Uh Oh, Another Corporate Sell-Off [Archive]

04-27-2007, 02:20 AM

You're assuming that share price is still based on how much a company sells,
instead of what speculators THINK it should be worth. In other words, the
price of most stocks has long since been divorced from things like earnings,
stability, customer service, brand loyalty, quality, etc.

Sure, some small private investors look for companies like that to "buy and
hold"; but the speculators and short term traders who do the bulk of the
money moving do not. The "dot bomb" boom of the 1990's is testament to that.

In fact, what is GOOD for Wall Street is generally BAD for America. When
massive layoffs are announced, stock prices skyrocket. When companies pack
up and move to China, it's allegedly a great thing.

Ditto when unions are broken, workers are replaced by their half assed, non
English speaking replacements 1/2 a world away, key components of a product
are replaced with cheaper alternatives, products are made to be "disposable"
rather than fixable, etc.

Then of course there many instances where the companies THEMSELVES have
inflated the price of a worthless stock and got out before it fell (Enron,
Worldcom, "dot bombs", email penny stock ads, etc.)

And then there is just plain lying, where you artificially limit supply
and/or manufacture a "crisis"to drive prices up (Enron, the "gas crunch", et
al).

This is why I get so f'ing pissed off when sheeple point to the Dow or the
markets and try to tell me how great things are. If you look at the economy
as a whole: the REAL inflation rate, the gap between rich and poor, energy
costs, price vs. wages, unemployment, the deficit, the debt, the stockmarket
(it took Bush, what 6-7 years to surpass Clinton's records? AFTER he drove
the markets down further in '00, that is. I thought Republicans were the
Party of Business?) - in total, the 00's sucked balls.

Is it any wonder people plowed what was left of their investment accounts
into housing? It is any wonder that the administration did everything but
GIVE AWAY houses to help them do it? There was nowhere else for
non-speculators to go...

I have a feeling the next Republican administration will be pushing Elvis
Collector's plates and Limited Edition Civil War Chess Sets as the "average
Joe" investment vehicle for the 10's...

Alright, I feel better now. Flame away.

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:wQeYh.15468$Pq5.8168@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
> news:ut8Yh.1147$uJ6.776@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net ...
> >> Wow, I didn't think it was possible for DOD/Digitech GET any
crappier...
> >
> > Just watch, I'd never underestimate the power of the continual demand
for
> > shareholder value at the expense of everything else.
>
> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no value?
> Why don't they ever realize that they're paying their corporate executives
> millions of dollars to turn a good company into a piece of shit?
>
>

Benj

04-27-2007, 02:58 AM

js wrote:
> You're assuming that share price is still based on how much a company sells,
> instead of what speculators THINK it should be worth. In other words, the
> price of most stocks has long since been divorced from things like earnings,
> stability, customer service, brand loyalty, quality, etc.

amen to that!

>
> And then there is just plain lying, where you artificially limit supply
> and/or manufacture a "crisis"to drive prices up (Enron, the "gas crunch", et
> al).

Note how gasoline prices spike high in vacation season and drop low in
super snow season. heating oil does the opposite. And it ALWAYS
happens (by chance and "supply and demand" natch). But the REAL kick
in the butt is that U.S. dollars are backed with oil. So if oil goes
form $2 to $3 per gal that means a third of your money in the bank
just disappeared in real buying power. You can safely ignore those
highly spun gummint "inflation index" numbers. Who knows what they are
looking at!

Benj

Walker

04-27-2007, 04:53 AM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:wQeYh.15468$Pq5.8168@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
> news:ut8Yh.1147$uJ6.776@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net ...
>>> Wow, I didn't think it was possible for DOD/Digitech GET any crappier...
>>
>> Just watch, I'd never underestimate the power of the continual demand for
>> shareholder value at the expense of everything else.
>
> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no value?
> Why don't they ever realize that they're paying their corporate executives
> millions of dollars to turn a good company into a piece of shit?
>

By the time that the shareholders realize it the damage has been done and
it's too late to recover. Many investment counselors encourage clients to
research the companies that they invest in and monitor the business but very
few take any interest other than the stock values and fluctuations. I have a
friend who owned a small chain of pizza shops in the 60s. He has something
he calls the Shrinking Pizza Theory.

A restaurant has the best pizza in town. People are lined up to eat in and
the phone is ringing off of the hook for deliveries. The owner makes a huge
amount of money and he gets a high priced accountant to help him manage it.
After the first year the account tells him that if he cuts the amount of
onions in half he'll save $50,000.00 a year. No one notices and business is
better than ever. The second year the accountant tells the owner that if he
cuts the mushrooms in half and uses a cheaper tomato sauce that he'll save
$100,000.00 a year. A few people notice but business is as good as ever.
However, the owner is now getting greedy and even though business starts to
decline he tries to use further cuts to keep up the profits and by the
fourth year the pizza so bad that his business goes into the toilet. He
tries to salvage it by going back the original recipe but he can't afford to
promote it properly and the customer trust and support is long gone and too
late to recover.

An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an entrepreneur
will increase profits by raising sales.

Bob Walker
www.walker-entertainment.com

Middle C

04-27-2007, 07:58 AM

"Walker" <walkerent@cox.net> wrote in message
news:PYhYh.235870$JN6.121126@newsfe17.phx...
>
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:wQeYh.15468$Pq5.8168@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>>
>> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> news:ut8Yh.1147$uJ6.776@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net ...
>>>> Wow, I didn't think it was possible for DOD/Digitech GET any
>>>> crappier...
>>>
>>> Just watch, I'd never underestimate the power of the continual demand
>>> for shareholder value at the expense of everything else.
>>
>> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
>> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no
>> value? Why don't they ever realize that they're paying their corporate
>> executives millions of dollars to turn a good company into a piece of
>> shit?
>>
>
> By the time that the shareholders realize it the damage has been done and
> it's too late to recover. Many investment counselors encourage clients to
> research the companies that they invest in and monitor the business but
> very few take any interest other than the stock values and fluctuations. I
> have a friend who owned a small chain of pizza shops in the 60s. He has
> something he calls the Shrinking Pizza Theory.
>
> A restaurant has the best pizza in town. People are lined up to eat in and
> the phone is ringing off of the hook for deliveries. The owner makes a
> huge amount of money and he gets a high priced accountant to help him
> manage it. After the first year the account tells him that if he cuts the
> amount of onions in half he'll save $50,000.00 a year. No one notices and
> business is better than ever. The second year the accountant tells the
> owner that if he cuts the mushrooms in half and uses a cheaper tomato
> sauce that he'll save $100,000.00 a year. A few people notice but business
> is as good as ever. However, the owner is now getting greedy and even
> though business starts to decline he tries to use further cuts to keep up
> the profits and by the fourth year the pizza so bad that his business goes
> into the toilet. He tries to salvage it by going back the original recipe
> but he can't afford to promote it properly and the customer trust and
> support is long gone and too late to recover.
>
> An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an entrepreneur
> will increase profits by raising sales.
>
> Bob Walker
> www.walker-entertainment.com
>
>

Good analogy - and how many times have we seen this. A good product comes
out and loaded with bang for the buck. They build a name for themselves and
quality begins to disapper.... or the prices get pretty outrageuos. I
guess the reality of that is finding that happy balance. Consider it from
the perspective of: Do I sell 5000 medocre pizzas with 50% a profit margin,
work my arse off to sell 10,000 good pizzas with a 25% margin.

5 String

04-27-2007, 10:03 AM

Brian Running wrote:
> Whoopee!
>
> This kind of thing is usually bad news for everyone except institutional
> shareholders -- Harman International has been sold for $8 Billion to an
> arbitrage firm. Better get out right away and buy that JBL, AKG, DOD,
> DigiTech, BSS, Crown or Soundcraft goodie you've been thinking about,
> before "synergies" are "leveraged" to generate more "shareholder value,"
> 'cuz you all know what that always does to the products.
>
> Here's the requisite corporate happy-talk, gibberish and psycho-babble:
>
> http://www.harman.com/press/pdf/harman-kkr.pdf

uh oh Utah losses another employer to China...... Unless DOD/Digitech
has already moved, they were just down the road in Sandy.

--
> www.google.com <enter> <
> search<insert query here> <enter> <
> <
> avoiding newsgroup wiseasses.... PRICELESS. <
> <
> For some things there is usenet <
> For everything else there is google............. <

5 String

04-27-2007, 10:05 AM

Mike Rieves wrote:
>
> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no value?

Because they never look at what is manufactured and never care since
they all (mostly) only buy and sell (quickly) based on their trend
charts tell them. Any more they aren't shareholders they're some form
of vampire.

--
> www.google.com <enter> <
> search<insert query here> <enter> <
> <
> avoiding newsgroup wiseasses.... PRICELESS. <
> <
> For some things there is usenet <
> For everything else there is google............. <

5 String

04-27-2007, 10:09 AM

Walker wrote:
> An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an entrepreneur
> will increase profits by raising sales.
>
> Bob Walker
> www.walker-entertainment.com

that couldn't have been better said...

--
> www.google.com <enter> <
> search<insert query here> <enter> <
> <
> avoiding newsgroup wiseasses.... PRICELESS. <
> <
> For some things there is usenet <
> For everything else there is google............. <

timbo

04-27-2007, 11:11 AM

On 2007-04-27, 5 String <catdriver@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Rieves wrote:
>>
>> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
>> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no value?
>
>
> Because they never look at what is manufactured and never care since
> they all (mostly) only buy and sell (quickly) based on their trend
> charts tell them. Any more they aren't shareholders they're some form
> of vampire.

you'd be surprised (yeah, i can see the cynicism). I've got a few small
holdings in various companies here in oz, & i really appreciate the dividend
cheques every six months or so.

particularly the one that comes in just before my car rego is due, & just
happens to be enough to cover it without any major grief...

<wanker mode>
My portfolio includes banking, telecommunications, and biomedicine
companies, none of those oil/uranium/environmentally destructive stocks for
me!
</wanker mode>

seriously though, i've held all my shares for more than 5 years, i've had
losses along the way, but generally the dividends have, well, paid
dividends..

generally i keep an eye on what those companies are up to as well, because
it's in my interest to. i don;t make a hell of alot of money from either
playing music or shares (or for that matter, my day job of fixing
amps/2-way-radios/general electronic junk etc..), but it all helps to pay
the bills, & i can live in reasonable comfort, including the odd GAS attack
here and there.

as well, the shareholders that _do_ realise that the product turns to crap &
sees no-one buying it anymore _early enough_ are the ones that bail out with
the cash while the company goes down in flames, taking the small mum & dad
investors (hey, that's me!) with it along the way....

it seems everyone wants to make a million dollars overnight, (damn, i
wouldn;t mind..), hence the buying & selling according to trend charts, but
that's certainly not the way to make money in the long run (unless you're a
publisher of trend charts..). capital gains tax will take a big part of any
profits made down here - unless you hold the shares for more than a year -
the only real way to make any money on the share market is to find stable
stocks with steady growth, paying good, preferably fully-franked dividends,
& hang on to them for the long term.

or buy now, sell tomorrow after that late-night anonymous phone call tip off
about the crash tomorrow afternoon... damn i wish those guys had my
number.... ;)

so, it doesn't matter whether you play with fingers, picks, plectrums, or
elephant's toenails, tone is all in the fingers, but the strings, pickups,
preamp, power amp, speaker cab, and room all affect it in dramatic ways, far
too numerous to go into here.... not to mention the wood... but there is
some evidence that nose grease can make your mustang wheelbearings last
20000kms further, but it destroys your strings.

<(o)
((0)< -- "MMMMWAAAARRRRPP!!!"
jj

(be kind Kloka-mo - it's my first attempt...)

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

Brian Running

04-27-2007, 11:45 AM

> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no value?

They do, particularly the big institutional investors that really
influence the market. They realize it very well, the problem is that
they're in it for short-term share-price gain, and not long-term
profitability of the company.

> Why don't they ever realize that they're paying their corporate executives
> millions of dollars to turn a good company into a piece of shit?

They do, but that doesn't affect share price within the time frame in
which they're interested.

Glenn Dowdy

04-27-2007, 01:17 PM

"5 String" <catdriver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0ssm5$irm$3@news.xmission.com...
> Walker wrote:
>> An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an
>> entrepreneur will increase profits by raising sales.
>>
>> Bob Walker
>> www.walker-entertainment.com
>
> that couldn't have been better said...
>
Oh, it could have been much better said. Increased sales _and_ decreased
costs need to be concurrent goals. There is nothing wrong in theory with
cutting costs. The execution is lacking sometimes.

Glenn D.

That Chilean Guy

04-27-2007, 01:49 PM

Glenn Dowdy <glenn.no.dowdy@hp.spam.com> wrote:
> "5 String" <catdriver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f0ssm5$irm$3@news.xmission.com...
>> Walker wrote:
>>> An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an
>>> entrepreneur will increase profits by raising sales.
>>>
>>> Bob Walker
>>> www.walker-entertainment.com
>>
>> that couldn't have been better said...
>>
> Oh, it could have been much better said. Increased sales _and_ decreased
> costs need to be concurrent goals. There is nothing wrong in theory with
> cutting costs. The execution is lacking sometimes.

Agreed. Cutting costs per se isn't wrong. It's absolutely right and
you'd be a dummy to turn your back on it just because of perceived
prejudice. A cheaper supplier, a more efficient machine, a better
designed manufacturing process, etc. If the quality is there, you're
losing money by not going for those cuts.

Cutting costs *by sacrificing product quality* is the stupid,
short-sighted idiocy that makes so many good companies go down the
crapper. Switch to a better performing machine? Ok. Switch to, (to keep
it on topic) a supplier of cheaper but inferior woods for your basses?
That's your brand you're watering down.

Les Cargill

04-27-2007, 10:03 PM

Mike Rieves wrote:

> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
> news:ut8Yh.1147$uJ6.776@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net ...
>
>>>Wow, I didn't think it was possible for DOD/Digitech GET any crappier...
>>
>>Just watch, I'd never underestimate the power of the continual demand for
>>shareholder value at the expense of everything else.
>
>
> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no value?
> Why don't they ever realize that they're paying their corporate executives
> millions of dollars to turn a good company into a piece of shit?
>
>

Beats me. But when has it ever been otherwise? Ever wonder why Leo
Fender had to sell out to CBS? He did, you know - it wasn't a
particularly solvent company at the time.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/pieceofcrap.html

--
Les Cargill

Mike Rieves

04-28-2007, 12:51 AM

"Walker" <walkerent@cox.net> wrote in message
news:PYhYh.235870$JN6.121126@newsfe17.phx...
>
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:wQeYh.15468$Pq5.8168@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>>
>> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> news:ut8Yh.1147$uJ6.776@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net ...
>>>> Wow, I didn't think it was possible for DOD/Digitech GET any
>>>> crappier...
>>>
>>> Just watch, I'd never underestimate the power of the continual demand
>>> for shareholder value at the expense of everything else.
>>
>> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
>> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no
>> value? Why don't they ever realize that they're paying their corporate
>> executives millions of dollars to turn a good company into a piece of
>> shit?
>>
>
> By the time that the shareholders realize it the damage has been done and
> it's too late to recover. Many investment counselors encourage clients to
> research the companies that they invest in and monitor the business but
> very few take any interest other than the stock values and fluctuations. I
> have a friend who owned a small chain of pizza shops in the 60s. He has
> something he calls the Shrinking Pizza Theory.
>
> A restaurant has the best pizza in town. People are lined up to eat in and
> the phone is ringing off of the hook for deliveries. The owner makes a
> huge amount of money and he gets a high priced accountant to help him
> manage it. After the first year the account tells him that if he cuts the
> amount of onions in half he'll save $50,000.00 a year. No one notices and
> business is better than ever. The second year the accountant tells the
> owner that if he cuts the mushrooms in half and uses a cheaper tomato
> sauce that he'll save $100,000.00 a year. A few people notice but business
> is as good as ever. However, the owner is now getting greedy and even
> though business starts to decline he tries to use further cuts to keep up
> the profits and by the fourth year the pizza so bad that his business goes
> into the toilet. He tries to salvage it by going back the original recipe
> but he can't afford to promote it properly and the customer trust and
> support is long gone and too late to recover.
>
> An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an entrepreneur
> will increase profits by raising sales.
>
Someone needs to tell Eddie Lampert of ESL Investments (Sears Holdings)
that.

Mike Rieves

04-28-2007, 12:57 AM

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hp.spam.com> wrote in message
news:f0t7m1$2nh$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "5 String" <catdriver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f0ssm5$irm$3@news.xmission.com...
>> Walker wrote:
>>> An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an
>>> entrepreneur will increase profits by raising sales.
>>>
>>> Bob Walker
>>> www.walker-entertainment.com
>>
>> that couldn't have been better said...
>>
> Oh, it could have been much better said. Increased sales _and_ decreased
> costs need to be concurrent goals. There is nothing wrong in theory with
> cutting costs. The execution is lacking sometimes.

I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as long as those
cuts do not adversely affect the product, or the poeple who make and sell
the product. All too often, the first place corporations look to cut costs
is to take those cuts at the expense of their employees, cutting salaries,
benefits, etc. Then they wonder at the sudden high employee turnover rate,
the low employee moral, the decreasing maunfacturung quality of the
products, and the poor customer service. Hmmm, could it just possibly be
because all their good employees have left for other jobs, and those left
don't give a shit about the company because the company obviously doesn't
give a shit about them?

Mike Rieves

04-28-2007, 01:01 AM

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:j0oYh.3617$H_.1371@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net ...
>> Why don't the shareholders ever seem to realize that when the product
>> turns to crap and no one buys it anymore, their shares will have no
>> value?
>
> They do, particularly the big institutional investors that really
> influence the market. They realize it very well, the problem is that
> they're in it for short-term share-price gain, and not long-term
> profitability of the company.
>
>> Why don't they ever realize that they're paying their corporate
>> executives millions of dollars to turn a good company into a piece of
>> shit?
>
> They do, but that doesn't affect share price within the time frame in
> which they're interested.

You're exactly right, and that's become a major problem in America today.
Some of those investors even manipulate the market for their own gain, and
unfortunately, the governemnt seems to turn its back and not notice.

Jim Carr

04-28-2007, 01:11 AM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:NCzYh.41$Mb1.21@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

> I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as long as those
> cuts do not adversely affect the product,

Why not? Didn't you just buy a Squier bass? Businesses have to find the
right price points. Sometimes that means cutting costs. Would you rather be
paying $10 for a Big Mac?

>or the poeple who make and sell the product.

So, you're saying that automakers should remove all robotics? Should they
also get rid of the power tools that were added since Mr. Ford did his
thing? And how about your favorite corporate demon, credit card companies?
Should they still be paying little old ladies to work the punch card
machines? Better still, should the stores send paper slips to the banks so
the records can be kept by hand on green ledger paper?

Your view of the world is very narrow.

04-28-2007, 02:42 AM

I'm sure I've said this before, But I used to work at an oil refinery. More
to the point, I used to work at DEMOLISHING an oil Refinery.

My job was to cut the huge oil storage tanks into large chunks (by hand, of
course), so that they could be made into pipe. There were many other crews,
salvaging whatever they bid on at auction, and Ashland execs supervising the
lot.

Not coincidentally, this was at the start of the last Bush administration,
before the Gulf War. Gas was cheap due to both Reagan's handiwork (I'll give
him that) and a persistent oil glut which left OPEC reeling after their
price gouging of the 1970's.

I used to live about 1/2 mile from the plant. The fire on the refinery stack
burned 24/7 for most of my life, and I could see it out of my bedroom
window. oil tankers used to pull right up to the banks of the Niagara River
and refill before heading back out on Lake Erie.

Then one day, it stopped. Refineries were closing left and right, claiming
they couldn't make any money. People mostly accepted this as true. Why not,
since everything else has left town?

Then one day, I got the truth from my boss. He had been talking to the
company guys, and they told him they were being encouraged to shut down both
refineries and storage facilities, to DRIVE UP the price of oil. Basically,
they had been bought out by a larger company and scrapped.

Not long after that, I noticed the price of gas creeping up... Then the Gulf
War happened, prices went through the roof, and stayed there until Clinton
drove them down again - by unleashing the Strategic Reserve.

So when I hear these Big Oil idiots guys pissing and whining, when I hear
"amazing revelations" like 50% of US refineries are out of operation, when
Shubtards try to tell me that our 3-400% increase in gas prices since 2000
is due to "market forces" - well, I can feel the bile at the back of my
throat...

Having an oilman for president is like letting the fox guard the henhouse...

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1177653489.203438.244430@u32g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> js wrote:
> > You're assuming that share price is still based on how much a company
sells,
> > instead of what speculators THINK it should be worth. In other words,
the
> > price of most stocks has long since been divorced from things like
earnings,
> > stability, customer service, brand loyalty, quality, etc.
>
> amen to that!
>
> >
> > And then there is just plain lying, where you artificially limit supply
> > and/or manufacture a "crisis"to drive prices up (Enron, the "gas
crunch", et
> > al).
>
> Note how gasoline prices spike high in vacation season and drop low in
> super snow season. heating oil does the opposite. And it ALWAYS
> happens (by chance and "supply and demand" natch). But the REAL kick
> in the butt is that U.S. dollars are backed with oil. So if oil goes
> form $2 to $3 per gal that means a third of your money in the bank
> just disappeared in real buying power. You can safely ignore those
> highly spun gummint "inflation index" numbers. Who knows what they are
> looking at!
>
> Benj
>

Dave Curtis

04-28-2007, 09:40 AM

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:03:47 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

>Beats me. But when has it ever been otherwise? Ever wonder why Leo
>Fender had to sell out to CBS? He did, you know - it wasn't a
>particularly solvent company at the time.

He sold it because he was very ill and thought he was dying. He was
"cashing out". That's the story I read.

DC

04-28-2007, 03:13 PM

But that's EXACTLY what Bob is saying.

Few small business owners say to themselves "Gee, how canI fuck up my
business today?"

It's a small, almost imperceptible slide -

Maybe a complex process is standardized and automated,

Maybe 5 cheap screws works as well (for awhile anyway) as 3 good ones, or
you realize you can get away with 3/8" instead of 1/2" stock.

And then when business starts to fall off, maybe he brings in an "efficiency
expert" who, following standard MBA BS (and having never run a company
himself), tells the owner to dump all of his experienced, knowledgeable
workers and hire cheap drones - that is, until he gets big enough to move
everything to China.

Cutting waste and redundancy is great. Making an operation more efficient,
yet preserving the quality is great. Finding a machine that does as good or
BETTER of a job than a human is great.

However, if you are going to cut costs by cutting back on materials or
skill, or "dumbing down" the manufacturing process just so you can automate,
you are ALWAYS sacrificing quality.

The question is - how much of this will people live with before they stop
buying?

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

"That Chilean Guy" <jagonzal@gEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6m9g4-08e.ln1@6f06bbaf-dc83-4a61-a7f6-ba09fe2f79bf.org...
> Glenn Dowdy <glenn.no.dowdy@hp.spam.com> wrote:
> > "5 String" <catdriver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f0ssm5$irm$3@news.xmission.com...
> >> Walker wrote:
> >>> An accountant will increase profits by cutting costs while an
> >>> entrepreneur will increase profits by raising sales.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Walker
> >>> www.walker-entertainment.com
> >>
> >> that couldn't have been better said...
> >>
> > Oh, it could have been much better said. Increased sales _and_ decreased

> > costs need to be concurrent goals. There is nothing wrong in theory with
> > cutting costs. The execution is lacking sometimes.
>
> Agreed. Cutting costs per se isn't wrong. It's absolutely right and
> you'd be a dummy to turn your back on it just because of perceived
> prejudice. A cheaper supplier, a more efficient machine, a better
> designed manufacturing process, etc. If the quality is there, you're
> losing money by not going for those cuts.
>
> Cutting costs *by sacrificing product quality* is the stupid,
> short-sighted idiocy that makes so many good companies go down the
> crapper. Switch to a better performing machine? Ok. Switch to, (to keep
> it on topic) a supplier of cheaper but inferior woods for your basses?
> That's your brand you're watering down.

04-28-2007, 03:39 PM

Um...

First off, automation and experience are two completely different things.
It's one thing to punch button or turn a screw. It's another thing to know
what assemblage of complex parts should FEEL like as it rolls off the
assembly line, or to have the experience to diagnose and correct unforeseen
problems quickly and creatively. Or to do complex procedures that are
currently out of the scope of machines. Trust me, you buddy Ford still keeps
a lot of these people around.

However what Mike is saying is that if they thought they could get away with
it, they would shitcan these guys in a heartbeat. As a result, many parts of
assembling the car would have to be shitcanned or streamlined do that the
robots wouldn't have a problem. Hey, they could just really on stock
AutoCAD templates for the design phase - no need for expensive engineers. In
short, we'd all be driving Yugos. It's like Communism in reverse.

You dump your experienced people, your quality suffers. Simple as that.

Seems like your buddy Henry Ford thought so too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#Ford.27s_labor_philosophy

Ford's labor philosophy
Henry Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism" designed to improve the lot
of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many
departments hiring 300 men a year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring
and keeping the best workers. On January 5, 1914, Ford announced his
five-dollar a day program. The revolutionary program called for a reduction
in length of the workday from 9 to 8 hours, a 5 day work week, and a raise
in minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers.[6]

Ford had been criticized by Wall Street for starting the 40 hour work week
and a minimum wage. ****He proved, however, that paying people more would
enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing, and therefore be
good for the economy. Ford labeled the increased compensation as
profit-sharing rather than wages.**** The wage was offered to men over age
22, who had worked at the company for 6 months or more, and, importantly,
conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Sociological Department"
approved. They frowned on heavy drinking and gambling. The Sociological
Department used 150 investigators and support staff to maintain employee
standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for the
profit-sharing.

Not bad for a rabid anti-Semite with an award from the Nazis, eh?Views of
the world don't get much narrower than that...
--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:OQzYh.20949$vE1.15089@newsfe24.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:NCzYh.41$Mb1.21@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> > I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as long as those
> > cuts do not adversely affect the product,
>
> Why not? Didn't you just buy a Squier bass? Businesses have to find the
> right price points. Sometimes that means cutting costs. Would you rather
be
> paying $10 for a Big Mac?
>
> >or the poeple who make and sell the product.
>
> So, you're saying that automakers should remove all robotics? Should they
> also get rid of the power tools that were added since Mr. Ford did his
> thing? And how about your favorite corporate demon, credit card companies?
> Should they still be paying little old ladies to work the punch card
> machines? Better still, should the stores send paper slips to the banks so
> the records can be kept by hand on green ledger paper?
>
> Your view of the world is very narrow.
>
>

Jim Carr

04-28-2007, 04:37 PM

"js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46339528$0$8932$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> First off, automation and experience are two completely different things.
> It's one thing to punch button or turn a screw. It's another thing to know
> what assemblage of complex parts should FEEL like as it rolls off the
> assembly line, or to have the experience to diagnose and correct
> unforeseen
> problems quickly and creatively. Or to do complex procedures that are
> currently out of the scope of machines. Trust me, you buddy Ford still
> keeps
> a lot of these people around.

Wow! Thanks, Scoop, for the inside story.

Mike said that he was okay with reducing costs as long as it doesn't
adversely affect workers. I was responding to that. Don't reply to my posts
to set up your straw men so you can go off on your anti-corporate rant.

Mike Rieves

04-29-2007, 01:55 AM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:OQzYh.20949$vE1.15089@newsfe24.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:NCzYh.41$Mb1.21@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>> I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as long as those
>> cuts do not adversely affect the product,
>
> Why not? Didn't you just buy a Squier bass? Businesses have to find the
> right price points. Sometimes that means cutting costs. Would you rather
> be paying $10 for a Big Mac?

Yes, I bought a Squier bass, it was the best I could afford, and it plays
and sounds very good. If the economy were better, perhaps I'd have health
insurance and a higher paying job and could have afforded to pay three or
four times the price for a real American made Fender, which probably would
not have played or sounded all that much better. Still, I would have bought
it had I been able to afford it.What's your point?

As for a Big Mac, I wouldn't buy one of them if it were a penny.
Here's the problem that no one seems to see: Companies say, "We have to cut
costs so more people will buy our products.", then they proceed to lay off
some workers, and cut the pay of the rest, just to make the product cheaper.
However, since all companies are doing the same thing, the workers, who are
after all, the majority of the buying market, no longer have the money to
buy anything beyond the basic necessities. Guess why, because the companies
thay work for have cut their pay or laid them off, so their product would be
cheaper and more people would buy it. Meanwhile, the executives of those
companies are paying themselves millions and getting even more in bonuses
for their genius in cutting costs, and they ain't buying the products their
companies are making either, because they know that employee morale is low
because of low pay and slashed benefits, and no one is taking pride in their
work anymore so the product is now crap. Corporate America is shooting
itself in the ass, and we are all suffering for it.

>>or the poeple who make and sell the product.
>
> So, you're saying that automakers should remove all robotics? Should they
> also get rid of the power tools that were added since Mr. Ford did his
> thing? And how about your favorite corporate demon, credit card companies?
> Should they still be paying little old ladies to work the punch card
> machines? Better still, should the stores send paper slips to the banks so
> the records can be kept by hand on green ledger paper?

What part of, "I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as
long as those cuts do not adversely affect the product.", sent you off on
this tangent? None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with what
we were talking about.

> Your view of the world is very narrow.

How can you tell with the giant size blinders you're wearing? Don't bitch
about the mote in my eye until you get the beam out of yours.

Mike Rieves

04-29-2007, 02:05 AM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:NpNYh.22638$OT4.10454@newsfe19.lga...
> "js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46339528$0$8932$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> First off, automation and experience are two completely different things.
>> It's one thing to punch button or turn a screw. It's another thing to
>> know
>> what assemblage of complex parts should FEEL like as it rolls off the
>> assembly line, or to have the experience to diagnose and correct
>> unforeseen
>> problems quickly and creatively. Or to do complex procedures that are
>> currently out of the scope of machines. Trust me, you buddy Ford still
>> keeps
>> a lot of these people around.
>
> Wow! Thanks, Scoop, for the inside story.
>
> Mike said that he was okay with reducing costs as long as it doesn't
> adversely affect workers. I was responding to that. Don't reply to my
> posts to set up your straw men so you can go off on your anti-corporate
> rant.
Here's the whole deal in a nutshell. Those who actually do the assembly
work, and service and sell the products are the bulk of the market for the
products they produce. Reduce the numbers of employed and cut the pay of the
rest and you reduce the amount of product they can buy, and the price they
can afford to pay for it. It's a vicious cycle:

(A) Cut costs, cut pay, reduce the potential market and then you have to cut
costs and cut pay again because less people can afford to buy the product on
what they're now making.
Goto (A)

How do you break the loop? I know how, do you?

Jim Carr

04-29-2007, 04:09 AM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:eyVYh.2242$F11.1878@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

> Yes, I bought a Squier bass, it was the best I could afford, and it plays
> and sounds very good. If the economy were better, perhaps I'd have health
> insurance and a higher paying job and could have afforded to pay three or
> four times the price for a real American made Fender, which probably would
> not have played or sounded all that much better. Still, I would have
> bought it had I been able to afford it.What's your point?

You said they shouldn't cut costs when it adversely affects the product.
"Not all that much better" is still better. You make the assumption that
whatever goes out the door is "right" and that any adjustments are wrong.
That's crazy. Your case is proof in point that a market exists for a less
expensively made instrument that sacrifices some features and increases the
risk of a dud. Therefore, cutting expenses and adversely affecting the
product is sometimes the best course of action.

>
> As for a Big Mac, I wouldn't buy one of them if it were a penny.
> Here's the problem that no one seems to see: Companies say, "We have to
> cut costs so more people will buy our products.", then they proceed to lay
> off some workers, and cut the pay of the rest, just to make the product
> cheaper. However, since all companies are doing the same thing, the
> workers, who are after all, the majority of the buying market, no longer
> have the money to buy anything beyond the basic necessities.

Blah blah blah. The economy is far more complex than your simplistic views.
The economy is a lot stronger than it would be if what you claim was
accurate to any large degree. Just take a look at the unemployment rate for
the last decade.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

> What part of, "I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as
> long as those cuts do not adversely affect the product.", sent you off on
> this tangent? None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with
> what we were talking about.

You included "or the people who make and sell the product." Businesses quite
often find a better way to make a widget or provide a service without
sacrificing quality. However, workers sometimes lose their jobs in the
process. That's life. Get over it.

> How can you tell with the giant size blinders you're wearing? Don't bitch
> about the mote in my eye until you get the beam out of yours.

I don't have on blinders, Mike. It's not that I don't see what you're
saying. The difference is that I see way more than you do, some of which I
don't understand. And unlike you, I acknowledge that it's far more complex
than I realize. That's why I scoff at these little "here's the real problem"
rants that have a shallow focus of a narrow subject.

Mike Rieves

04-29-2007, 05:05 PM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:RxXYh.2632$ZD3.2089@newsfe01.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:eyVYh.2242$F11.1878@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>> Yes, I bought a Squier bass, it was the best I could afford, and it
>> plays and sounds very good. If the economy were better, perhaps I'd have
>> health insurance and a higher paying job and could have afforded to pay
>> three or four times the price for a real American made Fender, which
>> probably would not have played or sounded all that much better. Still, I
>> would have bought it had I been able to afford it.What's your point?
>
> You said they shouldn't cut costs when it adversely affects the product.
> "Not all that much better" is still better. You make the assumption that
> whatever goes out the door is "right" and that any adjustments are wrong.

I never assumed any such thing, I was talking about my specific
experience.

> That's crazy. Your case is proof in point that a market exists for a less
> expensively made instrument that sacrifices some features and increases
> the risk of a dud. Therefore, cutting expenses and adversely affecting the
> product is sometimes the best course of action.

No, there is a huge difference between producing a product specifically
aimed at a market which can't afford the best, there's nothing wrong with
that. However, instituting cost cutting measures that reduce the quality of
a product just to make the investors happy, at the expense of those who are
buying the product is a whole 'nother deal. If you're paying a premium price
for what you think is a premium product, aren't you going to be upset to
find that a lot of the reasons you bought the product no longer apply
because the company has eliminated them to cut costs?

>> As for a Big Mac, I wouldn't buy one of them if it were a penny.
>> Here's the problem that no one seems to see: Companies say, "We have to
>> cut costs so more people will buy our products.", then they proceed to
>> lay off some workers, and cut the pay of the rest, just to make the
>> product cheaper. However, since all companies are doing the same thing,
>> the workers, who are after all, the majority of the buying market, no
>> longer have the money to buy anything beyond the basic necessities.
>
> Blah blah blah. The economy is far more complex than your simplistic
> views.

Is that the best you can do? "blah blah blah"?!? Sure the enonomy is
complex, but that fact doesn't make my argument any less true.

> The economy is a lot stronger than it would be if what you claim was
> accurate to any large degree. Just take a look at the unemployment rate
> for the last decade.
> http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

But, it would be much stronger if this crap wasn't going on. And, what's
happening now will adversely affect the economy in the near future.

>> What part of, "I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as
>> long as those cuts do not adversely affect the product.", sent you off on
>> this tangent? None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with
>> what we were talking about.
>
> You included "or the people who make and sell the product." Businesses
> quite often find a better way to make a widget or provide a service
> without sacrificing quality. However, workers sometimes lose their jobs in
> the process. That's life. Get over it

Sure, but that's something entirely different than cutting costs for the
sole purpose of making the investors more money. Cutting costs without
affecting quality is good business, cutting workers' pay just so the
investors and corporate executives cvan make more money is NOT good
business.

>> How can you tell with the giant size blinders you're wearing? Don't
>> bitch about the mote in my eye until you get the beam out of yours.
>
> I don't have on blinders, Mike. It's not that I don't see what you're
> saying. The difference is that I see way more than you do, some of which I
> don't understand. And unlike you, I acknowledge that it's far more complex
> than I realize. That's why I scoff at these little "here's the real
> problem" rants that have a shallow focus of a narrow subject.

Nope they go right to the basics of the issue. Why are you trying to
argue against things I never said? In this post alone, first you said
something about an assumption that I never made, Second you bring up
something about making a product for different market that doesn't wnat to
pay top dollar, which is totally unrelated to reducing the quality of an
existing product. Third, you talk about cutting costs without reducing
quality, how is that an argument against what I said, " There is noithing
wrong with cutting costs as long as those vost don't reduce the product's
quality." Sure, manufacturing technology is advancing and workers sometimes
lose jobs because if it, but that has nothing to do with corporations
cutting jobs, reducing product quality and cutting worker's pay for the
purpose of making the investors and executives more money.
When do you ever see a CEO saying, "This company needs to reduce costs to
keep competitive in today's market, therefore I am taking a 50% reduction in
base pay, cutting all executives' pay as much as possible, and eliminating
all bonuses and cash incentives until the market changes for the better.".
No, exactly the opposite is true, the executives pay themselves huge
salaries and exorbitant bonuses, while the company is going to hell in a
handbasket.
What's your answer to that one?

kevinc@bhphotovideo.com

04-30-2007, 11:03 AM

On Apr 29, 4:05 pm, "Mike Rieves" <m...@hotspam.com> wrote:
> "Jim Carr" <newsgro...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
>
> news:RxXYh.2632$ZD3.2089@newsfe01.lga...
>
> > "Mike Rieves" <m...@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> >news:eyVYh.2242$F11.1878@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> >> Yes, I bought a Squier bass, it was the best I could afford, and it
> >> plays and sounds very good. If the economy were better, perhaps I'd have
> >> health insurance and a higher paying job and could have afforded to pay
> >> three or four times the price for a real American made Fender, which
> >> probably would not have played or sounded all that much better. Still, I
> >> would have bought it had I been able to afford it.What's your point?
>
> > You said they shouldn't cut costs when it adversely affects the product.
> > "Not all that much better" is still better. You make the assumption that
> > whatever goes out the door is "right" and that any adjustments are wrong.
>
> I never assumed any such thing, I was talking about my specific
> experience.
>
> > That's crazy. Your case is proof in point that a market exists for a less
> > expensively made instrument that sacrifices some features and increases
> > the risk of a dud. Therefore, cutting expenses and adversely affecting the
> > product is sometimes the best course of action.
>
> No, there is a huge difference between producing a product specifically
> aimed at a market which can't afford the best, there's nothing wrong with
> that. However, instituting cost cutting measures that reduce the quality of
> a product just to make the investors happy, at the expense of those who are
> buying the product is a whole 'nother deal. If you're paying a premium price
> for what you think is a premium product, aren't you going to be upset to
> find that a lot of the reasons you bought the product no longer apply
> because the company has eliminated them to cut costs?
>
> >> As for a Big Mac, I wouldn't buy one of them if it were a penny.
> >> Here's the problem that no one seems to see: Companies say, "We have to
> >> cut costs so more people will buy our products.", then they proceed to
> >> lay off some workers, and cut the pay of the rest, just to make the
> >> product cheaper. However, since all companies are doing the same thing,
> >> the workers, who are after all, the majority of the buying market, no
> >> longer have the money to buy anything beyond the basic necessities.
>
> > Blah blah blah. The economy is far more complex than your simplistic
> > views.
>
> Is that the best you can do? "blah blah blah"?!? Sure the enonomy is
> complex, but that fact doesn't make my argument any less true.
>
> > The economy is a lot stronger than it would be if what you claim was
> > accurate to any large degree. Just take a look at the unemployment rate
> > for the last decade.
> >http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh...
>
> But, it would be much stronger if this crap wasn't going on. And, what's
> happening now will adversely affect the economy in the near future.
>
> >> What part of, "I agree that there'e nothing wrong with cutting costs, as
> >> long as those cuts do not adversely affect the product.", sent you off on
> >> this tangent? None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with
> >> what we were talking about.
>
> > You included "or the people who make and sell the product." Businesses
> > quite often find a better way to make a widget or provide a service
> > without sacrificing quality. However, workers sometimes lose their jobs in
> > the process. That's life. Get over it
>
> Sure, but that's something entirely different than cutting costs for the
> sole purpose of making the investors more money. Cutting costs without
> affecting quality is good business, cutting workers' pay just so the
> investors and corporate executives cvan make more money is NOT good
> business.
>
> >> How can you tell with the giant size blinders you're wearing? Don't
> >> bitch about the mote in my eye until you get the beam out of yours.
>
> > I don't have on blinders, Mike. It's not that I don't see what you're
> > saying. The difference is that I see way more than you do, some of which I
> > don't understand. And unlike you, I acknowledge that it's far more complex
> > than I realize. That's why I scoff at these little "here's the real
> > problem" rants that have a shallow focus of a narrow subject.
>
> Nope they go right to the basics of the issue. Why are you trying to
> argue against things I never said? In this post alone, first you said
> something about an assumption that I never made, Second you bring up
> something about making a product for different market that doesn't wnat to
> pay top dollar, which is totally unrelated to reducing the quality of an
> existing product. Third, you talk about cutting costs without reducing
> quality, how is that an argument against what I said, " There is noithing
> wrong with cutting costs as long as those vost don't reduce the product's
> quality." Sure, manufacturing technology is advancing and workers sometimes
> lose jobs because if it, but that has nothing to do with corporations
> cutting jobs, reducing product quality and cutting worker's pay for the
> purpose of making the investors and executives more money.
> When do you ever see a CEO saying, "This company needs to reduce costs to
> keep competitive in today's market, therefore I am taking a 50% reduction in
> base pay, cutting all executives' pay as much as possible, and eliminating
> all bonuses and cash incentives until the market changes for the better.".
> No, exactly the opposite is true, the executives pay themselves huge
> salaries and exorbitant bonuses, while the company is going to hell in a
> handbasket.
> What's your answer to that one?

His answer is whatever Lush Windbag and Sean "Disgrace to the
Irish" (Ins)Hannity told him to think.

Look at his use of unemployment figures to paint the economy rosy,
completely ignoring the facts that:

a) the Bush Gang doesn't count anyone whose benefits have run out as
unemployed;
b) going against a century of precedent, W et al count seasonal farm
jobs as full-time jobs, and only release labor numbers during harvest
months;
c) The number of full-time jobs has dropped, while part-time jobs have
risen. Cheneycorp makes no distinction--they call them all "created
jobs";
d) Manufacturing jobs, which not only pay better, but increase the
average skill level of an American worker, are almost completely gone,
while employer's-market service jobs are the only sector increasing

Know how we won WWII? By converting Henry Ford's car factories to
fighter plane factories. We could do that because our labor force was
well-trained. They were already building things. What would happen if
we were invaded? Who would make the tanks and planes and bullets? Our
number-one supplier of manufactured goods is our most likely candidate
to start a war with us, over a host of conceivable issues.

And that's the kind of helplessness he advocates, for the sake of just
one more quarter of inflated, artificial, illusory gain.

It builds a strong market, but a weak nation. I know which I prefer.
Which does Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter and Carr prefer?

Jim Carr

04-30-2007, 06:43 PM

<kevinc@bhphotovideo.com> wrote in message

> His answer is whatever Lush Windbag and Sean "Disgrace to the
> Irish" (Ins)Hannity told him to think.

Actually, when I do listen to talk radio, I listen to Air America and NPR.
You got my politics completely wrong. But I certainly appreciate your
efforts to insult and pigeon-hole me in an attempt to "win" an argument.

> Look at his use of unemployment figures to paint the economy rosy,
> completely ignoring the facts that:

Learn to pay attention, will ya? I did not use them to paint the economy
rosy. I used them to refute the notion that the "problem" with economy is
one that if true would spiral out of control very quickly and lead to
recession or even a depression. You can take a look around and tell that
we're not in a recession. You don't need the leading economic indicators to
tell you that.

As for the unemployment figures, I don't feel like arguing about their
validity. I tried very briefly to verify your assertations, but couldn't.
Not even www.TheTruthAboutGeorge.com/economy made the references you make.
The link I posted had monthly rates for a 10 year period, which doesn't jive
with your claim about only releasing labor numbers during harvest months.

Are there issues with the economy? Sure. But like I said, it's a hell of a
lot more complicated than you or Mike seem to realize.

Mike Rieves

05-01-2007, 02:56 AM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:nrtZh.61428$cJ1.17094@newsfe13.lga...
> <kevinc@bhphotovideo.com> wrote in message
>
>> His answer is whatever Lush Windbag and Sean "Disgrace to the
>> Irish" (Ins)Hannity told him to think.
>
> Actually, when I do listen to talk radio, I listen to Air America and
> NPR. You got my politics completely wrong. But I certainly appreciate your
> efforts to insult and pigeon-hole me in an attempt to "win" an argument.
>
>> Look at his use of unemployment figures to paint the economy rosy,
>> completely ignoring the facts that:
>
> Learn to pay attention, will ya? I did not use them to paint the economy
> rosy. I used them to refute the notion that the "problem" with economy is
> one that if true would spiral out of control very quickly and lead to
> recession or even a depression. You can take a look around and tell that
> we're not in a recession. You don't need the leading economic indicators
> to tell you that.
>
> As for the unemployment figures, I don't feel like arguing about their
> validity. I tried very briefly to verify your assertations, but couldn't.
> Not even www.TheTruthAboutGeorge.com/economy made the references you make.
> The link I posted had monthly rates for a 10 year period, which doesn't
> jive with your claim about only releasing labor numbers during harvest
> months.
>
> Are there issues with the economy? Sure. But like I said, it's a hell of a
> lot more complicated than you or Mike seem to realize.

He did make one good point Jim, the number of people with full time jobs
has dropped and the number with part time jobs has risen. For example
Walmart, Kmart and Sears jobs are mostly part time, except for salaried
management positions. At Sears and Kmart, the "fulltime" hourly people are
now based on thirty hours, not forty, and most hourly fulltimers get between
thirty two and thirty eight hours a week. Other retail chains are following
suit. The average Walmart worker's annual pay is below the poverty level and
Sears and Kmart aren't any better.
The thought might not have occurred to you, but anything complicated is
made up of many simple things, and changing even one of those simple things
will affect the whole complicated thing. As long as the corporate executives
and investors, who are a very small percentage of the workforce are taking
money away and cutting the pay of those who are actually doing the work, the
vast majority of the workforce, it reduces the buying power of the majority,
resulting in lower sales and hurting the economy. Give a rich man money and
he will save it or invest it, give a poor man money and he will go out and
spend it.

Jim Carr

05-01-2007, 06:04 PM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:9EAZh.37319$254.2151@bignews7.bellsouth.net.. .

> He did make one good point Jim, the number of people with full time jobs
> has dropped and the number with part time jobs has risen. For example
> Walmart, Kmart and Sears jobs are mostly part time, except for salaried
> management positions. At Sears and Kmart, the "fulltime" hourly people are
> now based on thirty hours, not forty, and most hourly fulltimers get
> between thirty two and thirty eight hours a week. Other retail chains are
> following suit. The average Walmart worker's annual pay is below the
> poverty level and Sears and Kmart aren't any better.

The average hourly wage at Walmart is $9.26. At 32 hours per week that's
over $15,000 per year. The poverty level for a single person is $9.800. A 32
hour per week employee would need to be at $5.88 to hit the poverty level.
Try again.

> The thought might not have occurred to you, but anything complicated is
> made up of many simple things, and changing even one of those simple
> things will affect the whole complicated thing. As long as the corporate
> executives and investors, who are a very small percentage of the workforce
> are taking money away and cutting the pay of those who are actually doing
> the work, the vast majority of the workforce, it reduces the buying power
> of the majority, resulting in lower sales and hurting the economy. Give a
> rich man money and he will save it or invest it, give a poor man money and
> he will go out and spend it.

Sure, Mike. You *do* realize that investing money is in fact spending money,
right? You may not spend it directly on goods or services, but the companies
in which you invest do. And people buy things from them. The money put into
savings also goes back into circulation via loans. If the rich people
liquidated their assets and stuffed the money in their $15,000 mattresses,
the economy would be screwed. Like I keep saying, it's way more complex than
you think.

It's obvious you have an issue with big companies based on your rants over
the years. You feel like the little guy is being picked on. It's not that
simple. Without the "rich" people investing their money, there would be no
Walmart. In very simple terms it takes a *huge* amount of capital to open a
store. If the store fails after two years, the people working for $9.26 per
hour will have been paid. It's the investors who will lose money.

In the jungle the ants are just as vital as the anteaters. The anteaters are
just as vital as the lions. The lions are just as vital as the hyenas. They
hyenas are just as vital as the trees and grass. The economy is probably
just as complex. From my perspective there's really no good or evil. The
most important thing is balance.

Mike Rieves

05-01-2007, 11:11 PM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:uXNZh.5958$ZD3.1529@newsfe01.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:9EAZh.37319$254.2151@bignews7.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>> He did make one good point Jim, the number of people with full time jobs
>> has dropped and the number with part time jobs has risen. For example
>> Walmart, Kmart and Sears jobs are mostly part time, except for salaried
>> management positions. At Sears and Kmart, the "fulltime" hourly people
>> are now based on thirty hours, not forty, and most hourly fulltimers get
>> between thirty two and thirty eight hours a week. Other retail chains are
>> following suit. The average Walmart worker's annual pay is below the
>> poverty level and Sears and Kmart aren't any better.
>
> The average hourly wage at Walmart is $9.26. At 32 hours per week that's
> over $15,000 per year. The poverty level for a single person is $9.800. A
> 32 hour per week employee would need to be at $5.88 to hit the poverty
> level. Try again.

The "average" wage may be $9.26 but that's got to be including everyone
who works at Walmart including management and execcutives. At the local
Walmart, I don't know ANYONE who isn't in management who makes anywhere near
$9.26 an hour and most of them work 20 to 24 hours a week, not the 32 hours
you claim. (Cashiers typically work five four hour shifts a week here.) I'd
guess that the average for hourly workers at this Walmart is more like $7.00
to $7.50 an hour, and I'd say that outside big cities where they have to pay
more, this would be closer to a typical wage (as opposed to the "average"
wage) for Walmart workers. So, 24 hours @ $7.50 is $180 a week, or $9360 a
year, below the poverty level. When you figure in all the couples who work
at Walmart who have kids, you begin to see what's really going on.
If you don't believe me, just take a walk through your local Walmart and
ask each employee you see if he or she is making as much as $9.26 an hour. I
think you'll be in for a rude awakening, even though Phoenix is a major city
where wages will be higher than in smaller towns and rural areas.

>> The thought might not have occurred to you, but anything complicated is
>> made up of many simple things, and changing even one of those simple
>> things will affect the whole complicated thing. As long as the corporate
>> executives and investors, who are a very small percentage of the
>> workforce are taking money away and cutting the pay of those who are
>> actually doing the work, the vast majority of the workforce, it reduces
>> the buying power of the majority, resulting in lower sales and hurting
>> the economy. Give a rich man money and he will save it or invest it, give
>> a poor man money and he will go out and spend it.
>
> Sure, Mike. You *do* realize that investing money is in fact spending
> money, right? You may not spend it directly on goods or services, but the
> companies in which you invest do.
>And people buy things from them. The money put into savings also goes back
>into circulation via loans.

And goes back to the banks in the form of interest, which will typically
range from around 10% to as much as 30% for non-mortgage loans.

>If the rich people liquidated their assets and stuffed the money in their
>$15,000 mattresses, the economy would be screwed. Like I keep saying, it's
>way more complex than you think.

You accuse me of oversimplifying, but you're doing exactly the same thing.
The bottom line is that if you cut the wages of the working majority, who
are the bulk of the economy, the whole economy suffers, from the bottom,
eventually to the top.

> It's obvious you have an issue with big companies based on your rants over
> the years. You feel like the little guy is being picked on. It's not that
> simple. Without the "rich" people investing their money, there would be no
> Walmart.

It wasn't this way when Sam Walton was alive, he gave back to his
employees. Salaries were a bit lower than average (but still much better
than they are now), but the benefits were excellent back then. I don't have
an issue with big companies, I have an issue with greedy executives and
investors. I admired Sam Walton, I think his children are sorry excuses for
human beings. Sam bought American wherever possible, including providing
financial backing for small companies to allow them to grow and compete
sucessfully in the market. Sam took the long view, he believed in American
enterprize, and it made him a wealthy man, while actually helping the
economy. His children and those executives from other companies who follow
the current Walmart business model are doing great harm to the economy.

>In very simple terms it takes a *huge* amount of capital to open a store.
>If the store fails after two years, the people working for $9.26 per hour
>will have been paid. It's the investors who will lose money.

How many Walmarts have failed in the last ten years? Investors don't
invest in individual stores, they invest in the big chains which are
continuing to grow for the time being. However, one must consider how much
of that "growth" is real economic expansion and how much is just growth on
paper. Did you know that it's common for chains to count the inventory that
goes into a new store as sales growth, even though not a penny has been
gained because nothing has actually been sold? The warehouses "sell" the
inventory to the store, on paper, even though no money changes hands, so the
company can count it as sales growth.

> In the jungle the ants are just as vital as the anteaters. The anteaters
are
> just as vital as the lions. The lions are just as vital as the hyenas.
> They hyenas are just as vital as the trees and grass. The economy is
> probably just as complex. From my perspective there's really no good or
> evil. The most important thing is balance.

Yes, and by that standard, the bacteria that causes the Black Plague is
just as vital as all the other creatures. It balanced out the surplus
population in Europe a few hundred years ago. Humans vs the Black Plague,
that's balance for you.
The problem is that there is no balance in the economy, and in a few
years, even you will realize that. Corporate greed, corporate executives'
personal greed and the philosophy that the investors come before everything
else is NOT balance, it's slow economic suicide.
The philosophy that the customer comes first and the willingness to do what
is necessary to insure that the end customer is satisfied is what works. The
investors may see a slower return on their money, but in the long run they
and everyone else will see the benefits.

Jim Carr

05-02-2007, 03:15 PM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:NrSZh.20462$vD4.16165@bigfe9...

> The "average" wage may be $9.26 but that's got to be including everyone
> who works at Walmart including management and execcutives. At the local
> Walmart, I don't know ANYONE who isn't in management who makes anywhere
> near $9.26 an hour and most of them work 20 to 24 hours a week, not the 32
> hours you claim.

You made the 32 hours claim, not me. You said most of their full-time
workers were below the poverty line. You're just talking out your ass again.

> You accuse me of oversimplifying, but you're doing exactly the same
> thing. The bottom line is that if you cut the wages of the working
> majority, who are the bulk of the economy, the whole economy suffers, from
> the bottom, eventually to the top.

Once again you're position is morphing and going off on tangents. Why do I
even bother? If the wages were cut for the majority of the workers in the
economy we'd be in a depression. Businesses just don't go around cutting
wages will-nilly, so your point as it stands now is rather silly.

> It wasn't this way when Sam Walton was alive, he gave back to his
> employees. Salaries were a bit lower than average (but still much better
> than they are now),

Oh, no! Not your ill-informed Walmart rant again!

> Yes, and by that standard, the bacteria that causes the Black Plague is
> just as vital as all the other creatures. It balanced out the surplus
> population in Europe a few hundred years ago. Humans vs the Black Plague,
> that's balance for you.

Diseases like that are self-regulating. If they kill too many too fast the
disease itself dies out. The bacteria is neither good nor evil. It is what
it is.

> The problem is that there is no balance in the economy, and in a few
> years, even you will realize that.

Okay, Mike. We'll table this discussion until 2009 when we enter a
depression and you can gloat.

Mark

05-02-2007, 08:20 PM

On May 1, 2:04 pm, "Jim Carr" <newsgro...@azwebpages.com> wrote:
> "Mike Rieves" <m...@hotspam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9EAZh.37319$254.2151@bignews7.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> > He did make one good point Jim, the number of people with full time jobs
> > has dropped and the number with part time jobs has risen. For example
> > Walmart, Kmart and Sears jobs are mostly part time, except for salaried
> > management positions. At Sears and Kmart, the "fulltime" hourly people are
> > now based on thirty hours, not forty, and most hourly fulltimers get
> > between thirty two and thirty eight hours a week. Other retail chains are
> > following suit. The average Walmart worker's annual pay is below the
> > poverty level and Sears and Kmart aren't any better.
>
> The average hourly wage at Walmart is $9.26. At 32 hours per week that's
> over $15,000 per year. The poverty level for a single person is $9.800. A 32
> hour per week employee would need to be at $5.88 to hit the poverty level.
> Try again.
>

Actually, according to this: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml
the poverty threshold is $10,210 for a single person. In the CONUS,
that is.

Jim Carr

05-02-2007, 09:58 PM

"Mark" <markbock@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178148038.968080.3240@q75g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com...

> Actually, according to this: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml
> the poverty threshold is $10,210 for a single person. In the CONUS,
> that is.

I had the 2006 numbers:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml

As if the $400 makes a difference.

Mike Rieves

05-03-2007, 12:05 AM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:tz4_h.90277$2Q1.15311@newsfe16.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:NrSZh.20462$vD4.16165@bigfe9...
>
>
>> The "average" wage may be $9.26 but that's got to be including everyone
>> who works at Walmart including management and execcutives. At the local
>> Walmart, I don't know ANYONE who isn't in management who makes anywhere
>> near $9.26 an hour and most of them work 20 to 24 hours a week, not the
>> 32 hours you claim.
>
> You made the 32 hours claim, not me. You said most of their full-time
> workers were below the poverty line. You're just talking out your ass
> again.

No, I said most of their workers were below the poverty line, period,
excluding management and slalried. The thirty two hour figure was for Sears
and K-Mart fulltimers, not Walmart. Walmart is primarily a part time
employer, they have very few full timers outside of management. If you'd
bother to stop listening to my ass, and straighten up and take a look
around, you might realize that what I'm saying is what's really going on.

>> You accuse me of oversimplifying, but you're doing exactly the same
>> thing. The bottom line is that if you cut the wages of the working
>> majority, who are the bulk of the economy, the whole economy suffers,
>> from the bottom, eventually to the top.
>
> Once again you're position is morphing and going off on tangents. Why do I
> even bother? If the wages were cut for the majority of the workers in the
> economy we'd be in a depression. Businesses just don't go around cutting
> wages will-nilly, so your point as it stands now is rather silly.

Oh, really? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm
"During the five years from 2000 to 2005, the US economy grew in size from
$9.8 trillion to $11.2 trillion, an increase in real terms of 14%.
Productivity - the measure of the output of the economy per worker
employed - grew even more strongly, by 16.6%. But over the same period, the
median family's income slid by 2.9%, in contrast to the 11.3% gain
registered in the second half of the 1990s. "

If the median family income fell, then a lot of people either had pay
cuts, or lost their jobs and had to take lower-paying jobs.

>> It wasn't this way when Sam Walton was alive, he gave back to his
>> employees. Salaries were a bit lower than average (but still much better
>> than they are now),
>
> Oh, no! Not your ill-informed Walmart rant again!

How are the facts "ill-informed"? Take a look at average wages and
benefits now vs when Sam was still alive. Wages are lower, many less workers
are full-time, and benefits are practically non-existant by comparison.

>> Yes, and by that standard, the bacteria that causes the Black Plague is
>> just as vital as all the other creatures. It balanced out the surplus
>> population in Europe a few hundred years ago. Humans vs the Black Plague,
>> that's balance for you.
>
> Diseases like that are self-regulating. If they kill too many too fast the
> disease itself dies out. The bacteria is neither good nor evil. It is what
> it is.

Tell that the the families of those who lost their lives to those
self-regulating diseases.

>> The problem is that there is no balance in the economy, and in a few
>> years, even you will realize that.
>
> Okay, Mike. We'll table this discussion until 2009 when we enter a
> depression and you can gloat.

Okay, and I'll say, "I told you so.", and you'll find some way to twist
things around and weasel out of it. :-)

Jim Carr

05-03-2007, 04:14 AM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:0kc_h.7299$TD3.2306@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

> No, I said most of their workers were below the poverty line, period,

You wrote...
"...most hourly fulltimers get between thirty two and thirty eight hours a
week. Other retail chains are following suit. The average Walmart worker's
annual pay is below the poverty level and Sears and Kmart aren't any
better."

That's really not the model of clarity, Mike. It sounded to me like you were
referring to full-timers. Of *course* part timers are below the poverty
level. Do you seriously expect part-time, unskilled labor to be *above* the
poverty level?

> Oh, really? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm
> "During the five years from 2000 to 2005, the US economy grew in size from
> $9.8 trillion to $11.2 trillion, an increase in real terms of 14%.
> Productivity - the measure of the output of the economy per worker
> employed - grew even more strongly, by 16.6%. But over the same period,
> the median family's income slid by 2.9%, in contrast to the 11.3% gain
> registered in the second half of the 1990s. "
>
> If the median family income fell, then a lot of people either had pay
> cuts, or lost their jobs and had to take lower-paying jobs.

Guess what, Mike? During that time period we had a recession due in part to
the dot-com bubble bursting, the 9/11 attacks, and the accounting scandals.

Furthermore, you even manage to screw up with what little knowledge you do
have. Lots of things could explain the median income dropping. Remember,
median is the point at which there are as many people above that level as
below. It is not the average. A decrease in the number of rich people could
explain. In fact, the wages for the people *below* the median could have
risen, but that could have been offset by a decrease in people making the
big bucks.

In *my* world (technology) I saw this first-hand. In the period leading up
to Y2K a lot of technology people were grossly overpaid in my opinion. This
was driven by some many businesses needing new, big-ticket software
packages. The company I was at went from 30 people around 1997/98 to 65
people in 2000 and back down to 35 people in 2001. Guys I knew who were
making $150K were applying for $50K jobs.

This could explain the numbers. But unlike you, I know the reality is that
it is *far* more complex than your myopic little scenario or my personal
experiences. Your citation is actually meaningless when it comes to drawing
any inferences. It is what it is, but proves nothing.

>> Oh, no! Not your ill-informed Walmart rant again!
>
> How are the facts "ill-informed"?

I'm not going there again, Mike. If you need to exercise your brain (no
disrespect intended) why don't you take this crap to alt.walmart? Yes, there
is such a newsgroup.

>> Diseases like that are self-regulating. If they kill too many too fast
>> the disease itself dies out. The bacteria is neither good nor evil. It is
>> what it is.
>
> Tell that the the families of those who lost their lives to those
> self-regulating diseases.

Okay:

Attention: If you've lost a loved one to a fatal disease, you have my
sympathies. However, the disease itself is neither good nor evil. Bacteria
and viruses just do what they do. Some are harmful to us, some are
beneficial, and many are benign. But in the end they have no other
motivation except to reproduce and thus can be neither good nor evil.

Satisfied?

> Okay, and I'll say, "I told you so.", and you'll find some way to twist
> things around and weasel out of it. :-)

You've known me for a few years now, Mike. If I'm wrong, I admit it. I
remember once back in 2002...

Mike Rieves

05-03-2007, 11:50 PM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:CZf_h.59344$vE1.14606@newsfe24.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:0kc_h.7299$TD3.2306@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> No, I said most of their workers were below the poverty line, period,
>
> You wrote...
> "...most hourly fulltimers get between thirty two and thirty eight hours a
> week. Other retail chains are following suit. The average Walmart worker's
> annual pay is below the poverty level and Sears and Kmart aren't any
> better."
>
> That's really not the model of clarity, Mike. It sounded to me like you
> were referring to full-timers. Of *course* part timers are below the
> poverty level. Do you seriously expect part-time, unskilled labor to be
> *above* the poverty level?

I may not have been clear, but I was referring to fulltimers at Sears and
K-Mart, Walmart now has very few fulltimers, the bulk of their workforce is
part time, and Sears and K-Mart are moving in that direction.

>> Oh, really? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm
>> "During the five years from 2000 to 2005, the US economy grew in size
>> from $9.8 trillion to $11.2 trillion, an increase in real terms of 14%.
>> Productivity - the measure of the output of the economy per worker
>> employed - grew even more strongly, by 16.6%. But over the same period,
>> the median family's income slid by 2.9%, in contrast to the 11.3% gain
>> registered in the second half of the 1990s. "
>>
>> If the median family income fell, then a lot of people either had pay
>> cuts, or lost their jobs and had to take lower-paying jobs.
>
> Guess what, Mike? During that time period we had a recession due in part
> to the dot-com bubble bursting, the 9/11 attacks, and the accounting
> scandals.
>
> Furthermore, you even manage to screw up with what little knowledge you do
> have. Lots of things could explain the median income dropping. Remember,
> median is the point at which there are as many people above that level as
> below. It is not the average. A decrease in the number of rich people
> could explain. In fact, the wages for the people *below* the median could
> have risen, but that could have been offset by a decrease in people making
> the big bucks.

But that isn't what's happening, there are more people making less money,
those at the top are getting richer, there are more billionaires now that at
any other time in history. From:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_land.html,
"This year, for the first time, everyone in The Forbes 400 has at least $1
billion."

> In *my* world (technology) I saw this first-hand. In the period leading up
> to Y2K a lot of technology people were grossly overpaid in my opinion.
> This was driven by some many businesses needing new, big-ticket software
> packages. The company I was at went from 30 people around 1997/98 to 65
> people in 2000 and back down to 35 people in 2001. Guys I knew who were
> making $150K were applying for $50K jobs.
>
> This could explain the numbers. But unlike you, I know the reality is that
> it is *far* more complex than your myopic little scenario or my personal
> experiences. Your citation is actually meaningless when it comes to
> drawing any inferences. It is what it is, but proves nothing.

My citation from Forbes.com means something, and tends to verify my first
citation. Bringing 9/11 and the dot com bust into it means nothing, the
stock market is at record levels, there are more billionaires than ever
before, so it isn't 9/11 and it isn't the dot com bust, it's corporate
greed, putting the investor first, and the current administration meddling
with things they shouldn't. As I said before, complex things are just groups
of simple things.

Like I said, in 2009, I'll say, "I told you so.", and you'll try to twist
things around and weasel out of it.

>
>>> Oh, no! Not your ill-informed Walmart rant again!
>>
>> How are the facts "ill-informed"?
>
> I'm not going there again, Mike. If you need to exercise your brain (no
> disrespect intended) why don't you take this crap to alt.walmart? Yes,
> there is such a newsgroup.

That's right, ignore what you can't counter.

>>> Diseases like that are self-regulating. If they kill too many too fast
>>> the disease itself dies out. The bacteria is neither good nor evil. It
>>> is what it is.
>>
>> Tell that the the families of those who lost their lives to those
>> self-regulating diseases.
>
> Okay:
>
> Attention: If you've lost a loved one to a fatal disease, you have my
> sympathies. However, the disease itself is neither good nor evil. Bacteria
> and viruses just do what they do. Some are harmful to us, some are
> beneficial, and many are benign. But in the end they have no other
> motivation except to reproduce and thus can be neither good nor evil.
>
> Satisfied?

Exactly the same statement may be made concerning the human race, and/or
individual human beings. Just substitute "human" for "disease", "bacteria",
and "viruses".
"
>> Okay, and I'll say, "I told you so.", and you'll find some way to twist
>> things around and weasel out of it. :-)
>
> You've known me for a few years now, Mike. If I'm wrong, I admit it. I
> remember once back in 2002...

The problem is that you're fundamentally incapable of seeing that you're
wrong, therefore you never see any need to admit to being wrong. You've been
wrong in several of the debates we've had and you don't admit it, you just
say something about there being no point in debating with me any further
because "blah, balh, blah", and then you warn other group members about the
futility of arguing with me.
As for the rest, we'll see in 2009. :-)

Jim Carr

05-04-2007, 12:09 AM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:Cbx_h.7560$TD3.1026@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

> I may not have been clear, but I was referring to fulltimers at Sears and
> K-Mart, Walmart now has very few fulltimers, the bulk of their workforce
> is part time, and Sears and K-Mart are moving in that direction.

Remember what I said about your ill-informed Walmart rants? Here's a quote
from a NY Times article:

"Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told
them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time
from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time
workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25
percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October."

That doesn't jive with your claim about "very few fulltimers" and the "bulk"
being part time.

> But that isn't what's happening, there are more people making less money,
> those at the top are getting richer, there are more billionaires now that
> at any other time in history. From:
> http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_land.html,
> "This year, for the first time, everyone in The Forbes 400 has at least $1
> billion."

So what, Mike? This is the *median* income, not mean. If you have seven
people making 10K, 20K, 30K, 40K, 50K, 60K, and 70K, the median income is
40K. In year 2 the three people above 40K *double* their income. In year 3
the three people below 40K halve their income.

Guess what? The median remains unchanged over that three year period. Can
you see the futility of trying to draw too many inferences from such a
claim?

> My citation from Forbes.com means something, and tends to verify my first
> citation. Bringing 9/11 and the dot com bust into it means nothing,

Those events partially explain the recession. This is all about your
crazy-ass recursion theory about how corporations decide to pay people less,
so the common folk have less to spend, so corporations have to pay them less
blah blah blah. There's a point to that, but if it were the major problem
you said it was, we'd be in a depression.

> As I said before, complex things are just groups of simple things.

Spoken like someone who doesn't really understand complex systems. Drop a
rock into the deep end of the swimming pool and tell me what kind of
splashes I will see five minutes later at the shallow end.

Mike Rieves

05-04-2007, 01:42 AM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:9ux_h.30594$OT4.17143@newsfe19.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:Cbx_h.7560$TD3.1026@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> I may not have been clear, but I was referring to fulltimers at Sears
>> and K-Mart, Walmart now has very few fulltimers, the bulk of their
>> workforce is part time, and Sears and K-Mart are moving in that
>> direction.
>
> Remember what I said about your ill-informed Walmart rants? Here's a quote
> from a NY Times article:
>
> "Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told
> them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time
> from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time
> workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25
> percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October."

> That doesn't jive with your claim about "very few fulltimers" and the
> "bulk" being part time.

If you believe the Walmart company officials... You might want to look
elsewhere for a more reliable source. The local Walmart has very few
non-management fulltimers, and all the jobs it advertises have been part
time for the last couple of years.

>> But that isn't what's happening, there are more people making less
>> money, those at the top are getting richer, there are more billionaires
>> now that at any other time in history. From:
>> http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_land.html,
>> "This year, for the first time, everyone in The Forbes 400 has at least
>> $1 billion."
>
> So what, Mike? This is the *median* income, not mean. If you have seven
> people making 10K, 20K, 30K, 40K, 50K, 60K, and 70K, the median income is
> 40K. In year 2 the three people above 40K *double* their income. In year 3
> the three people below 40K halve their income.
>
> Guess what? The median remains unchanged over that three year period. Can
> you see the futility of trying to draw too many inferences from such a
> claim?

The facts are: the rich are getting richer and the median income for
American families is falling, what inferences should I make from those
facts?

>> My citation from Forbes.com means something, and tends to verify my
first
>> citation. Bringing 9/11 and the dot com bust into it means nothing,
>
> Those events partially explain the recession. This is all about your
> crazy-ass recursion theory about how corporations decide to pay people
> less, so the common folk have less to spend, so corporations have to pay
> them less blah blah blah. There's a point to that, but if it were the
> major problem you said it was, we'd be in a depression.

Just wait, it's coming and it's going to be bad. The American economy is
very massive and there's a lot of inertia, but it is on it's way, unless
there are some major changes.

>> As I said before, complex things are just groups of simple things.
>
> Spoken like someone who doesn't really understand complex systems. Drop a
> rock into the deep end of the swimming pool and tell me what kind of
> splashes I will see five minutes later at the shallow end.

You won't see splashes, you'll see waves, small ones... and they will form
interference patterns. If you a want more exact description, you'll need to
specify the size and weight of the rock, the height from which it was
dropped, the exact dimensions of the pool, the exact amount of water in it,
the exact specific gravity of the water (it varies with mineral content),
the temperature of the air and the water, the exact longitude and latitude
of the pool, the material from which the pool is made, whether it is an
above ground or below ground pool, the wind speed and direction relative to
the pool, the humidity of the air, a complete description and dimensions of
any walls or fences around the pool, and a few dozen more variables.

Are you aware that 25% of American honey bees have disappeared and the
phenomena shows no signs of stopping? That's a simple fact, and here's a
simple question, if the bees continue to disappear at the present rate, how
will the economy be affected?

Jim Carr

05-04-2007, 03:59 AM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:FQy_h.7892$TD3.7060@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

> If you believe the Walmart company officials... You might want to look
> elsewhere for a more reliable source. The local Walmart has very few
> non-management fulltimers, and all the jobs it advertises have been part
> time for the last couple of years.

Considering that they are a publicly traded company with literally
*thousands* of people who could blow the whistle and get them in serious
trouble, I think I'll believe them but take it with a grain of salt.

> The facts are: the rich are getting richer and the median income for
> American families is falling, what inferences should I make from those
> facts?

First, it makes absolutely no difference to the median income if the rich
get richer. That's what I just showed you with the numbers. Take the median
income today, whatever it might be. You could quadruple the income of
everyone above the median and not affect the median.

Second, you said the "have-nots" were suffering when in fact a lowering of
the median income could be done by having some of the "haves" taking big
hits in their income while the "have-nots" remain unaffected (or they could
actually improve their average incomes).

>> Spoken like someone who doesn't really understand complex systems. Drop a
>> rock into the deep end of the swimming pool and tell me what kind of
>> splashes I will see five minutes later at the shallow end.
>
> You won't see splashes, you'll see waves, small ones... and they will
> form interference patterns.

I *will* see splashes as the waves crash against the side of the pool.

>If you a want more exact description, you'll need to specify the size and
>weight of the rock, the height from which it was dropped, the exact
>dimensions of the pool, the exact amount of water in it, the exact specific
>gravity of the water (it varies with mineral content), the temperature of
>the air and the water, the exact longitude and latitude of the pool, the
>material from which the pool is made, whether it is an above ground or
>below ground pool, the wind speed and direction relative to the pool, the
>humidity of the air, a complete description and dimensions of any walls or
>fences around the pool, and a few dozen more variables.

You still won't be able to predict it. BTW, where are your groups of simple
things?

> Are you aware that 25% of American honey bees have disappeared and the
> phenomena shows no signs of stopping? That's a simple fact, and here's a
> simple question, if the bees continue to disappear at the present rate,
> how will the economy be affected?

That's an interesting question. Thanks for asking. Now you will see what I
mean about it being incredibly complex. Everything I will list below is
possible to some degree. And I've barely scratched the surface.

* If food production is affected to a great degree, then food prices will
probably rise. This could adversely affect those with lesser income.

* Since businesses make a profit in percentages rather than absolute
amounts, there could be increased profits.

* Businesses may take advantage and hike prices to more than offset the
increased price of raw goods, thus have even higher profits.

* The above could raise stock prices and drag along other stocks.

* If during this time of higher profits the unionized workers at grocery
stores have to renegotiate, they might end up with higher wages because of
the increased profit.

* The above might lower stock prices and drag along other stocks.

* If food prices go up, air travel prices might have to rise to compensate.
This could reduce travel and therefore adversely affect tourist areas as
well as the airlines.

* If there are fewer flights, less fuel is consumed. This might lower the
price of oil due to decreased demand.

* If gas prices go down and air flight costs go up, people might drive even
more.

* The above would increase gas taxes collected. With increased gas tax
revenues, more roadway projects might be funded.

* If the above happens, all sorts of industries benefit, so the economy
benefits.

* But the increased roads and driving will increase the demand for oil, so
the prices may go up again.

Slippery slope, eh?

* Some sort of replacement for bee pollination will have to be found. Most
likely this will new machinery. This will be a boon to manufacturing.

* There will need to be new labor to run the new machines, thus more
unskilled workers getting work.

* Who knows? Maybe the new system will be more efficient, resulting in crop
production that was even larger than before.

* If that happens, more laborers will be needed during the harvest.

* If that happens, we might have more illegal immigrants.

* If that happens, it could put an even larger strain on healthcare.

* If that happens, we might end up with universal healthcare, which would
radically change the economy.

I could go on like this forever, Mike. That's been my point all along. I
like my rants as much as the next guy, but at least I acknowledge that it's
probably far more complex than it seems.

Mike Rieves

05-06-2007, 02:04 AM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:1RA_h.112379$cJ1.20482@newsfe13.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:FQy_h.7892$TD3.7060@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> If you believe the Walmart company officials... You might want to look
>> elsewhere for a more reliable source. The local Walmart has very few
>> non-management fulltimers, and all the jobs it advertises have been part
>> time for the last couple of years.
>
> Considering that they are a publicly traded company with literally
> *thousands* of people who could blow the whistle and get them in serious
> trouble, I think I'll believe them but take it with a grain of salt.

It would be wise to take eveything you hear from Walmart with a grain of
salt.

>> The facts are: the rich are getting richer and the median income for
>> American families is falling, what inferences should I make from those
>> facts?
>
> First, it makes absolutely no difference to the median income if the rich
> get richer. That's what I just showed you with the numbers. Take the
> median income today, whatever it might be. You could quadruple the income
> of everyone above the median and not affect the median.

Sure, but taking the facts that the rich are getting richer and that the
median income is going down together points to there being lower wages on
the low end.

> Second, you said the "have-nots" were suffering when in fact a lowering of
> the median income could be done by having some of the "haves" taking big
> hits in their income while the "have-nots" remain unaffected (or they
> could actually improve their average incomes).
>

If that were the case, but it isn't.

>>> Spoken like someone who doesn't really understand complex systems. Drop
>>> a rock into the deep end of the swimming pool and tell me what kind of
>>> splashes I will see five minutes later at the shallow end.
>>
>> You won't see splashes, you'll see waves, small ones... and they will
>> form interference patterns.
>
> I *will* see splashes as the waves crash against the side of the pool.

Not five minutes later, you won't, unless you are using a magnifying
glass, even with a large rock.

>>If you a want more exact description, you'll need to specify the size and
>>weight of the rock, the height from which it was dropped, the exact
>>dimensions of the pool, the exa