Just when you thought Circuit City couldn't get any worse...

Chato · Mar 31, 2007

Marty4650 said:
Chato said:

The top ten percent of people paying taxes make as much money as
all the rest of us combined. And talking about dates, this
percentage hasen't been seen since 1929.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this is why they pay most of the taxes. In fact, that 10%
who owns 51% actually pay 75% of all taxes. Seems pretty unfair,
doesn't it?

Yes, they are getting screwed. And the government does NOTHING for them at all. All it does is provide them with the infrastructure they need, the workers that they need, the police and military that they need, and other assorted benefits that amount to virtually nothing.

Marty4650 said:
Marty4650 said:

ONE PERCENT of the population owns the same amount of "wealth" as
all the rest of us combined.

Click to expand...

This is patently absurd. Since you keep saying you are quoting
facts, please provide a real source for this statistic, that you
most likely just made up.

I'm certainly not going to bust my hump for you and your rather 19th century ideas...

But mind you I said WEALTH and not income...

The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).

One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993).

The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all stock in 1997...
The top ten percent of households owned 82 percent of all stock-market wealth...
Only 27 percent of households held more than $10,000 in stock in 1997...
57 percent of Americans didn't own any stock at all...

The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent....

Since 1973, every group in society except the top 20 percent has seen its share of the national income decline, with the bottom 20 percent losing the most. They have just 3.6 percent of national income, down from 4.4 percent a quarter century ago.
Indeed, the top fifth now makes more than the rest of the nation combined...

Rebecca Blank, who recently left the President's Council of Economic Advisors, pointed out, ‘We've gone back to levels of income and wealth inequality that this country hasn't seen since the teens and 1920s.’" (Source: Merrill Goozner, Crash of '99?, Salon.com, Oct. 1, 1999).

http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

Marty4650 said:
Marty4650 said:

In wealthy countries like ours, you have a condition called
"poverty fat." Where balanced meals are too expensive, people load
up on cheap and filling foods. Yes, in Somalia they don't have
access to ANY food - while here you can get a high calory food
cheaply, no matter how unhealthy it is.

Click to expand...

OK... I think I see how this works now. If the poor are too thin,
then it's our fault. If they are too fat, then it's our fault too.

"Our fault." Did I say "our fault?

Marty4650 said:
The global standard for poverty is "malnourished, barefoot, and
living in in a mud hut," but in the USA a poor person can be obese,
have a cell phone, and wear $100 Nikes. Because relatively speaking
he is POORER than the others. Because the rest are SO PROSPEROUS.
There will always be relatively poorer people unless we just divide
everything up evenly.

Actually my argument basically consists of paying everyone who is READY to work a living wage. Beest welfare program that anyone could devise...

Marty4650 said:
And then we must do it again each month to
maintain parity,

(snip)

You keep putting words into my mouth - Thank you. But I;m not made of straw, I can make my own points.

Marty4650 said:
Marty4650 said:

Home ownership is marginally higher then it was in 1965 - 61
percent compared to 68 percent.

Click to expand...

(snip)

Marty4650 said:
First of all..... an increase from 61% to 68% is hardly "marginal."
That's a 12% increase.

Yes, it's more than marginal. On the other hand it's not "great" when you consider 51 years have passed.

Marty4650 said:
Surely you must understand that there is a
number of younger urban unmarried people who DON'T WANT to own
homes.

BS.

(snip)

Marty4650 said:
The decision to NOT OWN is
frequently a CONSCIOUS CHOICE, not the result of "bad economic
conditions."

Of course it's a consious choice. We can't afford it.

I note that you made no comment on rents doubling in 18 years, but emphasided housing ownership increasing over 51 years...

Dave

Marty4650 said:
--
Marty
Panasonic FZ20, Panasonic FZ7, Olympus C7000

Chato · Mar 31, 2007

asiseeit wrote:

asiseeit said:
Just exquisite pictures of the Herons. Like them both but keep
going back to the second one; a real winner. Much better than my
snapshots. You could be really dangerous if you got out to where
the deer and the antelope play. Come to CT. We have skunk,
possum,raccoon, deer, coyote and even the occasional mountain lion.

Thanks again RIchard. But you have never seen the Brooklyn Bunny.

Here is an Eastern Cottontail, isolated from other Bunnies for about 150 years. From an evolutionary point of view they have every incentive to grow larger. Their only signifigant predators are hawks, feral dogs are not very good at catching them, and very rare anyway.

I've often seen them and thought nothing about it until MY dog spooked one, and it headed into the briar patch - And BOUNCED. It was too big to fit. It was then that I realised that THIS Bunny was twice the size of those I'm acustomed to seeing.

How could I possibly leave Brooklyn, with all these mysteries to solve?

Dave

asiseeit · Mar 31, 2007

Ryan McDaniel said:
asiseeit said:

Your college educated friends surely are smart enough to learn
something other than fast food.

Click to expand...

They already know something other than fast food...but it's flooded
with foreign workers.

Are they supposed to buy another college education, this time over
5-6 years at night, in the hopes corporate America won't make that
one worthless as well?

Ryan McDaniel said:

Labor after all is subject to
supply and demand like everything else. Check out what an
electrician, plumber, carpenter or even what a good car mechanic
can make. Anything other than shuffling paper.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with you that some of the fields you mentioned are doing
a lot better because of the housing market. But how long will the
housing market stay up when more and more Americans can't buy a
home? Jobs like carpenter and electrician are VERY sensitive to
fluctuations, believe me. When I see a friend with a college degree
work 50-60 hours a week and have to tell his wife they simply
cannot afford anything other than the tiny condo they're in, and
she works to, I don't have high hopes for the future of housing in
America.

How many homes during the last boom were financed with interest
only loans? How many are now going bust? I seem to recall reading a
week or two ago that we had the highest foreclosure rate in years.
Existing home sales are up, new home sales down. You don't need a
carpenter to build an existing home lost because another American
lost his job.

3,400 CC sales associates. How many are married and, with a
combined income, managed to buy a home recently, right at the edge
of their income? How many will now let it go into foreclosure?

What goes around....

Ryan McDaniel said:

The man who fixes my car has a nice boat, a stock portfolio, nice
home, and 4 or 5 classic cars restored by himself. He works with
one helper.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are always examples of people who are doing well, even
during the Great Depression. That doesn't in any way invalidate the
examples of people doing poorly.

Ryan McDaniel said:

Contrary to your opinion of business executives the ones I have
met(and I have met many) have for the most part been very talented
people and it is obvious why they hold their positions.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about small business, I'll agree with you. But
corporate? All the ones I've met have been complete morons. It
always reminds me of Dilbert: "I admire your ability to get paid
for this."

I worked at a small business where everyone loved the founder. He
sold out to a corporation. That corporation came in with great
promises, but within 6 months was dismantling the place. They had a
meeting where the CEO and CFO flat out lied to me and my coworkers
about the state of things. Their goal in buying out the business I
worked for was always and only to make their bottom line look
better on paper. It was always an illusion.

Before the buy out people felt secure and took pride in their work.
After, most ran or were laid off, those that stayed became
depressed.

We should import management and executives from India, they can't
possibly be bigger jerks than the home grown American variety.

Ryan McDaniel said:

You hear
about the few crooks . I sure prefer them to politicians running
our corporations as they would under a socialist dreamworld.

Click to expand...

I have no great faith in politicians either, in fact half my
complaints regrading the fracturing of the economy are directed
right at them. I'm tired of "me, me, me" crooks and people PERIOD.

Maybe the problem stems from having corporations in the first
place. And by corporation I don't mean a big company, I mean a big
company owned/controlled by people who care nothing about it or its
products. Some how I doubt a business controlled by one man or a
family would have done what CC did.

Ryan McDaniel said:

Be careful about wishing for the return of factories, you just
might get it.

Click to expand...

It's not just factories. I consider corporate America a dead end
joke for all "producers". Only a rear kissing manager willing to
hurt other people and commit what I would call fraud and destroy
the company has any future there.

Strangely enough I find myself agreeing with you while dis-agreeing. I think what this country needs is more of your sense of ethics. It saddens me to read of your dis-illusion with our system. Please bear in mind that this age has no monopoly on thieves and crooks. Like the poor they will always be with us and always have been. This is a big country and small town America is still huge. It's a place where the verities that made the country great can still be found. It's a place that needs and welcomes people with your values. Willie Sutton said that he robbed banks because that was where the money was. You and your friends should go where your values are to be found. There is more opportunity today than ever before. I live in rural CT, the cradle along with MASS of our industrial revolution. Things have changed greatly since then but values hardly at all.

Best wishes
Richard

asiseeit · Mar 31, 2007

I have heard of a bunny like that. I think his name was Harvey. They even did a stage play and movie about him. Trouble was only Jimmie Stewart in the movie could see him and Harvey was 6 ft. tall. If your bunny seems to get bigger every time you see him and especially if he talks to you then I think the prudent thing to do is to seek counseling.

LongTimeNikonUser · Mar 31, 2007

wowlfie said:
Basically this is age discrimination since in general the top
paying workers are the most 'senior'.

And therefore probably illegal. If the Democrats were in power, by now the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission would be starting an investigation. As things stand in Washington, Circuit City gets a free pass. Why stop with the execs. Probably the whole damn board should be fired, for allowing the management to basically drive the company into the ground.

wowlfie said:
Why not fire the CEO who let the workers down with bad management
and take back all the Stock options they gave him.

And the top 1000 managers under him.

Absolutely! I only wished that I already shopped at Circuit City, so I could now take my business elsewhere. But I do all my photo shopping at either B&H or my local place, Keeble and Shuchat. Electronics, either Frys (ugh!) or believe it or not, Sears.

I buy some stuff from the local Best Buy, which is no great shakes either.

--
LongTimeNikonUser

austinphotog · Mar 31, 2007

Chato said:
austinphotog said:

I agree, clinton and the republican congress pushed it through.

And unemployment went way up and real wages dropped like a rock
like ross perot said......

Click to expand...

Corporate profits are at an all time high, real wages have dropped,
the standard of living has fallen...

I'm not sure how you measure real wages. But there are two major ways that I see it measured: per capita income adjusted for inflation by the cpi. Or average wages per 30+ hour a week worker over age 20 adjusted for inflation by the cpi. Both of these increased between 1994 and today. Tell me how you measure it and look it up. Then tell me how they have dropped. I'm sure there must be some way you can cut it, Like unskilled white men over 50 where wages have gone down (don't know), but then again if I don't know your measure I can't see your numbers.

Here is a quick easy to find graph.

Again, by all of the normal standards average standard of living has increased since 1994. Please show me your standards and the numbers. If your argument is that the amount of stuff you have doesn't translate to your happiness, I would agree. But americans have more stuff then they did

Chato said:
Emploment? Well both political parties have been changing the
standards for years. If you work one day a month you are
"employed." Used to be one day a week, and before that, you
actually had to have a regular job to be counted as employed.

Recently a large company offered a few hundred positions at $11 an
hour. They had ten thousand applicants. Used to be that the New
York Times had a job hunting section of 50 pages, it's now down to
a few...

The last major change to unemployment counting happened in 1994, the year that nafta was ratified. Unemployment in 1994 was 6.1%, in febuary it was 4.5%. Since 1994 21 million jobs have been created.

Here is a quick easy to find graph.

Chato said:
Chato said:

Well it makes a good story, but unemployment went down and real
wages increased in that period of time. I'm not saying it was
nafta, that increased employment, but I don't see any evidence that
it caused a recession or lower wages. We are in a global economy
after all.

Click to expand...

I don't see this great boom that you are postulating. I see that
good paying industrial jobs have shrunk to 17 million out of a work
force of over a hundred million.

Yes I think I read quotes from Jimmy Carter saying this would lead to a lower standard of living. I'm younger than you and I'm sure I can learn things from you. But my father taught me at a very young age that Life isn't fair. And he is right. You should have learned this by now. The industrial age is over. Job and wealth creation are no longer tied to number of industrial laborers. Its the information age. I am sorry if this sounds insulting, but manfacturing productiving has greatly increased in the US so the same output requires fewer people. Where productivity has not increased other countries are now making these goods. If a job was lost to mexico in 1996, what are the chance that it would not have been lost anyway to China, Korea, etc by 2007. There are winers and loser. If you make sure that those in old inefficient industries keep their jobs, then you stop other jobs from being created. These experiments have been done by various govenments, so there is much historical information.

Chato said:
Chato said:

And Nafta let some mexican or canadian chain store out compete
circuit city? Take a reality check. Its competition from the
internet and other AMERICAN chains. As these big box stores are
national and not interested in their employees should it suprise
you that they fired a group to decrease costs. They are not hiring
mexican citizens. Who is responsable for the low wages. Its the
people shopping at these places instead of local businesses. At
least watch some southpark or utube to get a pulse on the problem.
Clinton, Bush, etc had nothing to do with this. Its the consumers
and congress.

Click to expand...

It's Congress AND the Presidents (over the last fifty years) that
turned the living wage that was the minimum wage into a joke, where
even the skin flints pay more than minimum...

I believe the government that governs least governs best. But I agree that that certain labor needs to be protected since they do not have the power to negotiate. So a minimal level of regulation is need. But the cost of living varies a great deal from area to area. I would like states to regulate this. But there is little chance that they do. My friends that are teachers have to supplement their incomes with second jobs. A friend that works for the state, had to get a masters degree to get a second job. I still trust the free market more than the federal government. Look at the lobbies that have kept a new miniumn wage law from being passed. When they raised the minimum wage the last time there was no discernable increase in unemployment. I'm sure there would be at your $12 per hour, but the minimum wage is so low currently that few work at that rate.

Chato · Mar 31, 2007

austinphotog wrote:
(snip)

austinphotog said:
I'm not sure how you measure real wages. But there are two major
ways that I see it measured: per capita income adjusted for
inflation by the cpi. Or average wages per 30+ hour a week worker
over age 20 adjusted for inflation by the cpi. Both of these
increased between 1994 and today. Tell me how you measure it and
look it up. Then tell me how they have dropped. I'm sure there
must be some way you can cut it, Like unskilled white men over 50
where wages have gone down (don't know), but then again if I don't
know your measure I can't see your numbers.

In 1950, you were unemployed if you didn't have a job. The two parties, in a silent and mutually beneficial agreement, have changed the criteria. For a while, you were considered employed if you worked one day a week. Now you are consided employed if you work one day a month. If you are not "actively looking for work" (whatever that means), you are simply NOT counted.
(snip)

Better check with the Labor Deepartment of the US Government. According to THEM (and I don't think that they are exagerating) the average worker has seen their standard of living fall by 3 percent since (if I recall) 1978

austinphotog said:
The last major change to unemployment counting happened in 1994,
the year that nafta was ratified. Unemployment in 1994 was 6.1%,
in febuary it was 4.5%. Since 1994 21 million jobs have been
created.

That's odd. My numbeers show that under the eight years of the Clinton administration, 24 million jobs were created. Under Bush, (and here my numbers are less accurate) there has been a net growth of a few million. Four? Three? I forget, but in his first years, there was a net loss.

So explain to me why unemployment had gone DOWN, when the numbers of new jobs since Jan 2001, has not even kept up with new workers entering the work force.

(snip)

austinphotog said:
austinphotog said:

I don't see this great boom that you are postulating. I see that
good paying industrial jobs have shrunk to 17 million out of a work
force of over a hundred million.

Click to expand...

austinphotog said:
Yes I think I read quotes from Jimmy Carter saying this would lead
to a lower standard of living. I'm younger than you and I'm sure I
can learn things from you.

WTF does this above mean? How about I break into your house and steal eveything you own and kill you, and then using my superior cooking techniques, eat you as well.

Life isn't fair?

Tough! I can kick the cr@p out of most people. Does that mean I should do it?

austinphotog said:
Job and wealth
creation are no longer tied to number of industrial laborers.

I never said it was.

austinphotog said:
the information age.

Nonsense. It was American money invested in OTHER countries that made our steel industry obsolete. If the same money had been invested HERE, it would have meant a loss of jobs, but the steel industry would STILL be employing half a million people. The reality was the the WTO allowed corporations to get CHEAP labor and improve their bottom line at the expense of OUR bottom line.

austinphotog said:
Where productivity has not
increased other countries are now making these goods.

(snip)

Do Nations have National interrests? And if they do, should I not FIGHT for the national interests of MY country as opposed to Corporate interests?

Or are you saying, "CEO's of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but the cost of labor?"

austinphotog said:
austinphotog said:

austinphotog said:

And Nafta let some mexican or canadian chain store out compete
circuit city? Take a reality check. Its competition from the
internet and other AMERICAN chains.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

(snip)

This question was trashed out by Roosevelt along long time ago. Companies in order to compete, MUST regard the compitition. If company A can cut wages, then company B, no matter what they WANT to do, MUST cut wagees as well, or GO OUT OF BUISNESS.

So by mandating a minimum wage, that was ALSO a living wage, companiees would be forced to compete by other means than cutting the cost of labor. In other words, a level playing field.

austinphotog said:
austinphotog said:

It's Congress AND the Presidents (over the last fifty years) that
turned the living wage that was the minimum wage into a joke, where
even the skin flints pay more than minimum...

Click to expand...

austinphotog said:
I believe the government that governs least governs best. But I
agree that that certain labor needs to be protected since they do
not have the power to negotiate. So a minimal level of regulation
is need. But the cost of living varies a great deal from area to
area. I would like states to regulate this. But there is little
chance that they do. My friends that are teachers have to
supplement their incomes with second jobs. A friend that works for
the state, had to get a masters degree to get a second job. I still
trust the free market more than the federal government. Look at
the lobbies that have kept a new miniumn wage law from being
passed. When they raised the minimum wage the last time there was
no discernable increase in unemployment. I'm sure there would be
at your $12 per hour, but the minimum wage is so low currently that
few work at that rate.

About a million workers are covered by the minimum wage laws. It's irrelevant, an SNL skit.

What the hell happened to basic humanity?

What the hell is WRONG with a minimum wage that people can actually LIVE ON.

What a "radical concept."

You work, and you survive.

$12 an hour? I make almost three times that amount. And certainly, I'm not even remotely rich. My standard of living has NOT gone up.

WTF is wrong with you people? I mean that. What the hell is going on here?

What is wrong with a simple, indeed a very simple idea, that people should be able to survive if they work hard and honestly?

What is wrong with the idea that Capital, that was created off of American Labor, should be re-invested in America?

Global economy my A$$. This is a Corporate economy where EVERYONE but the corporations are the losers.

Dave

dipics · Mar 31, 2007

chato said:
Well. I'm part of a MUCH bigger movement. The Zen, Socialist, > Democratic, Libertarian movement. I can tell people like you that I > belong to the NRA, and people like Ed, to the Green Party...

I'm a member of both the NRA and the ACLU. Does that count?

Chato said:
I worked for the same company for 25 years. I was their top mechanic. > Family run business, and beleive it or not, I loved these people. They > sod to a larger outfit, and that's when I decided to take my savings and > go into the wildlife photography buisness.
I know this oil buisness well...

I know AN oil business fairly well. Not this end of it though.

Chato said:
National Sovereignty. Hmm, you and I have totally different
opinions on this. Treaties are negotiated by the Executive branch
and then ratified by the Senate. That is how the law of the land
of our sovereign land is set up. Over the years we have moved from
tougher restrictions on trade to looser ones fairly often. Each
time this happened by the actions of the legal government which was
driven by different interest groups. The situation today is no
different.

Chato said:
Our laws are subject to the rules of the WTO. Who makes these rules? > Unelected Corporate hacks, who meet in secret, decide in secret, and > our law - OUR LAWS, the laws of the United States, are now invalid > because of THEIR decisions. WTF is this?

Chato said:
Come on Dpics. This is surrendering soverignty in a nightmare scenario. > How many Americans realise this? And if Americans did realise it, how > many would put up with it? It's one of the reasons that I just can't > stand Clinton.

Our laws have ALWAYS been subject to treaty agreements with other nations or groups of nations. Often these treaties, especially the ones involving trade, are manipulated by special interests in the countries involved. How do you think this has changed? Just because you don't like the treaties involved?

Chato said:
Words, rhetoric aside, we have surrendered our National Soverignty to a > bunch of corporate hacks. I am Outraged. I truly am.

Surrendered? Please. By your definition, we never had National Sovereignty. Our laws have ALWAYS been subject to treaties.

Chato said:
Heck, I just gave you an example. They never suspected that this > would occur. Why should they? You do business for fifty years, you pay > your bills like a religious fanatic, and one day your supplier says, "ten days > credit."

Chato said:
And you go to the other suppliers, and you get the same answer, "ten > days credit."
Then what? Make your own oil?

Chato said:
I don't know about the whole country, but what I describe, covers the > entire North East.

Ok, I really don't need to know exactly where it was. I was going to give some examples why the company involved DID play a hand in their demise. Here are a few questions for you to show why this is true.

1) Are there companies still there doing what this company did? If some survived, then the ones that didn't weren't running their companies as well as the ones that survived.

2) After 5 decades in business, why didn't they have enough saved to handle a credit format change? We are talking a couple months operating expenses. If they relied on this credit THAT much after THAT long, then this was a serious warning sign. They should have changed their business model before it happened.

I don't mean to denigrate your friends. Some people have struggling businesses that go under when things change. But, healthy businesses seldom do.

DIPics

dipics · Mar 31, 2007

LongTimeNikonUser said:
wowlfie said:

Basically this is age discrimination since in general the top
paying workers are the most 'senior'.

Click to expand...

And therefore probably illegal. If the Democrats were in power, by
now the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission would be starting
an investigation. As things stand in Washington, Circuit City gets
a free pass. Why stop with the execs. Probably the whole damn
board should be fired, for allowing the management to basically
drive the company into the ground.

It's only illegal if you can show that their age is the reason they were fired. Not their seniority, their age.

LongTimeNikonUser said:
LongTimeNikonUser said:

Why not fire the CEO who let the workers down with bad management
and take back all the Stock options they gave him.

And the top 1000 managers under him.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I only wished that I already shopped at Circuit City,
so I could now take my business elsewhere. But I do all my photo
shopping at either B&H or my local place, Keeble and Shuchat.
Electronics, either Frys (ugh!) or believe it or not, Sears.

I buy some stuff from the local Best Buy, which is no great shakes
either.

I think that likely both the CEO and the ranking employees should have been fired. I've been in Circuit City, not that long ago. I wasn't impressed. Honestly I didn't see a single clerk (they aren't salesmen) that was worth over $9 per hour. I don't care how long they were there.

DIPics

dipics · Mar 31, 2007

Chato said:
One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock
and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology
of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York:
HarperBusiness, 1993).

The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all
stock in 1997...

Ok, I just have to ask, do you actually read this stuff before you hit "post"? By your own figures, the percentage of stocks that the top 1% own decreased by 18 percent in only four years.

This is GREAT news! The lower income people are getting a clue. Or it is almost being forced on them through 401K's etc.

DIPics

austinphotog · Mar 31, 2007

Chato said:
Better check with the Labor Deepartment of the US Government.
According to THEM (and I don't think that they are exagerating) the
average worker has seen their standard of living fall by 3 percent
since (if I recall) 1978

Chato said:
Chato said:

Yes I think I read quotes from Jimmy Carter saying this would lead
to a lower standard of living. I'm younger than you and I'm sure I
can learn things from you.

Click to expand...

WTF does this above mean? How about I break into your house and
steal eveything you own and kill you, and then using my superior
cooking techniques, eat you as well.

No, it means that this idea is outdated. Look at the current statistics. What is the standard of living in the places that the manufacturing jobs went? What happed to the companies that did not increase producivity?

Chato said:
Life isn't fair?

Tough! I can kick the cr@p out of most people. Does that mean I
should do it?

Of course not. But if you try to protect a chosen few, normally it causes others to suffer. This is why protectionism does not work. Anyway to your point. If you beat up someone smaller than you, you lose honor. If you lose you look like an idot. Besides what if he has a gun

(snip)

Chato said:
Chato said:

Where productivity has not
increased other countries are now making these goods.

Click to expand...

(snip)

Do Nations have National interrests? And if they do, should I not
FIGHT for the national interests of MY country as opposed to
Corporate interests?

Or are you saying, "CEO's of the world unite, you have nothing to
lose but the cost of labor?"

That is not what I said. I said that there should be fair trade, and if america is not competitive it should use its resources in something it does better.

Chato said:
(snip)

This question was trashed out by Roosevelt along long time ago.
Companies in order to compete, MUST regard the compitition. If
company A can cut wages, then company B, no matter what they WANT
to do, MUST cut wagees as well, or GO OUT OF BUISNESS.

Or post Roosevelt, they must find a way to increase productivity or value of the product or service.
(snip)

Chato said:
So by mandating a minimum wage, that was ALSO a living wage,
companiees would be forced to compete by other means than cutting
the cost of labor. In other words, a level playing field.

Chato said:

Chato said:

It's Congress AND the Presidents (over the last fifty years) that
turned the living wage that was the minimum wage into a joke, where
even the skin flints pay more than minimum...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

that is because they have to . Walmart pays minimum wage. The way to combat this is to not shop there, or circuit city, or the other stores that destroy local businesses that pay a living wage.
(snip)
When they raised the minimum wage the last time there was

Chato said:
Chato said:

no discernable increase in unemployment. I'm sure there would be
at your $12 per hour, but the minimum wage is so low currently that
few work at that rate.

Click to expand...

About a million workers are covered by the minimum wage laws. It's
irrelevant, an SNL skit.

If you read what I wrote you would have noticed I agreed that it should be raised. I just thought your value was too high. I don't think it matters what you make when we set the minimum wage.

Chato said:
What the hell happened to basic humanity?

What the hell is WRONG with a minimum wage that people can actually
LIVE ON.

What a "radical concept."

You work, and you survive.

$12 an hour? I make almost three times that amount. And certainly,
I'm not even remotely rich. My standard of living has NOT gone up.

WTF is wrong with you people? I mean that. What the hell is going
on here?

basketball is over. time for me to go out and support local live music and bars.

austinphotog · Mar 31, 2007

Chato said:
Chato said:

I'm not sure how you measure real wages. But there are two major
ways that I see it measured: per capita income adjusted for
inflation by the cpi. Or average wages per 30+ hour a week worker
over age 20 adjusted for inflation by the cpi. Both of these
increased between 1994 and today. Tell me how you measure it and
look it up. Then tell me how they have dropped. I'm sure there
must be some way you can cut it, Like unskilled white men over 50
where wages have gone down (don't know), but then again if I don't
know your measure I can't see your numbers.

Click to expand...

In 1950, you were unemployed if you didn't have a job. The two
parties, in a silent and mutually beneficial agreement, have
changed the criteria. For a while, you were considered employed if
you worked one day a week. Now you are consided employed if you
work one day a month. If you are not "actively looking for work"
(whatever that means), you are simply NOT counted.
(snip)

Better check with the Labor Deepartment of the US Government.
According to THEM (and I don't think that they are exagerating) the
average worker has seen their standard of living fall by 3 percent
since (if I recall) 1978

Don't have time to look it up, but I can believe that real wages are down compared to 1978. I was comparing to 1994 when nafta went into effect.

Chato said:
Chato said:

The last major change to unemployment counting happened in 1994,
the year that nafta was ratified. Unemployment in 1994 was 6.1%,
in febuary it was 4.5%. Since 1994 21 million jobs have been
created.

Click to expand...

That's odd. My numbeers show that under the eight years of the
Clinton administration, 24 million jobs were created. Under Bush,
(and here my numbers are less accurate) there has been a net growth
of a few million. Four? Three? I forget, but in his first years,
there was a net loss.

So explain to me why unemployment had gone DOWN, when the numbers
of new jobs since Jan 2001, has not even kept up with new workers
entering the work force.

Under clinton 18,346,000 were created, under bush 8,498,000 were created. This is accouding to the bls. You can just look on teir website. You are correct that the unemployment rate has gone up under bush. I never said otherwise. My numbers posted was from 1994 until feb 2007.

JRP64 · Mar 31, 2007

Not judging Circuit City sales staff themselves, this is not uncommon firing people who been working for a long time and hiring people at a cheaper wage. I work for an automotive paint manufacturer and they have been doing this ever since I've been there (will be 17 years if they don't let me go) and they think nothing of it. When it comes to review time it's almost a blessing that they don't give you a big raise for if they did they'll probably let you go in a couple of months for making too much money. Where I work they get around the legal issue by hiring a person not for the exact job that the previous person was doing, but by adding or subtracting (usually adding) job responsibilities to that job and giving it a different job title.

Voyager13b · Mar 31, 2007

I thought it was Stalinist loser democrats who caused the trouble, not Republicans. Someone has to go in order to make employment room for all those illegal aliens when they are granted amnesty. Why not Circuit City staff who earn too much? Maybe they can get a job in Mexico.... By the way, your blessed unions only want membership in high numbers to keep the dues rollong in. You are expendable. Then again, you seem to be a democrat, so you should be used to being used.

wowlfie said:
That's what happens when republicans and big business rule the roost.

Everyone asked for it.

In 10 years, everyone will be working less than 40 hrs for near
minimum wages and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
something thats been going on for years and years now and why were
headed for big big trouble in this country.

Unions have a purpose and that's to stop this kind of BS.

Basically this is age discrimination since in general the top
paying workers are the most 'senior'.

Why not fire the CEO who let the workers down with bad management
and take back all the Stock options they gave him.

And the top 1000 managers under him.

--
Voyager

Chato · Apr 1, 2007

dipics wrote:
(snip)

dipics said:
Surrendered? Please. By your definition, we never had National
Sovereignty. Our laws have ALWAYS been subject to treaties.

We have never signed a trade agreement whereby we allowed that agreement to overide our laws.

Never.

Agreements may have made existing law obsolete or irrelevant.

Off hand I can't think of examples. I'm sure you can supply them.

But we have never signed an agreement where by an unelected body meeting in secret can veto or prevent our own legislative bodies from enforcing exisiting law. Never.

Labor laws, envionmental laws, etc, etc, have all been ruled illegal by this unnapointed bunch of hacks. Nor is it just a question of a body of existing law ruled illegal. We have no idea of what ANY law we pass can remain legal, if this body chooses other wise. Any trade dispute can result in rulings that harm the country, with no appeal, and no reasonable way to predict. It's not only BAD, it's rediculous.

dipics said:
Ok, I really don't need to know exactly where it was. I was going
to give some examples why the company involved DID play a hand in
their demise. Here are a few questions for you to show why this is
true.

1) Are there companies still there doing what this company did?
If some survived, then the ones that didn't weren't running their
companies as well as the ones that survived.

Some companies are more profitable than others. We know this...

But in this instance I am referring to profitable companies, that have been doing business for a long time. I'm sure that YOUR buisness has had it's ups and downs, and that at a certain snapshot in time, you had less liquid assests then at other times.

You may have planned for eventualities. Yes indeed. You say to your self, "I've planned this well, this momentary loss of liquidity is all taken into consideration.

You're an oil delivery company. Every now and then you replace your fleet of vehicles. So you have less liquid assest? Who cares, you are prepared for the forseable cash flow problems.

And? Joe replaced his fleet, Nick didn't. (Nick was waiting for next year). Joe goes under, Nick wipes the sweat off his brow, and bless's the fact that he waited before replacing his fleet....

dipics said:
2) After 5 decades in business, why didn't they have enough saved
to handle a credit format change? We are talking a couple months
operating expenses. If they relied on this credit THAT much after
THAT long, then this was a serious warning sign. They should have
changed their business model before it happened.

As I say above, some buisness sitautions are different from others. I gather that your "inventory" does not at any one time represent a signifigant portion of your actual assests. In the oil delivery trade it does. In a ten day period, an Oil Company outlays for 1,000,000 gallons of oil. Today, this means a million dollars.

Most of the companies that went out of buisness DID have the money to cover this outlay. But they did NOT have the money to let their customers pay at the normal time.

They went out of business because they lost accounts, not because they couldn't pay the bills.

dipics said:
I don't mean to denigrate your friends. Some people have
struggling businesses that go under when things change. But,
healthy businesses seldom do.

The company I worked for went out of buisness because they wanted to retire. They weathered this particular storm.

My overall point here is that these "independent" companies were and are simply working for the monopolistic majors - That at any time, the very nature of the buisness can change dramatically, and put them out of the compitition.

If these same majors decide that more money can be made selling gas, as opposed to oil, they can wipe them out. The majors can do whatever they want. Whose to stop them? Don't buy their oil? Boycott them? Form oil cooperatives? There are no such options.

Their structure, competence are at the mercy of forces that are beyond their control.

Count your blessings that at the "moment" no major is interested in taking over what you do. But Laisé Faire Capitalism tends to monopoly. Some industries see it first, and of course for some industries its simply not worth it. Nontheless, its the nature of the beast.

dipics said:
DIPics

dipics · Apr 1, 2007

Chato said:
Chato said:

Surrendered? Please. By your definition, we never had National
Sovereignty. Our laws have ALWAYS been subject to treaties.

Click to expand...

We have never signed a trade agreement whereby we allowed that
agreement to overide our laws.

Never.

Yes we absolutely have. We have all along. Tariffs are laws. They are passed by congress and signed into law by the president. We have had trade treaties as far back as the 1800's that overrode existing tariffs.

If you want some excellent examples where treaties have overridden later passed laws, look at the history of treaties with the Indian (now native American) Nations.

Chato said:
Agreements may have made existing law obsolete or irrelevant.

And treaties have overridden LATER PASSED laws. Treaties outrank even federal laws and are only outranked themselves by the Constitution.

Chato said:
Off hand I can't think of examples. I'm sure you can supply them.

..

Chato said:
Labor laws, envionmental laws, etc, etc, have all been ruled
illegal by this unnapointed bunch of hacks.

Unelected AND unnappointed? How do you think they got their positions?

Chato said:
Nor is it just a

... way to predict. It's not

Chato said:
only BAD, it's rediculous.

Actually, we reserve the final override. We can ALWAYS just say no. It's not like we haven't broken treaties before.

Chato said:
Some companies are more profitable than others. We know this...

So, why didn't they go under? If they didn't and other companies did, then the other companies DID have some imput into their demise.

Chato said:
But in this instance I am referring to profitable companies, that
have been doing business for a long time. I'm sure that YOUR
buisness has had it's ups and downs, and that at a certain snapshot
in time, you had less liquid assests then at other times.

You may have planned for eventualities. Yes indeed. You say to your
self, "I've planned this well, this momentary loss of liquidity is
all taken into consideration.

You're an oil delivery company. Every now and then you replace your
fleet of vehicles. So you have less liquid assest? Who cares, you
are prepared for the forseable cash flow problems.

And? Joe replaced his fleet, Nick didn't. (Nick was waiting for
next year). Joe goes under, Nick wipes the sweat off his brow, and
bless's the fact that he waited before replacing his fleet....

Chato said:
As I say above, some buisness sitautions are different from others.
I gather that your "inventory" does not at any one time represent a
signifigant portion of your actual assests. In the oil delivery
trade it does. In a ten day period, an Oil Company outlays for
1,000,000 gallons of oil. Today, this means a million dollars.

Yet some of them survived.

Chato said:
Most of the companies that went out of buisness DID have the money
to cover this outlay. But they did NOT have the money to let their
customers pay at the normal time.

Then they did NOT have the money to cover this easily foreseeable eventuality. Companies change credit policies regularly. Maybe the oil suppliers didn't before but enough other companies did to make this something that could be forseen.

Look at your company. If you see ANYTHING that would make you say "if this happened, I would be screwed" then you HAVE to find a way to cover that.

Chato said:
They went out of business because they lost accounts, not because
they couldn't pay the bills.

They had a cash flow problem that they didn't have enough reserves to handle. That's really it. After 50 years in business, they didn't have enough reserves to handle this.

Chato said:
The company I worked for went out of buisness because they wanted
to retire. They weathered this particular storm.

My overall point here is that these "independent" companies were
and are simply working for the monopolistic majors - That at any
time, the very nature of the buisness can change dramatically, and
put them out of the compitition.

And, my point is that not all of them were put out of competition. Some did just fine and, since there are fewer compeitors now, likely are making even more money. Look at what these companies did. Look at what the other companies did. The difference is what the other companies contributed to their demise.

Chato said:
If these same majors decide that more money can be made selling
gas, as opposed to oil, they can wipe them out. The majors can do
whatever they want. Whose to stop them? Don't buy their oil?
Boycott them? Form oil cooperatives? There are no such options.

Their structure, competence are at the mercy of forces that are
beyond their control.

Count your blessings that at the "moment" no major is interested in
taking over what you do. But Laisé Faire Capitalism tends to
monopoly. Some industries see it first, and of course for some
industries its simply not worth it. Nontheless, its the nature of
the beast.

LOL! That would actually likely be good for me anyway. Just in a different way. You see, I own a decent amount (negligable from their standpoint, decent from a personal wealth standpoint) of quite a few "Majors" myself in several different fields. The more money they make, the more money I make. But, you consider this gambling.

But, if someone wanted to take over a market I'm in. Someone with greater assets than I have and I thought I would go under, I would liquidate and start another business or just smile and keep operating (or watching over the people who operate) the others I own. I already own 3 outright and am a large minority owner of 2 others. None are in areas where I'm controlled by anyone else (the reason I personally got out of the travel business, unlike my resourceful friend I mentioned earlier). I rely on suppliers but they stumble over each other to cut ME deals.

DIPics

Paul H46473 · Apr 1, 2007

nickleback wrote:
...

nickleback said:
Translation: let's fire people who have been around for years and
know what they are doing, and replace them with new folks at
minimum wage.

Maybe things are different in your part of the world, but here in the San Francisco Bay area I've never encountered a salesperson at a Circuit City store who knew anything useful about the products in the store. And when I say "never", I'm not exaggerating. Circuit City is one of those places where one goes to pick up something after having done research on the web first.

If you go to the camera counter and ask a simple, conversational question such as, "How's the noise at the higher ISO settings?", the best answer you'll likely receive is "I'm not sure what you mean..."

Chato · Apr 1, 2007

austinphotog said:
austinphotog said:

So explain to me why unemployment had gone DOWN, when the numbers
of new jobs since Jan 2001, has not even kept up with new workers
entering the work force.

Click to expand...

Under clinton 18,346,000 were created, under bush 8,498,000 were
created. This is accouding to the bls. You can just look on teir
website. You are correct that the unemployment rate has gone up
under bush. I never said otherwise. My numbers posted was from
1994 until feb 2007.

Your numbers are wrong...

I did a search on the labor Department....

Here are some numbers

So, under Clinton a bit over 22 million job were created during his eight years...

Under Bush?

We have during his six years, about 5 million new jobs.

Yet unemploment is down?

I did other searches on maufacturing employment, and carefully made links to them. Now that was dumb, because the searches cannot be linked to...

So be my guest...

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm

Now finally, back to the minimum wage. The minimum wage should be a living wage, linked to a COLA. Will this cause some problems? Yes, of course it will. But it will eliminate far more problems then it creates.

It means, as you point out, that industries will have to compete based on increasing technological improvements and efficency, and NOT on the backs of the labor force. If jobs are lost (which they will be) other jobs will be created, especially in the consumer industries.

Low income working people have no choice but to spend their wages.

Moreover, once and for all it will seperate those who are ready and willing to work, and those who are looking for a free ride. Welfare will become what it was originally meant to be - Relief for those who are physcially unable to work.

As for the "Global Economy."

I have nothing against trade. What I DO object to is the export of Capital, created HERE and deposited THERE, so that trade in fact becomes merely a way that Corporations feed their bottom line at OUR expense, and adding insult to injury, with the very money they made off of us.

To expect a steel plant created in the thrities to compete with a plant created in the year 2000 is rediculous. If we invested our Capital AND technology HERE, we can compete with anyone, anywhere.

Global economy my a$$ - It's a corporate economy which benefits no one but the Corprorations

Dave

Chato · Apr 1, 2007

dipics said:
And treaties have overridden LATER PASSED laws. Treaties outrank
even federal laws and are only outranked themselves by the
Constitution.

Yes and so?

dipics said:
dipics said:

Off hand I can't think of examples. I'm sure you can supply them.

Click to expand...

..

dipics said:

Labor laws, envionmental laws, etc, etc, have all been ruled
illegal by this unnapointed bunch of hacks.

Click to expand...

Unelected AND unnappointed? How do you think they got their
positions?

They were appointed by the WTO professional body, which in turn appointed various Corporate executives to be on the deciding "court."

dipics said:
Actually, we reserve the final override. We can ALWAYS just say
no. It's not like we haven't broken treaties before.

You gave the example of Tarrif laws from the past. You have not given an example of ANY OTHER kind of law being over-ruled. None.

And you can't because it's never happened. When a tarrif law was overuled, those making the treaty KNEW which law was affected - We have no clue as to what will be affected by this "court."

dipics said:
dipics said:

Some companies are more profitable than others. We know this...

Click to expand...

So, why didn't they go under? If they didn't and other companies
did, then the other companies DID have some imput into their demise.

dipics said:

But in this instance I am referring to profitable companies, that
have been doing business for a long time. I'm sure that YOUR
buisness has had it's ups and downs, and that at a certain snapshot
in time, you had less liquid assests then at other times.

You may have planned for eventualities. Yes indeed. You say to your
self, "I've planned this well, this momentary loss of liquidity is
all taken into consideration.

You're an oil delivery company. Every now and then you replace your
fleet of vehicles. So you have less liquid assest? Who cares, you
are prepared for the forseable cash flow problems.

And? Joe replaced his fleet, Nick didn't. (Nick was waiting for
next year). Joe goes under, Nick wipes the sweat off his brow, and
bless's the fact that he waited before replacing his fleet....

Click to expand...

dipics said:

As I say above, some buisness sitautions are different from others.
I gather that your "inventory" does not at any one time represent a
signifigant portion of your actual assests. In the oil delivery
trade it does. In a ten day period, an Oil Company outlays for
1,000,000 gallons of oil. Today, this means a million dollars.

Click to expand...

Yet some of them survived.

dipics said:

Most of the companies that went out of buisness DID have the money
to cover this outlay. But they did NOT have the money to let their
customers pay at the normal time.

Click to expand...

Then they did NOT have the money to cover this easily foreseeable
eventuality. Companies change credit policies regularly. Maybe
the oil suppliers didn't before but enough other companies did to
make this something that could be forseen.

Look at your company. If you see ANYTHING that would make you say
"if this happened, I would be screwed" then you HAVE to find a way
to cover that.

dipics said:

They went out of business because they lost accounts, not because
they couldn't pay the bills.

Click to expand...

They had a cash flow problem that they didn't have enough reserves
to handle. That's really it. After 50 years in business, they
didn't have enough reserves to handle this.

Well, I've explained that in this entire industry, those who survived did so because of the luck of the draw and not any planning. Mind you, I'm not talking about companies like mine who went out of buisness by choice - Or other companies, that in a very competive marker, went out for reasons that you can relate to.

I'm pointing out that when you do buisness with a company for fifty, sixty years, have established a relationship, deal with the same people on a constant basis - there is no reason to expect that a credit change will occur WITHOUT a moments warning, from the very people you had a "drink" with the week before.

This is the kind of rule of the Jungle, which I have no use for...

You're welcome to it.

dipics said:
DIPics

Chato · Apr 1, 2007

dipics said:
Chato said:

One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock
and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology
of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York:
HarperBusiness, 1993).

The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all
stock in 1997...

Click to expand...

Ok, I just have to ask, do you actually read this stuff before you
hit "post"? By your own figures, the percentage of stocks that the
top 1% own decreased by 18 percent in only four years.

This is GREAT news! The lower income people are getting a clue.
Or it is almost being forced on them through 401K's etc.

DIPics

I was too lazy to get the current ones...

But I can assure you the numbers on wealth distribution, I am referring to, have gone up since 1997. I'm simply too lazy to prove what you already KNOW is true

Dave

Just when you thought Circuit City couldn't get any worse...

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts