At 01:53 PM 1/24/01 -0800, Kristin "flaming pinko" Ruhle wrote:
> I say WHAST ABOUT ALL THE
>POOR HARDWORKING PEOPLE YOU JUST LAID OFF YOU F***ING GREEDY
>BASTARDS?!?!?!!! FOr someone in China to get a job someobody in America
>has to LOSE HIS. Gravitating to the lowest wages.
Which is the more socially responisble option?
A) Providing a job to an American, who living in a solid economy at
nearly full employment has lots of other potential job opportunities.
B) Providing a job to an impoverished citizen of a Third World country,
who without your job would likely be unemployed or working for much lower
wages. Additionally, by employing cheaper labor you can produce your
rechargeable batteries much cheaper allowing you to earn higher profits,
which is translated into increased wealth for many share-holding middle
class Americans. Moreover, even while boosting your profits you are also
able to lower your prices to undercut your competition (boosting volume,
and thereby profits), which also makes your products available to many poor
American that could not ordinarily afford your products, and boosting the
overall health of the American economy.
Wow.... tough choice.
>Oh, well, can you wave a magic wand to
>instantly turn veteran factory workers into high wage techies? THey are
>all going to end up working at McDonalds at minimum wage and no benefits!!
No, you cannot. But, most Middle Class Americans these days have a
college education, and I woudl recommend that they get one also.
Otherwise, they will have to settle for being a member of the lower
classes. Simple manual labor is no longer a highly valued commodity in
this country, and it is irrational to expect it to continue to be highly
valued.
Let's face it, educated workers *must* earn more than unskilled workers.
Otherwise, there would be no incentive for getting an education.
>Kristin the FLaming Pinko! Damn RIGHT! No I didn't vote for Nader, but
>that's mostly because it would have just been a vote for Bush (whose
>environmental policies make me want to throw up; according to his religion
>the world will end soon so why save it.)
Wrong villain of the week - that guy was even too loony from Republicans
and was forced out during the Reagan Administration.
>"Compassionate conservative" is an OXYMORON. Profit seems to be dependent
>on HURTING PEOPLE.
Care to offer a definition of "compassionate conservative" so that I can at
least point out how wrong you are?
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ
#3527685
"Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today:
to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of
our lives and every life." - George W. Bush Inaugural Address 1/20/01
