics, which gave lots of people extra money, but because Reagan wanted and got a strong dollar, made US made products uncompetitive. So that extra money trickled to Asian countries, not into US manufacturing businesses. |
|
|
| Sponsored Links | ||
|
|
|
|
[52] Posted by Pieter Wenk 07-13-2003, 12:53 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:04:59 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: > >"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message >news:rumrgv8oela22hks4np3gmagqn2843cu3a@4ax.com.. . >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:40:03 GMT, "Michael Snyder" >> <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >Tempest wrote in message <3F0B7383.C9B508E@hotmail.com>... >> >> >> >> >> >>Huckleberry Hoshimoto wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Non-Union Wal-Mart........Alriiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, GO WAL-MART! >> >>> Odd how Wal-mard is one of the few chain NOT losing money. >> >>> Union wages have sent many businesses over into Mexico. >> >>> Gee, I wonder why! "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh". >> >> >> >>You don't suppose Walmart's buying of goods produced in China by slave >> >>labor has anything to do with it, do you? Or the poverty level wages >> >>they pay in the U.S.? >> > >> >Could be. There are obviously lots of people who are glad to >> >be able to get those wages. You wanna take them away? >> >> And how about the US citizens who lost their jobs...just in order >> allowing transnational companies to get golden noses ? > >So which jobs are those? Cites? Those now occupied in China :-) >> I thought...the very first interest of any politician involved in >> government would be...to look for a better living of his people...not >> the opposite > >Unlike Europe, not all of our politicians believe we are so helpless that we >need to be protected against freedom of choice... :O| It's not a question of freedom of choice...The question is *better living conditions*... Regards -- Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people. --Abraham Lincoln, 1837 ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÃ‚°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`à ‚°ÂºÂ¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º ¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,à¸Ã‚¤ÂºÂ°`°º¤ø, |
|
|
|
|
[53] Posted by Pieter Wenk 07-13-2003, 01:06 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:00:06 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: > >"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message >news:bbksgv0v7rkfe082gng25qsedpem6i5jr7@4ax.com.. . >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:46:53 GMT, "Stan de SD" >> <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> An average WalMart employee makes about >> >> $11,700 per year - nearly $2,000 below the poverty line for >> >> a single mother with two children. >> > >> >Well, maybe people shouldn't have children when they are single and can't >> >support them. >> >> Sorry no. Whilst I fully understand, that *less educated people* can't >> expect getting wages of...ministres...for sure the above is absolutely >> beyond acceptable. > >You mean it's not acceptable to expect women to have families when they >(and/or their husbands) don't have sufficient job skills to support a >family? It's not acceptable offering poor salaries and expect having families able offering to their children excellent education. The stated salaries are below the official the minimum revenues... >> But in the USA...sadly said your are absolute experts in creating >> millions of working poores with the understanding it will help boosten >> your economy based on sustained consumption. > >What are you babbling about? With MacJobs and other *great jobs* poorly rewarded don't expect a sustained consumption. And the *key engine* of the economy...is the *consumption*....It seems to me..that people have just not enough money anymore...in order to consume..making neo-liberals, responsible for the present situation, smile. -- Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people. --Abraham Lincoln, 1837 ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÃ‚°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`à ‚°ÂºÂ¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º ¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,à¸Ã‚¤ÂºÂ°`°º¤ø, |
|
|
|
|
[54] Posted by Huckleberry Hoshimoto 07-13-2003, 03:58 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
"So, doctor...what was the lasting result of your brain surgery on that
man?" "Stumbling gate, uncontrollable drooling, inability to control his bladder or bowls, blurred vision, continuous flatulence and drooling, stuttering speech, loss of long-term and short-term memory, penile dysfunction and an inability to form a rational thought." "OK,..........so he joins a Union, what's the problem?" Hü©klëßë®®ÿ |
|
|
|
|
[55] Posted by Stan de SD 07-14-2003, 04:47 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message news:9003hvgc998es5h570aqu60pla7k1mg124@4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:04:59 GMT, "Stan de SD" > <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >"Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message > >news:rumrgv8oela22hks4np3gmagqn2843cu3a@4ax.com.. . > >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:40:03 GMT, "Michael Snyder" > >> <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Tempest wrote in message <3F0B7383.C9B508E@hotmail.com>... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>Huckleberry Hoshimoto wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Non-Union Wal-Mart........Alriiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, GO WAL-MART! > >> >>> Odd how Wal-mard is one of the few chain NOT losing money. > >> >>> Union wages have sent many businesses over into Mexico. > >> >>> Gee, I wonder why! "Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh". > >> >> > >> >>You don't suppose Walmart's buying of goods produced in China by slave > >> >>labor has anything to do with it, do you? Or the poverty level wages > >> >>they pay in the U.S.? > >> > > >> >Could be. There are obviously lots of people who are glad to > >> >be able to get those wages. You wanna take them away? > >> > >> And how about the US citizens who lost their jobs...just in order > >> allowing transnational companies to get golden noses ? > > > >So which jobs are those? Cites? > > Those now occupied in China :-) Again, which jobs are those specifically? There are a couple of sectors where jobs have been lost, but most of the Chinese jobs are in areas that Americans haven't participated in for decades. > >> I thought...the very first interest of any politician involved in > >> government would be...to look for a better living of his people...not > >> the opposite > > > >Unlike Europe, not all of our politicians believe we are so helpless that we > >need to be protected against freedom of choice... :O| > > It's not a question of freedom of choice It never is with liberals, since they are opposed to it. > ...The question is *better living conditions*... The fact that "better living conditions" occur in nations with freer economies doesn't suggest anything to you? Figures. |
|
|
|
|
[56] Posted by Stan de SD 07-14-2003, 04:52 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
"edward ohare" <edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message news:3f0f1921.5585597@news.alt.net... > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:01:04 GMT, "Stan de SD" > <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >I find in interesting how you have gone to so much work to twist the > >original discussion regarding Wal-Mart and McDonald's - 2 companies that > >have been highly successful by offering people what they want in the > >marketplace - with Enron, a bankrupt organization that needed the strongarm > >support of the Clinton administration and shady accounting practices to keep > >it afloat. > > Gee, Stan, and since in your view liberals are incapable of running a > business, the people doing all these shady things must have been > conservatives. Again, note that the Enrons are the minority of businesses. You're trying to argue that since group A runs businesses, and the majority of those are X, and the minority are Y, the reason the minority are Y are because of group X. Do yourself a favor and take a course in logic before you spin your wheels, OK? |
|
|
|
|
[57] Posted by Stan de SD 07-14-2003, 04:54 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
"edward ohare" <edward_ohare@NOSPAMyahoo.com.INVALID> wrote in message news:3f0f1a64.5908117@news.alt.net... > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:59:25 -0500, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> > wrote: > > >On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:19:27 GMT, "Stan de SD" > ><standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >>So McDonalds is cutting back due to a weak economy. Your > >>point, or did you have one to make? > >> > >Just that McD's is not so successful as you believe. > > > >You know, one of the things that did make Ford successful > >when he began his mass manufacturing was paying his > >workers enough so that they could buy his products. As long > >as the mass retailers think that paying people a non-living > >wage will make them more profitable, that equation is being > >ignored. > > > That may be what they think, but a rational company will pay a wage > high enough to attract and keep workers of the quality they desire. > This is part of McD's problem. They aren't achieving service > standards in part due to employee quality, but also in part due to a > store system inadequate to effectively handle recent product > proliferation. It was easier to have good service when they only had > to cook two sizes of hamburger pattys and got seven product out of > that. > > Back to the wage issue, the problem is lack industrial jobs that would > pay a bit more. Many people will not tolerate they physical > considtions in industrial environments (heat, cold, noise) but many > people currently working in customer service type jobs who are ill > suited for them would both do fine in industrial jobs and would make a > better wage. The effect of that would also be an increase in wages > for low paying service jobs. > > But those industrial jobs went away, mostly in the 80's during the > Reagan administration. The problem was Reagan's trickle down > economics, which gave lots of people extra money, but because Reagan > wanted and got a strong dollar, made US made products uncompetitive. How did Reagan get a strong dollar, considering that the US dollar fell from 270 Japanese yen in 1982 to about 115 in 1988? We actually had a weaker dollar with our major Asian trading partner at the time, which spurred interest in overseas investing in the US. |
|
|
|
|
[58] Posted by Stan de SD 07-14-2003, 04:59 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
"Angel" <thecomputergoddess@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:6UjQa.19288$BM.5614189@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com... > > "Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message > news:cb03hv8da1oc9j5fpcopq7ifpud0eojbrn@4ax.com... > > > > > It's not acceptable offering poor salaries > > Depends on what the worker is worth. Has nothing to do with whether he/she > has a family or not. Skills and experience that result in a worker with good > skills that are needed by the employer are worth more than the guy who > dropped out of high school, has no skills, etc. No skills=low pay. Please understand that Pieter is an example of igorant Euro welfare trash, and comes from a mentality where the State is supposed to guarantee employment, no matter how worthless you are. The fact that the European economy has been in the dumpster for the longest period of time doesn't soak in to people like him, who have been fed the standard socialist spin for their entire lives... |
|
|
|
|
[59] Posted by Angel 07-14-2003, 11:39 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
"Stan de SD" <standesd@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:IYDQa.100740$Io.8682448@newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net... > > "Angel" <thecomputergoddess@coldmail.com> wrote in message > news:6UjQa.19288$BM.5614189@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com... > > > > "Pieter Wenk" <pwenk@urbanet.ch> wrote in message > > news:cb03hv8da1oc9j5fpcopq7ifpud0eojbrn@4ax.com... > > > > > > > > It's not acceptable offering poor salaries > > > > Depends on what the worker is worth. Has nothing to do with whether > he/she > > has a family or not. Skills and experience that result in a worker with > good > > skills that are needed by the employer are worth more than the guy who > > dropped out of high school, has no skills, etc. No skills=low pay. > > Please understand that Pieter is an example of igorant Euro welfare trash, > and comes from a mentality where the State is supposed to guarantee > employment, no matter how worthless you are. The fact that the European > economy has been in the dumpster for the longest period of time doesn't soak > in to people like him, who have been fed the standard socialist spin for > their entire lives... > > I noticed.  Maybe the US should quit sending money, goods, etc. everywhere and then the euro-trash will "get" it a little more quickly. |
|
|
|
|
[60] Posted by Pieter Wenk 07-15-2003, 06:56 PM |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:47:36 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Those now occupied in China :-) > >Again, which jobs are those specifically? There are a couple of sectors >where jobs have been lost, but most of the Chinese jobs are in areas that >Americans haven't participated in for decades. Do you want a list of all american companies having moved their production facilities to China ? They didn't make these moves in order to supply a non existing chineese market...They went there in order to take advantage of low labor costs...And a short look on the US foreign exchange balance which is since ages negative...should also be helpful. As an exemple...what's left of the US textile industrie ? Companies such as Levi-Strauss are they still producing their jeans in your country ? Beside Nike, Reebook...etc. Beside subcontracting agreements >> >> I thought...the very first interest of any politician involved in >> >> government would be...to look for a better living of his people...not >> >> the opposite >> > >> >Unlike Europe, not all of our politicians believe we are so helpless that >we >> >need to be protected against freedom of choice... :O| >> >> It's not a question of freedom of choice > >It never is with liberals, since they are opposed to it. > >> ...The question is *better living conditions*... > >The fact that "better living conditions" occur in nations with freer >economies doesn't suggest anything to you? Figures. I am not against international free trade...but with rules. Obviously this is not exactly the scheme of the so called globalization transforming the *whole world into a Free Zone*. Regards -- Pieter Wenk /CH-1800 Vevey - Rivièra Vaudoise These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people. --Abraham Lincoln, 1837 ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ ºÃ‚°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`à ‚°ÂºÂ¤Ã¸,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º ¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,à¸Ã‚¤ÂºÂ°`°º¤ø, |
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
