Re: Request to remove Information
Steve Lamb wrote:
Edward J. Shornock wrote:
Thanks to asshat US Corporations like yours, I was out of work for 13
$#@^ing months because my job was shipped to India.
Yes, because making money is such a crime in a free market society. So
much so that when corporations do it it's bad but when individuals do it, it's
good.
Maybe if you started barking up the right tree there'd be some progress.
Here's a hint; *why* are corporations often shipping jobs overseas? Don't say
"cheap labor" and leave it at that.
Well, it's the reason, but not the root cause. IMO, the root cause
is that the entire US economy has been jacked up by minimum wage
laws.
Not too long ago I saw a special done on PBS about "health care
costs" or sth like that. Especially under view were the attempts
by car manufacturers to reduce "health care benefits" for retirees.
One retiree they interviewed was very angry. It turns out that
for 30 years or so he "started" spark plugs into the holes in the
block. It seems that robots don't have the necessary tactile
feedback yet to be able to do this. They can torque them in, but
not start them. When he retired, his yearly wage amounted to
$60,000 USD per year. He felt very entitled to that wage, and also to
his retirement benefits. IMO, that's about $40,000 more than it should
be.
ISTM, that our entire economy has been jacked up about $40,000 per
year, to accomodate. But when countries w/o minimum wage laws which
are similar in size and scope to ours compete openly with us, we
just can't do it. I used to make just over $100,000 USD per year
in telecom. Subtract $40,000 USD from that, and it's similar to
a senior engineer in India. Which is where my job is, now.
So, we either need to lobby for minimum wage laws in other countries
(not a good idea, IMO) or repeal our own laws (far better, I think).
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Reply to: