$7.25 an hour? those guys were really living in luxury What you are saying is your industries can't exist without slave labour. Where I come from we pay our juniors moreQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
$7.25 an hour? those guys were really living in luxury What you are saying is your industries can't exist without slave labour. Where I come from we pay our juniors moreQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Since the increase our "juniors" have gone from an unemployment rate of 15 percent to 25 percent, and over 50 percent for black teens. Like all those unemployed Samoans they can probably buy more things being employed than unemployed.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
By the way, here's some more of that ingenuity, rationing the rich countries, or as they put it, "planned austerity."
By the looks of things the bureaucrats are getting by OK now.Quote:
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.
This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.
Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods
He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.
This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.
Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”
You just don't get it, the way to have a buoyant economy is to pay the kids more, they spend it quickly on consumer goods and the money goes around, so you employ two kids for every adult position and soon there will be less kid unemployment. I don't take much notice of such stories as the samoans, america is noted for exporting its unemploymentQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't get it? Have you ever worked with an American teenager? I can't someone more than what they produce or I go out of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What's wrong with american teenager workers?
nothing... but if you pay them double what the job is worth then there are less job opportunities for them . Businesses do calculate into the equation the cost of labor.
Sorry, I was asking speech.
Are you saying they are worth what you pay them? Or that they aren't even worth what you pay them?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What I'm saying is wages are connected to productivity. If I can pay an experienced guy $12.00 an hour who is more productive than two 16 year olds at $7.25 an hour, which would I choose?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If the wages in Thailand are 10 times less than what I'm mandated to pay, how am I going to compete and keep the same workforce? I'm going to be forced to move production where I can compete or automate... or go out of business.
Now, here's the question, if minimum wages are the answer to poverty, Haiti or Zimbabwe should be able to mandate a living wage and all will be well, right?
Let's not go from the sublime to the ridiculous, you know I am speaking of developed economies. Minimum wages are an answer to poverty in a developed country and we know industries will move off shore in search of low labour cost anyway, but if that were the only part of the equation then Haiti and Zimbabwe would be prosperous. The reality is a developed economy shouldn't be making labour intensive goods, it should concentrate on industries requiring a high level of skill in line with the education of its population.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Minimul wages distort the job market and lead to the employment abuses we have in this country regarding illegal immigration, and employers looking to exploit illegal workers.
No difference Clete, Democrats see the minimum wage as an anti-poverty tool. Chicken of the Sea moving to an automated facility in Georgia resulted in a gain of 200 jobs there, and a loss of 2000 jobs in Samoa. How'd that work out as an anti-poverty tool?
How do republicans see the minimum wage?
Now doubt it did something for the poverty in Georgia, but the reality is that such a move would have had years of planning and had nothing to do with a minimum wage, so using it as an argument against minimum wages is spirious. American companies routinely move the base of operations as a tactic against unionisation and labour costsQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Clete, the increase was passed in 2007. Until then, Samoa was exempted. They've had 3 years to make this move, it wasn't planned, it was forced.
You say they closed in Samoa because of minimum wages then you say Samoa was exempted. Poor argument here, they closed because they planned to close, could be other factors like availability of fish, although how many fish are there in Georgia?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They sold the cannery to a former partner so we will put this one down to a lot of political manoevering
Reread the post Clete, Samoa was exempted UNTIL 2007 when Democrats insisted the minimum wage apply to Samoa. Chicken of the Sea announced they were building a new plant in Georgia and closing the Samoan plant in May, 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
TriMarine did just acquire the COS plant, but do you think they're going to hire 2,000 people? I don't think so. You can argue this was political maneuvering all you want, the result is exactly what I stated - people are out of work because of the minimum wage.
Obama recently exempted Samoa from the wage increase so Chicken of the Sea jumped because it suited them, including some incentives from Georgia so it is all just business. Look, it's sad that an economy like Samoa has to take a set back but they had interests in raising the standards of their people. There are disadvantages to being under american administration. These things have impacts, but if Trimarine sees it as an opportunity it can't all be bad. Realise that those 2000 workers were replaced by a more efficient plant, it happens everyday somewhere, and Trimarine will have the opportunity to restructure, it's business. Not fair, but businessQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Edit: Yes sir, I knew this. If the minimum wage was such a wonderful anti-poverty tool, why did the White House cave?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Keep spinning it however you want, my point remains solid as a rock.Quote:
"We said this increase would be harmful in 2007, and the Democrats did it anyway," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican. "It proves our point that the federal government setting wage rates is destructive to job creation, whether it's in American Samoa or western North Carolina."
Your thesis exists on a false premise. One of the strongest economies in the world exists within the strong control of pay rates through government enforced administration and minimum pay standards. Was there pain in putting it into place? Yes, are there things we don't manufacture anymore? Yes, is unemployment endemic, NO! Contrast this with your own circumstance.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Your problems exist because of porous borders and a slave owing exploitative mentality, not minimum pay standards
Yes, those porous borders of Samoa are a pressing issue. Don't you have your own problems to deal with?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes we have some porous borders in the region of Christmas Island too, but those illegals don't cause employment problems, as to problems, what problems?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The only problems we have with indigenous Australians is how to integrate them into the workforce, most of our unemployment is the long term unemployment associated with people who have opted out. Our society just doesn't have employment for those who's skills are more attuned to the stone age and hunter-gathering. The bleeding hearts overseas don't like to hear of kangaroo and camel culls, which these people could do effectively and it comes with a minimum wage. Doging also pays well. They have free places available in university but how to get them to reach the educational level where they can avail themselves of it is beyond our advanced technology. Fact is my boomerang won't come back! And it is a big problem
SO I tell you what, you solve my problems and I'll solve yours. No Plucking Worries Mate!
Got to love it... it's like that cloud that follows Eyore . Everywhere they attempt to hold one of these climate pow-wows the weather follows them around throwing monkey feces at their logic and rationale.
Gore Effect Strikes Cancun Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
The old previous record low was bested by 4 degrees F .
Here are existing Record Lows and Forecast Lows in upcoming days:
Today: 53 °F (2003)
Forecast: 51°F
Thursday: 60 °F (2000)
Forecast: 59°F
Friday: 60 °F (1999)
Forecast: 55°F
Saturday: 57 °F (2003)
Forecast: 53°F
Sunday: 55 °F (2008)
Forecast: 51°F
Double down on that Tequila! Got to keep warm!
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If I didn't understand science, I'd look around and say they're throwing monkey crap at the logic and rational of the people who say the earth is round.. After all, you can plainly SEE that it's perfectly flat.
excon
Hello again, tom:
Yes, I have more to say...
I understand you object to the idea of man made global warming. I don't know if that belief is inspired by your religious views or your political views. I suppose I could include in that list your views on education, but I can't believe that anybody, in this day and age, totally rejects the field of science. Yet, the essence of your posts appear to do just that...
I wonder what the objective of your position is. I think it boils down to protecting the oil companies AND the way of life they provide... I think you perceive that global warming advocates attack your way of life, and if they prevail, your way of life will DECLINE.
If we weren't running out of oil, I'd agree with you... But, that fact alone means your way of life WILL automatically decline if we don't find a replacement for oil. The left wing isn't responsible for this fact. Al Gore didn't invent that fact. It's just so.
If your objective in this debate is to prevent government from investing into the exploration of THAT replacement, you're hastening the very decline you purport to want to preserve...
If your objective in this debate is to confirm your religious views, then no argument I could make would convince you... If your objective is to indict science, or how science is taught, I don't know how to counter that.. Or maybe you only reject THIS part of science... I don't know. I only know you object.
Please forgive me for putting words into your mouth if I did. But, I really don't know what you have to say about it, except that you object. Help me out here.
excon
Did it ever occure to you that the basis of my objection is that the science itself is flawed and corrupted... that in fact it is this consensus thinking by the leading climatologists that more resembles a religious view than my scepticism ?
That the most probable reason for this consensus thinking is because the scientist are supporting the views of those who butter their bread ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It DID occur to me tom. That's why I included an indictment of science itself in the list... You confirmed it...
We disagree. Oh, I don't disagree that SOME scientists misrepresent science in order to pad their own pockets... The lying SOB scientists who worked for the tobacco companies come to mind.
And, I don't disagree that science makes mistakes...
But, to say that a world wide CONSENSUS of scientists willingly CORRUPT their science because of their benefactors, strains the bounds of credulity. It's an indictment of the entire FIELD of science... I just don't believe that a WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS of scientists are going to prostitute their life's work. I just don't believe it. You DO understand, that science is ABOUT the pursuit of truth. THAT is their product. It's the ONLY thing they make. Otherwise, they're just PR hacks.
Which brings me to my other question... WHERE did you learn to distrust science? My bet it was in church. Certainly, they don't teach that in school... Besides, if you DON'T trust a CONSENSUS on science, on what do you rely when you take a pill or fly in an airplane?
excon
Scepticism is the very foundation of science. I learned that in science classes I've taken through college. My church does not teach a divide between science and religion. It occures to me that often it is the opposite... that it is certain scientists that are intolerant to religion. Oh yes I agree it is reciprocal with some religions ,but not mine.
But back to climate science. You may not have noticed;but the link I posted is from a former NASA PHD climatologist who is also a skeptic of AGW. Certainly you are not saying his observations are clouded in anti-science prejudices ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Please... I bring a WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS. You bring ONE guy.
excon
It would be too time consuming to list the scientists who are skeptics... Suffice it to say that momentum is moving in their favor . The legitimate science just doesn't support the consensus ;and the consensus scientists ,led by the Goracle ,have failed at their Torquemada-like purges and demonization of anyone opposed to them .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm just asking questions here...
excon
I didn't say you .I said "consensus scientists" (which could be the oxymoron of the year)
I wonder if they even read any of this stuff??
Earth may be entering a new Ice Age
Science: Another Ice Age? - TIME
"Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns
Real scientists' real fear: the coming ice age
Here you go, Ex, All you need to know about Mann-made global warming in one poster.
SO Ex you idea is that the majority is always right? I expect you are somewhat miffed that the majority has spoken in favour of not supporting your political views.
You have tangled up your myths and you are in favour of economic collapse just so we can solve some mythical problems, Peak oil, if it exists, will be with us soon enough and solutions will emerge even if that includes the use of existing technology such as the bicycle and eating what is produced locally. Climate changes, did the Romans worry about why it was hotter, no they got on with conquering the world, so did Ghengis Khan, but we have developed the chicken little ideas of the Chinese and want to build barriers to our problems, to overcome the invading CO2. Our economies should not be turned over to solving problems we cannot surmount but dealing with real issues.
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Well, ONE of us is tangled up. We're running out of oil You're not sure. I want to do something to AVOID the surprise you seem willing to endure... If you want to see a collapse, do NOTHING.
excon
Ah ex, you rithe from one myth to another. We are running out of oil, not because it doesn't exist in abundance, but because we restrict our access to it to placate those same people who would have us decimate our economies trying to prevent something which even if we stopped burning fossil fuels right now, would, they tell us, continue for a hundred years.
We have listened to the myths and every time they revise their opinion, please note I said opinion, the calamity they predicted previously has somehow been miraculously averted, not because of timely action, but because of inaccurate data and modelling which rendered their hypothesis as myth.
True science relies on proven data and reliable testing of hypothesis, but what we have here is the pseudo science of the environmental lobby. Now the data in my possession tells me that what we are trying to overcome is short term natural trend. Has the link between temperate rise and CO2 been conclusively proven by correlation. Ie; more CO2, more temperature. No! It hasn't excepting in a laboratory. The reason is that there are in nature as there are in life, mitigating factors that cannot be predicted.
I have more concern regarding the effect of supervolcanoes and plate tectonics than I have on the effect of CO2 induced climate change. I have seen the predictions for North America, why waste your time trying to control the weather?
Actually yes it has been proven. And it was part of the model that the scientists used. But in this case it was a runaway situation. The so called greenhouse effect is attributed to not this planet but to Venus. And that along with the data and theory from a scientist in the late 50's is where all this began. But at that time it was put out there to avoid an ice age (go figure). It was proposed that to increase the levels of CO2 gases could prevent us from having one. I remember from my childhood being told of a coming iceage.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So what I want to know is when is Goldielocks going to come along and tell us things are just right?
Now Cal you know that is in noone's interest to do that. Without a crisis it isn't possible to get anything done.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
It is quite possible that we will have another iceage when the great conveyor shuts down because of Global Warming. Oh wait! Report just in, that's not going to happen. Shucks! Another crisis averted.
Do you know why we haven't got this thing licked? We haven't declared a war on climate change. We must employ the ultimate solution immediately. Ridiculous isn't it? But in fact that is the proposal before us.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:40 PM. |