clue me in?!?!?!

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by Choco

True, but oyu could still bunt.

love the pig latin.

[Triple_Z]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Answer, Yes it is a bad thing. When corporations use this influence to squeeze every last drop of profit out, at the expense of the American economy. For instance, the mass exodus of jobs out of the US. The creation of a new, poorer class of American, at the burden of the taxpayer, hence the Maryland law against WalMart. The new bankruptcy laws that were made for the credit card companies. Who did it hit the worst? Small business.

Well, let's focus first on "at the expense of the American economy". Being an American manufacturer, I think it's safe to say I fully comprehend the effects of outsourcing. However, does it have its place? Yes. For instance, my company has two plants in Wisconsin and a third in Mexico. Why does the plant exist in Mexico? Because for fully designed/developed product lines, it's cheaper to make the product there. Thus we generate more profits as a result. What do we do in turn? We re-invest those profits domestically to build and develop new products and manufacturing lines. As those matriculate, we move them down to Mexico and the cycle continues. It is also becoming a necessity to outsource. A large portion of our business is automotive-related. Every time GM/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota talks about downsizing or cutbacks, you have to realize that crap rolls down hills. The first people to hear about cost reductions are your Tier 1 suppliers (like me). So, for us, outsourcing becomes a necessity to maintain an economically viable company. Don't like it? Then tell the American consumer not to complain about the high cost of goods. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The American consumer has to realize that in order to fund things like healthcare and pensions, it all comes at a cost. You have to be willing to buy into a system which supports your way of life. Businesses are in business to make profits...PERIOD. They are not there to supply social welfare, etc. That's an added bonus which comes from a successful company. Shoving more regulations down the throats of business makes them even more likely to jump ship. The easiest analogy for starting and running a business is playing the stock market. If the odds aren't good on a product, do you invest in it? Unless you've got money to blow on a long shot, probably not. Business is the same way. If the government is going to tell me when and how much profit I can make, and how I have to run my organization, then I'm either not going to go into business, or I'm not going to do it on these shores...not unless I'm standing to make a gain on my investment.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Trickle down has never produced any benefits. The proponents of it have never produced a strong economy.

Manufacturing companies generally lead recessions. We have for years. The recession which reached it's peak in 2001 (so the numbers say) was experienced by many of us as early as 2000. So, GW inherits a dwindling economy due to a stock bubble...primarily based on companies with estimated worth and not actual value. Anyways, after a few "bad" tax cuts, we see our economy climbing again. Do I think that the tax cuts have helped to spur investment and the growth we're currently seeing? Yes, I do. So yes, I see trickle down being a beneficial economic concept.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

I am also an executive and I find it a little mendacious that you would compare a white collar job to a blue collar job. I work long hours, but I've worked blue collar through college and I don't think my job is anywhere near that stress level. Work at UPS as a loader for one shift and then complain about how hard the job is.

I'm downplaying blue collar jobs? Hell no. And I don't think anything I've said indicates that. For the record, I started as a tool & die maker (machinist basically) back in high school prior to even going to college. I've worked grimier jobs than loading trucks...if you've ever cleaned the sludge from large EDM tanks, we can talk. And to be honest, my job is more stressful now. I'm not worrying about whether or not I took an extra 0.001" off of a bar of stock; now I worry about meeting the boss's productivity goals within the budgeted cost so that I don't have to lay people off. If I make a mistake on a project or machine budget, and the company loses a buttload of $$$, that money has to be regained from somewhere. My point is simple: blue collar or white collar does NOT determine whether or not you are one of the "working men" of the country. If you get up and do your job, you are a working person.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Not to mention that there HAVE to be blue collar workers in any economy. Belittling their value to a healthy economy is not conducive to economic strength. A strong economy is strong on all fronts and levels.

I think my above statement pretty much answers this one. I didn't discriminate between classes, nor do I. My parents didn't grow up wealthy; they were self-made through hard work and education. I believe in the same.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

For all of the people who think welfare is "country clubbing" it, it's not. Most welfare recipients wouldn't choose welfare as a lifestyle.

Never said it was. But I also believe it should be "temporary". While I'm not a Mormon, I think that they do have an interesting concept with regards to work. They insist that everybody does it. There is always something that you can do to benefit society. The blind and handicapped learn to weave brooms. Lowly educated workers can find satisfying work in farming. We have a great local service, Kandu, which is a staffing agency for people with a wide variety of handicaps (mental retardation to name one). While they can't do every task, they are great for basic sorting operations and whatnot. It's organizations like this that prove the worth in people. Temporary relief while you look for a job is one thing. Having multiple children while on the dole, and expecting the government to pick up the tab, is another. If the taxpayers are going to pay for food, housing, healthcare, then there needs to be a return on said investment, namely said person or family returning to be productive people again.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

If gays pay the same amount for benefits, they should enjoy equal footing. What increased healthcare costs are you speaking of?

I think I may not have stated this one clearly, or you took it out of context. Pay for the same benefits, and receive the same, yes. I'm in agreement. It's when you start looking at things like retirement plans, Social Security survivor benefits, and family healthplans (one individual works while the company picks up the tab for family plan) are what I was referring to. Although, as you see an increase in individuals providing for everything beyond single coverage, the family healthcare plan would become a null point. As Social Security will be insolvent in a decade or so, I guess the same goes there. The cost of benefits? I guess that all depends on where insurance companies decide to go. As I said before, I'm up in the air on this one.

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

You make more, you should pay more in taxes. Graduated taxes work fine. I think that a strong economy should work at all levels. My company's profitability is increased when there is more work to do. More spending, healthier lower and middle class consumers mean more profits for my company.

They may, but I tend to look at business and economic models from a "hands-off" concept. Why should I pay more? Because I was more successful? Because maybe I was lucky, or I worked harder? Graduated income taxes goal is the redistribution of wealth. There was an Marilyn vos Savant article years ago comparing the redistribution of wealth to slavery. It's a stretch, but it's an interesting analogy. If you are a proponent of taking from the fortunate to give to others without as much, without requiring said recipients to EARN that gift, then you are in essence making slaves of the people you took the money from (i.e. by forcing them to give up what was rightfully earned by them). Again, social responsibility is an interesting concept, one which has been studied for years. Smith found that when people were not forced to be socially responsible, they generally did humanitarian things. I guess I'm a naive idiot who believes in the generosity of people...in the right situation of couse.

Cheers!

[compscibOii]

Anyone here will just argue after you post the thread - save yourself confusion and arguments along with wasted bandwidth and hard drive space.

ASK

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by Triple_Z

Well, let's focus first on "at the expense of the American economy". Being an American manufacturer, I think it's safe to say I fully comprehend the effects of outsourcing. However, does it have its place? Yes. For instance, my company has two plants in Wisconsin and a third in Mexico. Why does the plant exist in Mexico? Because for fully designed/developed product lines, it's cheaper to make the product there. Thus we generate more profits as a result. What do we do in turn? We re-invest those profits domestically to build and develop new products and manufacturing lines. As those matriculate, we move them down to Mexico and the cycle continues. It is also becoming a necessity to outsource. A large portion of our business is automotive-related. Every time GM/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota talks about downsizing or cutbacks, you have to realize that crap rolls down hills. The first people to hear about cost reductions are your Tier 1 suppliers (like me). So, for us, outsourcing becomes a necessity to maintain an economically viable company. Don't like it? Then tell the American consumer not to complain about the high cost of goods. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The American consumer has to realize that in order to fund things like healthcare and pensions, it all comes at a cost. You have to be willing to buy into a system which supports your way of life. Businesses are in business to make profits...PERIOD. They are not there to supply social welfare, etc. That's an added bonus which comes from a successful company. Shoving more regulations down the throats of business makes them even more likely to jump ship. The easiest analogy for starting and running a business is playing the stock market. If the odds aren't good on a product, do you invest in it? Unless you've got money to blow on a long shot, probably not. Business is the same way. If the government is going to tell me when and how much profit I can make, and how I have to run my organization, then I'm either not going to go into business, or I'm not going to do it on these shores...not unless I'm standing to make a gain on my investment.

I agree that Americans want everything cheap and don't see it's negative effects on the economy.

I also don't believe that an American company wouldn't just outsource anyway to increase profits. In my opinion screwing their client base out of jobs.

Originally Posted by Triple_Z

Manufacturing companies generally lead recessions. We have for years. The recession which reached it's peak in 2001 (so the numbers say) was experienced by many of us as early as 2000. So, GW inherits a dwindling economy due to a stock bubble...primarily based on companies with estimated worth and not actual value. Anyways, after a few "bad" tax cuts, we see our economy climbing again. Do I think that the tax cuts have helped to spur investment and the growth we're currently seeing? Yes, I do. So yes, I see trickle down being a beneficial economic concept.

We can agree to disagree. In my opinion, businesses will generally take the break and use it to bolster profits, not jobs.

After running several studies on headcount and outsourcing, sadly, this is the way it will turn. In my opinion, eventually making our country financially weak, saddled with huge debt and with a larger poor population.

Originally Posted by Triple_Z

I'm downplaying blue collar jobs? Hell no. And I don't think anything I've said indicates that. For the record, I started as a tool & die maker (machinist basically) back in high school prior to even going to college. I've worked grimier jobs than loading trucks...if you've ever cleaned the sludge from large EDM tanks, we can talk. And to be honest, my job is more stressful now. I'm not worrying about whether or not I took an extra 0.001" off of a bar of stock; now I worry about meeting the boss's productivity goals within the budgeted cost so that I don't have to lay people off. If I make a mistake on a project or machine budget, and the company loses a buttload of $$$, that money has to be regained from somewhere. My point is simple: blue collar or white collar does NOT determine whether or not you are one of the "working men" of the country. If you get up and do your job, you are a working person.

In my current role, if I make a mistake, half of the country's stock trades would disappear.

Still beats gray snot and wheezing from box loading.

Originally Posted by Triple_Z

Never said it was. But I also believe it should be "temporary". While I'm not a Mormon, I think that they do have an interesting concept with regards to work. They insist that everybody does it. There is always something that you can do to benefit society. The blind and handicapped learn to weave brooms. Lowly educated workers can find satisfying work in farming. We have a great local service, Kandu, which is a staffing agency for people with a wide variety of handicaps (mental retardation to name one). While they can't do every task, they are great for basic sorting operations and whatnot. It's organizations like this that prove the worth in people. Temporary relief while you look for a job is one thing. Having multiple children while on the dole, and expecting the government to pick up the tab, is another. If the taxpayers are going to pay for food, housing, healthcare, then there needs to be a return on said investment, namely said person or family returning to be productive people again.

Poverty is self perpetuating.

In my opinion we need to stop giving benefits to breeders. That means everyone. No child tax break. If you have a kid, that's your issue.

We also need to invest in communities, not parts of them. Police, job training and bringing jobs to the community that are meaningful and skill producing.

Our school system blows. Since we started all children left behind, we have dropped in the world ranking.

[quote=Triple_Z]I think I may not have stated this one clearly, or you took it out of context. Pay for the same benefits, and receive the same, yes. I'm in agreement. It's when you start looking at things like retirement plans, Social Security survivor benefits, and family healthplans (one individual works while the company picks up the tab for family plan) are what I was referring to. Although, as you see an increase in individuals providing for everything beyond single coverage, the family healthcare plan would become a null point. As Social Security will be insolvent in a decade or so, I guess the same goes there. The cost of benefits? I guess that all depends on where insurance companies decide to go. As I said before, I'm up in the air on this one.[\QUOTE]
Again, just because they are same sex partners, they shouldn't suffer. They pay for benefits, they should be able to choose the beneficiaries.

As far as Soc Sec, in 5 years, we won't have to worry about that anyway.

Originally Posted by Triple_Z

They may, but I tend to look at business and economic models from a "hands-off" concept. Why should I pay more? Because I was more successful? Because maybe I was lucky, or I worked harder? Graduated income taxes goal is the redistribution of wealth. There was an Marilyn vos Savant article years ago comparing the redistribution of wealth to slavery. It's a stretch, but it's an interesting analogy. If you are a proponent of taking from the fortunate to give to others without as much, without requiring said recipients to EARN that gift, then you are in essence making slaves of the people you took the money from (i.e. by forcing them to give up what was rightfully earned by them). Again, social responsibility is an interesting concept, one which has been studied for years. Smith found that when people were not forced to be socially responsible, they generally did humanitarian things. I guess I'm a naive idiot who believes in the generosity of people...in the right situation of couse.

Cheers!

In my opinion, in order to have a strong economy, everyone needs to benefit. Why not taxe a poorer family less? They are still consumers and will put that money back into the economy.

That's just my humble opinion.

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

In order to mantain an economy, in which you use more if you're rich, you should pay more.

You live in a more expensive house, your school districts are better and pay more.

You use more, you pay more.

Excuse me if I am wrong but 10% of 10 million is far more than 10% of 50,000. How is it then, by your logic, that a flat tax isn't logical? The person who makes more and theoretically using more is paying more. Maybe we are just using the same words and understanding them differently, because in my mind a flat tax DOES take less tax dollars from poorer people.

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by Napalm

Excuse me if I am wrong but 10% of 10 million is far more than 10% of 50,000. How is it then, by your logic, that a flat tax isn't logical? The person who makes more and theoretically using more is paying more. Maybe we are just using the same words and understanding them differently, because in my mind a flat tax DOES take less tax dollars from poorer people.

You've heard that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link? In my opinion, that is how an economy works. Poorer people are consumers also. If they have more money, it only benefits the economy. They have more, they spend more.

That's my logic.

[ASCI_Blue]

It would be viable to have things cheap. Or atleast cheap in relative terms if our money was worth something. If the government collapses tomorrow all we're left with is banks full of useless data and paper.

[jim schmidt]

Solly's unbroken record for long-windedness may be in jeopardy.

Kudos to the brave souls who care enough to pick it apart. You've, obviously, got plenty to work with, including the assumption that worker=blue collar and Republican=white collar.

Government that attends to the needs of business (and workers) is good for everyone. Government run by business is good for no one...including business. Just as our system of government relies on checks and balances to preserve liberty, the government should operate as a balancing force to pure capitalism, particularly as it serves to damage the health of the overall economy or the general prosperity of the citizenry.

In a pure capitalist system, the game runs until one person has all the money. This increasing concentration (hoarding?) of wealth ultimately breaks the vigerous trading of goods and services and ruins the economy. If a government is tasked with promoting the larger public good, it must enforce economic policies that foster general prosperity, not those that concentrate wealth.

Bill Clinton understood this, and everyone did well. In fact, the expanding economy is the thing that lowered crime and reduced dependence on welfare, not any get-tough policies. Balance in all things economic. After all, we're a society, not the Animal Farm.