"Nazis Run Our Space Program" -- Peace Activist Bruce Gag-Me

Ami Silberman wrote:

A problem with unions
is that they can become monopolies on labor.



"One big union!" -John Reed

Feeling all Wobbly ;-)

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:


Labor is indeed fungible to a large degree, particularly when it's low
skilled.



Like one general finds on a mushroom farm for instance.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

Given the breadth of Wal-Mart's stock, and the public fixation on low
cost, that's pretty hard.


You've got to appreciate the Dollar Store's three-pronged approach to
beating WalMart though:
1. Undercut WalMart's prices.
2. Undercut WalMart's quality.
3. Use only suppliers that have been rejected by Walmart for fear of
lawsuits.

Pat

Neil Gerace wrote:

Who's opposed to a fair justice system? Can't you stay on topic for a
single post?



Did someone say 'on topic'?


Yeah- what about those Nazis?

M. Godwin ;-)

"Ami Silberman" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Ami Silberman" wrote:
:
: :They don't pay income taxes. They do pay social security (6.2%) and Medicare
: 2.9%), and there are usually state taxes as well.
:
: All of which they more than recover as 'earned income credit' or some
: such euphemism.
:
:Single with no children, income of $7,500 per year, EIC is $303. For married
:and no children, it is $380. For some reason you get a lot more back if you
:have kids. In fact, for a married couple with two children, they get $1000
:back with a taxable income as high as $30,700. The bonus "child refund"
eaks at $2600 for one child for a single parent with income of up to
:$12,500, which is about $1000 above the level at which EIC goes away for
:non-parents. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf has all the gory
:details.
:
:In the case of single person making $7,500 per year, the "lucky ducky" gets
:$303 back from the government, which is about 4% of their income, or less
:than half of what they pay in social security and Medicare.

You have the numbers wrong. You've incorrectly doubled the Medicare
rate.

Now add in everything else they get at that income level.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Ami Silberman" wrote:

:
:"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:04:39 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: :
: : So, you believe that an employer should have the right to pay an
: employee
: : anything he wants to?
:
: : Of course, contingent on a mutually-agreed employment contract.
:
:Which is why we need labor unions, since the leverage that someone filling a
:totally fungible low-level postion has is zip compared to the leverage of a
:multi-million dollar company.

Except labor unions these days generally just add another set of
bosses sucking up on the workers' income, which is why the general
trend is declining union membership.

Workers make much more money by pricing themselves and their employer
out of the market so that no one gets anything.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

:In article ,
: "Ami Silberman" wrote:
:
: In the case of single person making $7,500 per year, the "lucky ducky" gets
: $303 back from the government, which is about 4% of their income, or less
: than half of what they pay in social security and Medicare.
:
:Well, why should Fred let facts stand in the way of his righteous
:indignation?

And why should you and Mr Silberman let a little thing like arithmetic
stand in the way of yours?

It's an odd universe indeed where 4% is "less than half" of 7.65%.

Hint: Multiple 4 times 2 and see if it is less than 7.65.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Andrew Gray wrote:

:On 2005-03-16, Rand Simberg wrote:
: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:54:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami
: Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : Of course, contingent on a mutually-agreed employment contract.
:
:Which is why we need labor unions, since the leverage that someone filling a
:totally fungible low-level postion has is zip compared to the leverage of a
:multi-million dollar company.
:
: What leverage is needed? If the employee doesn't get paid what was
: stipulated at the time of hire, the employer is in breach of the
: contract, and he can quit, just as he can be fired if he doesn't do
: the job. That's why it's a mutually-agreed employment contract.
:
:The leverage to *get* an acceptable contract is what I suspect Ami is
:referring to;

And yet 87.5% of US workers seem to manage it without the 'benefit' of
union sponsorship.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Pat Flannery wrote:

:Herb Schaltegger wrote:
:
:Well, why should Fred let facts stand in the way of his righteous
:indignation?
:
:I'd whine some more about this,

And no doubt will.

:but right now I'm in the middle of
:uncovering deviated red subversions in our very midst.

Sounds like you should see a doctor about that.

:I'll just say that now would be a good time to keep your powder dry and
:your ass covered...or was that the other way around?

If you keep your powder up your ass, you can cover all bases. But
then you'd have to worry about sneezing and blowing your fool head
off....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Offer something the public is willing to pay for that Wal-Mart doesn't,
and
you stay in business.

Given the breadth of Wal-Mart's stock, and the public fixation on low
cost, that's pretty hard.

There's the two-dimensional thinking again. I wasn't thinking of stock,
precisely because of what you said. It's a good point- the niche stores
should survive, precisely because the market isn't large enough for Wal-Mart
to be interested in them- but not what I meant.

Wal-Mart didn't do dick to my sales.

That's extraordinarily unusual.

We accepted Wal-Mart as a challenge to be met, not competition to be feared.
We didn't whine "It's not fair, why should I have to change?". There's no
reason for the free market to be fair. Wal-Mart carried stuff that was
pretty similar to what we carried (although we also carried salvage
material), so we didn't compete on the basis of stock. Curiously, we carried
the same brand of brushes that Wal-Mart carried, and beat them on price.

Wal-Mart will certainly wipe out any business that refuses to change.
Sometimes, the small guy can't change enough to remain profitable. There's
some whining about a planned Wal-Mart going on near where I live. Mostly,
it's people in business who are complaining about the environment instead of
being honest. I say this because the environmental plan promoted by Wal-Mart
greatly exceeded the minimum requirements and would have resulted in more
than three times the amount of buffer around the local creek than required.
The real problem was the locals were afraid of competition, and were
dishonest about it. Wal-Mart donates more to the area than all of the whiny
businesses combined, and sometimes pays better.