On 9/22/2021 4:14 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:21:01 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:39:03 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/21/2021 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>>>>>>>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>>>>>>>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>>>>>>>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>>>>>>>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>>>>>>>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>>>>>>>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>>>>>>>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>>>>>>>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>>>>>>>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>>>>>>>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>>>>>>>>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>>>>>>>>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>>>>>>>>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>>>>>>>>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>>>>>>>>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>>>>>>>>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>>>>>>>>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>>>>>>>>>>> means who work and save.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>>>>>>>>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>>>>>>>>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>>>>>>>>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>>>>>>>>>>> the wilderness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
>>>>>>>>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
>>>>>>>>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
>>>>>>>>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
>>>>>>>>> contribute much to election campaigns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>>>>>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>>>>>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>>>>>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>>>>>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>>>>>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>>>>>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>>>>>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>>>>>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>>>>>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>>>>>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>>>>>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>>>>>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>>>>>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>>>>>>> auto.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>>>>>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
>>>>>>> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
>>>>>>> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
>>>>>>> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
>>>>>>> making broad generalizations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>>>>>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>>>>>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>>>>>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>>>>>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>>>>>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>>>>>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
>>>>> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
>>>>> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
>>>>> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
>>>>>
>>>>> As for living in a ghetto and not having an influence? Frank read the
>>>>> News! The Texas voting law changes that are being reported are,
>>>>> apparently, aimed at prevent those very same ghetto folks you mention
>>>>> as not having any political power, from voting. Now, if they have no
>>>>> political power why in the world is Texas so intent on preventing them
>>>>> from voting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you might want to read a little history. "Mayor" Curley, of Boston,
>>>>> was actually elected twice while serving prison sentences, not by the
>>>>> Rich Folk but by the poor Irish multitudes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I follow Texas politics on WBAP. Would you name one
>>>> unreasonably restrictive aspect of the revised Statute
>>>> please? If there's some outlandish restriction, I missed it.
>>>>
>>>> Here's SB1 as signed by the Governor earlier this month:
>>>> https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/871/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Since you mentioned Mr Curley, SB1 attempts to limit legal
>>>> registered voters to only one ballot each, which IMHO would
>>>> be a good thing.
>>>
>>> Actually I don't know a damned thing about Texas voting laws. Except
>>> what I read in the news. And that seems to be that the new laws will,
>>> somehow, infringe or limit, the rights of (it seems to be implied) "po
>>> folks".
>>>
>> Despite the actual text of the statute. Much like 'Larry
>> Elder is a white supremacist' which was the only story on LA
>> news for weeks. pfffft.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> I'm not sure how Larry Elder could be a white supremacist. I'm pretty sure to be a white supremacist you have to be white. Its right there in the title.
>

On 9/22/2021 5:16 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>> William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
>>>>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
>>>>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
>>>>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
>>>>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
>>>>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
>>>>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
>>>>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
>>>>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
>>>>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
>>>>>>> therefore work more safely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
>>>>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
>>>>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
>>>>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
>>>>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
>>>>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
>>>>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
>>>>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
>>>>>> latter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
>>>>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
>>>>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
>>>>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
>>>>> expense high among them.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
>>>> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
>>>> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
>>>> their only option was to quit.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
>>>> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
>>>> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
>>>> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
>>>> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
>>>> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
>>>> financially.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
>>> on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
>>> culture _that_ would be news.
>> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
>> 1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
>> workers.
>>
>> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
>> weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.
>
> As Thomas Sowell points out, unions increase the wages of their members, at the expense of non-union employees, essentially by restricting the labor supply. The labor movement used to claim that union labor would benefit non-union labor because "a rising tide lifts all boats". However, not even the AFL-CIO any longer makes this claim because it's been proven beyond dispute that the rising wages of union labor cause inflation because the wage increases are not related to increases in productivity. Therefore non-union labor suffers because their wages do not increase, yet they have to pay the inflated prices.

Increases in productivity - especially modern ones - have led to huge
compensation increases and bonuses for top executives, but wages of
ordinary workers have not risen in parallel. In fact, when productivity
rises ordinary workers may suffer layoffs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 5:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I have shown you how many times (?) that there were only 2,000 actual excess respiratory disease deaths...

Such unadulterated bullshit.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/22/2021 5:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:31:29 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:56:33 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:26:45 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
>>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
>>>> WC premium typically is based on classification and experience (classes of workers and injury magnitude/frequency), and I'm not aware of discounts for safety programs, except to the extent those programs reduce losses. https://www.saif.com/news/safety-pays-dividends.html In the olden days, WC insurers did routine safety inspections, but that' kind of faded away in the '80s.
>>>>
>>>> Serious employers want to avoid injuries to avoid corresponding increases in WC premium -- sometimes huge -- and to reduce OSHA liability. Some employers have incredibly robust safety programs -- practically Draconian. Gypo employers don't care and will be gone next week anyway. Go past any subdivision under construction and look at all the meth-crazed roofers running around without being tied-off. That sub will be gone next week and reemerge a week later as a different company, owned buy the guy's sister. Large unions police safety, often as a means of justifying more workers -- one to work and five to ensure safety.
>>> I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer? If that is the case, why would you mention workman's compensation? That does NOT prevent businesses from being sued for any safety violations.
>> One more time with emphasis: employers want to avoid worker injuries because they drive up the cost of workers compensation insurance. Like Andrew mentioned, experience ratings are coveted, and in Oregon at least, they follow a business post-sale in many cases.
>>
>> No, I am not a personal injury lawyer. And yes, workers compensation exclusive remedy provisions DO prevent employers from being sued for safety violations that cause injuries, subject to tag-out lock-out statutes and other exceptions. Workers compensation statutes do not prevent OSHA enforcement and penalty actions. When an employee is injured, and employer is looking at potentially higher WC premium rates and an OSHA penalty action, which are a PITA -- particularly Federal OSHA. OSHA also has penalty multipliers for recidivists.
>
> How many states have the WC bar?
>

All of them.

Not sure where you're going with this but it sounds like
you've never been to a State Labor Department hearing nor in
a workplace issues lawsuit either as plaintiff or defendant.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer?

I'm shaking my head at Tom's "memory" again.

Wow.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:20:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:39:03 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/21/2021 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:09:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/21/2021 8:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 10:34 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:10:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 7:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:38:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 9:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 9:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 1:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 12:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/19/2021 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 8:07:08 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <giant snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Trade and barter is almost impossible for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government to trace, hence the excise taxes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported the US for so long. These were perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the common citizen because those paying the excise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes were "the rich" as they saw them. Jay appears to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that large corporations would be the one's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in trade and barter which is silly. For their own good,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corporations and large companies must of needs keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful and accurate records which are entirely open to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't think corporations and large companies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in barter, although they are involved in trade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all sorts of non-cash exchanges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was the chief engineer running the power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant used in Salinas for what eventually became C & H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar company. They grew and processed sugar cane into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar. It took a very long time for the IRS to grow to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the level a sophistication to be able to keep track of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the millions of small stores buying the sugar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the company paid taxes and few others did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once it left the retail store NO taxes were paid on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade and barter of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF? Although the history of sugar taxation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882993?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I don't think there has been an excise tax on sugar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for over 100 years. The IRS keeps track of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of small stores buying the sugar by collecting income
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from those stores, and state regulators collect sales
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> income tax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone borrows a cup of sugar or trades a cup of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugar for a box of Cheerios, there is probably no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event, but I don't know what the law is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, transactions between retail purchasers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escapes taxation -- and so do cash sales. Most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garage-sellers aren't collecting or paying sales tax,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with today's tax system is plainly shown in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that dress worn by AOC - "Tax the Rich" as if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't carry the brunt of taxation far above their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earnings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you "tax the rich" you invariably hurt the working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man as jobs disappear. Trump wasn't saving himself any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money by reducing the highest rate - he was making jobs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for everyone and it showed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You tax everyone according to uniform rules,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establishing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marginal rates in some equitable way. Of course the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich are taxed. They always have been taxed. ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highest marginal rates in the 1950s were staggering, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet manufacturing and employment were at an all-time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peak. There is often a low correlation between tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy and corporate spending on workers or capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expenditures as we learned with the Reagan and Trump
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trickle-down tax give-aways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sugar duty changed into import quotas as a less visible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path to price supports for US producers. It's not always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about direct revenue; governance involves many goals,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policies, interests, hidden agendae etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1960s marginal rates were draconian but... The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate paid by any given percentile of income is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar. I say roughly because the present actual revenue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is highly progressive, moreso than in the immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postwar era.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js1287.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (first in a web search. I'm sure there's something more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current but the trend on that chart is clear enough)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can that be? The devil's in the all too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voluminous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details. Economists have made at least some headway
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broader flatter rates with fewer carve-outs, exceptions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exemptions, incentives and such. This gives a more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient system and generally higher compliance, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> history shows. Tip of the hat to Art Laffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a flatter tax scheme as better. On a drive we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make weekly, I pass by a brand new mansion. I'm guessing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~10,000 square feet on ~5 acres, surrounded by brand new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stone fences about six feet high. The carriage house or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servants' quarters or whatever is larger than our house.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also drive by plenty of scrappy little houses even more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tiny than ours. It's hard to convince me that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each should pay the same percentage of their income in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helpful graphic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://files.taxfoundation.org/20200225094221/FF697-01.png
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the numerical data summarized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the very granular actual IRS data for the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent fully published period (2018).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18in35tr.xls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zoom down to the bottom rows of columns AP~AR it's not at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all what you think it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the executive summary: "Rich people pay more taxes than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> poor people"? That's not news. You can't get blood out of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stone - that is, you can't get much money from people who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have much money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It requires a certain amount of money to run a government,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain infrastructure, run a society. It takes a certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of taxation to provide paved roads, sewage systems,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law enforcement, fire departments, public schools and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me, it seems much more reasonable to get the next chunk
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of necessary money from the guy spending cash on a second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yacht, instead of from a woman taking three different buses
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get to her two jobs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Were you commenting on some other country or historic era?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's precisely the system we have, and radically so. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have not advocated anything, just noting that the top 1%
>>>>>>>>>>>> of taxpayers earn 21% of income and pay 39$ of income taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The top 50% by income pay 97% of income taxes; The lower
>>>>>>>>>>>> 50$ pay 3%.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I understand that those with more currently pay more.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd say the question is, do they pay _enough_ more?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The county engineer needs funds to pave local roads. Much of
>>>>>>>>>>> that money comes from gas tax. So the owner of a $50,000
>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln hybrid getting 40 mpg pays less per mile than the
>>>>>>>>>>> guy who can afford only a 2000 Ford Taurus getting 18 mpg.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's just one example of how the system benefits the wealthy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Based on my own experience, if a person is making just
>>>>>>>>>>> enough to get by, it's very hard to take advantage of
>>>>>>>>>>> economic opportunities - even basic ones like buying a more
>>>>>>>>>>> efficient car or insulating one's home - let alone to
>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But once people get a bit above water, so to speak, the
>>>>>>>>>>> smart ones can do economically productive things with any
>>>>>>>>>>> excess. The more they do that, the faster their wealth
>>>>>>>>>>> grows. But those who start out in a prosperous family get
>>>>>>>>>>> that excess from birth. It is much, much easier for them to
>>>>>>>>>>> climb the economic ladder.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And wherever the personal wealth excess comes from (smart &
>>>>>>>>>>> hard work, inheritance, dumb luck) once a person has a
>>>>>>>>>>> certain amount, it can accumulate rapidly, as an exponential
>>>>>>>>>>> function. So it's always WAY easier for a wealthy person,
>>>>>>>>>>> compared to a poor person, to afford a $10,000 bill.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Countries with less income and wealth disparity tend to be
>>>>>>>>>>> more stable, have lower crime rates, and have more
>>>>>>>>>>> contented citizenry. The U.S. is not one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The world is chock full of examples of self destruction,
>>>>>>>>>> indolence and worse among the children of the rich.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moreover the trend of late to accuse our culture of 'income
>>>>>>>>>> disparity' (which I'm not convinced is an actual problem.
>>>>>>>>>> More like a feature. YMMV) skips over county rent, food
>>>>>>>>>> stamps, free medical, many other transfers. Actual net
>>>>>>>>>> income and living standards do not reflect the headlines.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At least we seem to agree that excessive regulation inhibits
>>>>>>>>>> upward mobility for those of meager means. I've been singing
>>>>>>>>>> that song for 50 years, during which time the regulatory
>>>>>>>>>> deck became more unfairly stacked against people of small
>>>>>>>>>> means who work and save.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The income tax structure is just as you wish- severely
>>>>>>>>>> punitive as income goes up. But the payroll tax, 14.5% on
>>>>>>>>>> the first dollar, is the reverse. Never hear any bleeding
>>>>>>>>>> hearts in favor of changing that, just my voice out here in
>>>>>>>>>> the wilderness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've always wondered whether the graduated tax spiraling upward to
>>>>>>>>> penalize individuals that "had made a bit" wasn't due primarily to the
>>>>>>>>> fact that there are far more low paid voters then high paid voters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the highly paid voters and corporations can much more
>>>>>>>> easily afford to buy plenty of politicians.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People taking the bus between their two minimum wage jobs don't
>>>>>>>> contribute much to election campaigns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point was that poor folks vote and there are just so many more of
>>>>>>> them then the "upper" class. Thus it behoove a politician to cater to
>>>>>>> them. And they do; usually successfully.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you keep mentioning these po folks and their two minimum salary
>>>>>>> jobs but I know a considerable number of poorly educated blokes who
>>>>>>> through their own efforts found their way into high paying jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One chap, a particular friend, ran away from home when he was about 15
>>>>>>> years old and told me that his first job was a helper with a team that
>>>>>>> erected farm silos. He later worked as a laborer on drilling rigs and
>>>>>>> worked himself up until today he is now a "Drilling Manager" and has a
>>>>>>> standing offer from the national oil companies of both Malaysia and
>>>>>>> Vietnam for a position any time he wants to work. He is, by the way,
>>>>>>> on his third yacht (:-) floating around in the Philippines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, he isn't unique, I've probably mentioned a school mate who, while
>>>>>>> most of us untamed heathens were down at the creek swimming was
>>>>>>> industrially mowing lawns. He accumulated sufficient funds that when
>>>>>>> he turned 16 and got his driver's license he bought a (second hand)
>>>>>>> auto.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact I seem to remember you mentioning delivering newspapers and
>>>>>>> Jay has mentioned driving an ambulance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not unlike my experience (albeit more successful) and I know a great
>>>>>> many men with similar experience. Tropes of 'doomed lower class peons'
>>>>>> are as overrated as English PhDs driving taxis (of whom I knew two).
>>>>>> Humans are a wildly diverse lot, such that one ought to pause when
>>>>>> making broad generalizations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and I know a very intelligent PhD biologist who has had to struggle
>>>>> with part time work for years. A young man in our neighborhood - eagle
>>>>> scout, valedictorian, bachelor's & masters degrees - can find work only
>>>>> as a stockboy. But I also have a dropout friend poor enough to ride his
>>>>> bike to soup giveaways. Anecdotes have limited value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really think a voter living in a ghetto has as much influence as
>>>>> a voter living in a mansion? Why do wealthy people organize and attend
>>>>> Fund Raising Dinners? How many Fund Raising Dinners are held in ghettos?
>>>>
>>>> As for the poor, but highly educated, bloke who couldn't find a decent
>>>> job? What actual marketable skills did he have. I ask as over the
>>>> years we employed a very large number of skilled artesian's who had
>>>> little formal schooling and still made "top dollar".
>>>>
>>>> As for living in a ghetto and not having an influence? Frank read the
>>>> News! The Texas voting law changes that are being reported are,
>>>> apparently, aimed at prevent those very same ghetto folks you mention
>>>> as not having any political power, from voting. Now, if they have no
>>>> political power why in the world is Texas so intent on preventing them
>>>> from voting.
>>>>
>>>> Or you might want to read a little history. "Mayor" Curley, of Boston,
>>>> was actually elected twice while serving prison sentences, not by the
>>>> Rich Folk but by the poor Irish multitudes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I follow Texas politics on WBAP. Would you name one
>>> unreasonably restrictive aspect of the revised Statute
>>> please? If there's some outlandish restriction, I missed it.
>>>
>>> Here's SB1 as signed by the Governor earlier this month:
>>> https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/871/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf
>>>
>>> Since you mentioned Mr Curley, SB1 attempts to limit legal
>>> registered voters to only one ballot each, which IMHO would
>>> be a good thing.
>>
>> Actually I don't know a damned thing about Texas voting laws. Except
>> what I read in the news. And that seems to be that the new laws will,
>> somehow, infringe or limit, the rights of (it seems to be implied) "po
>> folks".
>>
>
>Despite the actual text of the statute. Much like 'Larry
>Elder is a white supremacist' which was the only story on LA
>news for weeks. pfffft.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 3:38:31 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 5:16 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
> >>>>>> William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
> >>>>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
> >>>>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
> >>>>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
> >>>>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
> >>>>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
> >>>>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
> >>>>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
> >>>>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
> >>>>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
> >>>>>>> therefore work more safely.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
> >>>>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
> >>>>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
> >>>>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
> >>>>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
> >>>>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
> >>>>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
> >>>>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
> >>>>>> latter.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
> >>>>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
> >>>>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
> >>>>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
> >>>>> expense high among them.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
> >>>> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
> >>>> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
> >>>> their only option was to quit.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
> >>>> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
> >>>> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
> >>>> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
> >>>> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
> >>>> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
> >>>> financially.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
> >>> on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
> >>> culture _that_ would be news.
> >> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
> >> 1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
> >> workers.
> >>
> >> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
> >> weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.
> >
> > As Thomas Sowell points out, unions increase the wages of their members, at the expense of non-union employees, essentially by restricting the labor supply. The labor movement used to claim that union labor would benefit non-union labor because "a rising tide lifts all boats". However, not even the AFL-CIO any longer makes this claim because it's been proven beyond dispute that the rising wages of union labor cause inflation because the wage increases are not related to increases in productivity. Therefore non-union labor suffers because their wages do not increase, yet they have to pay the inflated prices.
> Increases in productivity - especially modern ones - have led to huge
> compensation increases and bonuses for top executives, but wages of
> ordinary workers have not risen in parallel. In fact, when productivity
> rises ordinary workers may suffer layoffs.

Do you mean like when Obama gave a so-called solar energy company 10 billion dollars and the company split it up between the owners and managers and promptly filed for bankruptcy?

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer?
> I'm shaking my head at Tom's "memory" again.
>
> Wow.

Explain to us all how you were shaking your head after Jay said that he was representing Fauci in a suit for me saying he was insider trading - which he stated in public and then it was promptly erased off of the Internet. Sort of like the White House ordered Facebook to suspend my account for citing the CDC's own statistics.

You get the sort of world you want and deserve. So don't be surprised when you can't afford to buy a gallon of gas

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:15:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>
>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?
>>
>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater influence then a
>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>
>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine whether you get
>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be quite happy to
>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>
>I believe this is the way it works:
>
>Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can attend a meet
>& greet session at (say) a church in a low income neighborhood; or he
>can attend a fund raising dinner hosted by a wealthy friend.
>
>Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But let's pretend
>he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think "Maybe I can get 700 to vote
>for me."
>
>If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands of dollars.
>Those dollars could help pay for television spots in which he portrays
>his rivals as spawn of the devil. Those ads would be seen my tens of
>thousands. They'd have far more impact.
>
>Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk to the rich
>folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they wanted ("More tax
>breaks, dammit!") and promise to do whatever he can.

You seem intent on furthering my arguments. The "television spots" you
mention? Are these intended to influence a few rich folks? Or the
"unwashed multitudes".

If your argument is correct then all a politician has to do is simply
attend a few high dollar suppers and be assured of being elected.
Goodness, Gracious, he wouldn't have to run frantically all around the
country making speeches, shaking hands and kissing babies.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:22:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
>>>> enough of them into
>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
>>>> all coming
>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
>>>> much influence
>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
>>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
>>> influence then a
>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>
>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
>>> whether you get
>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
>>> quite happy to
>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>
>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>
>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
>> attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
>> income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
>> hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>
>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
>> let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
>> "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
>>
>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
>> of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
>> spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
>> Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
>> far more impact.
>>
>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
>> to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
>> wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
>> whatever he can.
>>
>>
>
>All those scenarios are probable.
>
>And yet among the largest campaign contributors are unions,
>year after year.

And, I think that if you look into it quite a number of those making
large donations to political parties give equally to both parties so
that no matter who wins they can always say, "See, we supported you
when you needed it, so now we'd like you to..."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/22/2021 6:11 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:15:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>
>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?
>>>
>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater influence then a
>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>
>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine whether you get
>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be quite happy to
>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>
>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>
>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can attend a meet
>> & greet session at (say) a church in a low income neighborhood; or he
>> can attend a fund raising dinner hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>
>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But let's pretend
>> he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think "Maybe I can get 700 to vote
>> for me."
>>
>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands of dollars.
>> Those dollars could help pay for television spots in which he portrays
>> his rivals as spawn of the devil. Those ads would be seen my tens of
>> thousands. They'd have far more impact.
>>
>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk to the rich
>> folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they wanted ("More tax
>> breaks, dammit!") and promise to do whatever he can.
>
> You seem intent on furthering my arguments. The "television spots" you
> mention? Are these intended to influence a few rich folks? Or the
> "unwashed multitudes".
>
> If your argument is correct then all a politician has to do is simply
> attend a few high dollar suppers and be assured of being elected.
> Goodness, Gracious, he wouldn't have to run frantically all around the
> country making speeches, shaking hands and kissing babies.
>

Ms Clinton spent twice as much as Mr Trump in 2016.

Not the only example. Money does help but is sometimes not
dispositive.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 6:14 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:22:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
>>>>> enough of them into
>>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
>>>>> all coming
>>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
>>>>> much influence
>>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>
>>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
>>>> influence then a
>>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
>>>> whether you get
>>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
>>>> quite happy to
>>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>>
>>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>>
>>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
>>> attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
>>> income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
>>> hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>>
>>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
>>> let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
>>> "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
>>>
>>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
>>> of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
>>> spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
>>> Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
>>> far more impact.
>>>
>>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
>>> to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
>>> wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
>>> whatever he can.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All those scenarios are probable.
>>
>> And yet among the largest campaign contributors are unions,
>> year after year.
>
> And, I think that if you look into it quite a number of those making
> large donations to political parties give equally to both parties so
> that no matter who wins they can always say, "See, we supported you
> when you needed it, so now we'd like you to..."
>

Yes, absolutely.
'We're thinking about including a line or two about your
industry in our next tax legislation...'

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/22/2021 7:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer?
>> I'm shaking my head at Tom's "memory" again.
>>
>> Wow.
>
> Explain to us all how you were shaking your head after Jay said that he was representing Fauci in a suit for me saying he was insider trading - which he stated in public and then it was promptly erased off of the Internet. Sort of like the White House ordered Facebook to suspend my account for citing the CDC's own statistics.
>
> You get the sort of world you want and deserve. So don't be surprised when you can't afford to buy a gallon of gas.

Tom, you've been posting similar dire warnings and threats for years.
And yet, here I am, still prosperous, no economic problems at all.

How's your neighborhood doing these days?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:38:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/21/2021 8:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/21/2021 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2021 7:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> During the Rodney King riots in LA, the locals openly
>>>> complained to reporters about the Korean businesses being
>>>> trashed/burned, 'They showed up here with 23c and no speak
>>>> English a few years ago and now they own the whole
>>>> neighborhood.'
>>>>
>>>> Uh, I think that's the whole point isn't it? And good for
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> One of my favorite students arrived here as a teenager when
>>> his family fled the Ukraine. I remember him describing the
>>> first time he went into an American convenience store and
>>> was astonished at the quantity and variety of goods available.
>>>
>>> His dad became a janitor at the university. Although they'd
>>> been here only a few years, the father owned his own home
>>> and car outright. The house was in a less desirable part of
>>> town, so it had been priced very low, and the family did the
>>> copious repair work it needed. The car was used and old but
>>> it ran. The furniture they bought was used as well. But the
>>> family was prospering, the son got the degree and last I
>>> heard from him he was working as a salesman of high tech
>>> machinery and doing very well.
>>>
>>> There was another guy I knew from eastern Europe, an
>>> electrical engineer. We actually helped him come here for
>>> political asylum. When he landed, he got a cheap apartment
>>> and a job painting trucks as he worked on his English and
>>> searching for better work. He eventually worked for an
>>> international company where he specialized in satellite
>>> communication. For several years, they supplied him and his
>>> family with a nice flat in London. Last I heard, he'd
>>> retired early, had a ranch in the western U.S. and was using
>>> his retirement to teach yoga.
>>>
>>> I think it's quite common for people who have come from
>>> really bad situations like that to be VERY motivated to work
>>> hard and be prudent with their money.
>>>
>>
>> Which is it? Recently you implied that people of meager means without
>> high society connections were doomed.
>
>As I said, I'm a big fan of Normal Curves. Every normal curve has two
>tails. But competing Normal Curves have different means, or different
>most likely values.
>
>In any case, the two individuals I mentioned both came from Soviet
>imposed poverty and suppression of opportunity. I suspect that the
>people coming to the U.S. from such circumstances (including south of
>our border) are the ones chomping at the bit to take advantage of every
>opportunity. After all, emigrating and leaving behind everyone and
>everything that was familiar is a huge, scary step; they must be highly
>motivated. And since the two guys I mentioned were both pale skinned, I
>suspect they had an easier path than many darker folks.
>
>By contrast, I think lots of poor people in the U.S. have had ambitions
>suppressed since birth. They've been raised among people who either
>never tried very hard, or tried hard yet failed. They're asked to meet
>only low standards - as in "just stay out of jail" - and, if dark
>enough, likely meet other barriers to real success.
>
>In brief, all poor people are not alike. All do not have the same
>opportunities or drive.

But Frank you are describing what many of the groups that immigrated
to the U.S. had experienced.

The Irish Catholics, for example had few if any "rights" from the time
that King William won the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. The poor
Italians, largely from Southern Italy and Sicily, certainly didn't
journey all the way to American because things were wonderful in
Italy. My wife's father immigrated from Southern China and what that
entailed makes the almost any other immigrant's story sound like
Heaven.

But all of these Immigrants landed in the "New Country", went to work,
educated their kids and "made something of themselves".

And, yes, I know you'll being up the subject of prejudice and yes, it
certainly existed and does today.

Ever hear the song, "We want no Irish here". It was written in 1862
and at a later date Irish Catholics were described, by future
President Theodore Roosevelt as a "stupid, sodden and vicious lot,
most of them being equally deficient in brains and virtue".

As for the Italians... well One of the largest mass lynchings in
American history was of eleven Italians in New Orleans, Louisiana, in
1891.

The Chinese? Good Lord, lets not even go into that. First imported as
Cooley labor to work in the gold fields and treated almost as well as
animals they were even forbidden to bring their wives and daughters
for fear that they would multiply.

And how did all these poor, improvised, spit upon immigrants do?

Well, the Irish Catholics elected a President.

According to the 2017 U.S. Census, Chinese American men had a
full-time median income of $71,096 and Chinese American women had a
median income of $60,157. Chinese Americans also have one of the
highest median household incomes among most demographic groups in the
United States, which is almost 30% higher than the national average.

And the Italians? Well, they elected Fiorello La Guardia as Mayor of
New York for 3 terms and they've started a few businesses such as, The
Bank of America, Home Depot, etc., and been the CEO of some big
companies, Chrysler Corporation by Lee Iacocca, IBM Corporation by
Samuel Palmisano, The New York Stock Exchange by Richard Grasso,
Honeywell Incorporated by Michael Bonsignore and Intel by Paul
Otellini. And, I just came across a "List of Italian-American
politicians by state. There are 243 listed. so, while they haven't yet
made President they are doing quite well in the political business.

So how come your poor, improvised, discriminated against, minority
haven't gotten off their butts and made something of themselves?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:00:40 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary factor in workplace safety is employer concern and attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the employees realize that their employer really is concerned about their safety, so they have a greater self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and therefore work more safely.
>>
>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the companies that have such programs are driven more by insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you describe is required by some insurance policies, and other companies may give a discount if such a program is implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the latter.
>>
>
>All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
>valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother Theresa
>on the board of directors to embrace safety measures &
>policies; they pay off in many was, insurance expense high
>among them.

I worked for a company engaged largely in construction of facilities
for international oil companies operating in remote areas of
Indonesia. the company had no safety regulations of any sort but they
did have complete medical and life coverage for any "on the job"
injury or death and in addition air evacuation to Singapore if
necessary.

In the, more then, 20 years I worked there I remember one death "in
the field" and a very few injuries.

I think that one reason was that we hired only experienced people as
supervisors and no more workers then actually required to do the job
which tended to keep the supervisors on their toes as to safety. If
you have ten guys doing a job that requires 10 guys then you don't
want to lose any (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 6:08:20 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 9/22/2021 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer?
> > I'm shaking my head at Tom's "memory" again.
> >
> > Wow.
> Explain to us all how you were shaking your head after Jay said that he was representing Fauci in a suit for me saying he was insider trading - which he stated in public and then it was promptly erased off of the Internet. Sort of like the White House ordered Facebook to suspend my account for citing the CDC's own statistics.
>

Oh my gosh Tommy. I understand you being a right wing nut case Trumper Republican Qanon shaman, you have no concept of or understanding of humor, sarcasm, cynicism. Below is Jay's post from earlier in this thread:

jbeattie
Sep 21, 2021, 12:43:47 PM (yesterday)
to
Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!

-- Jay Beattie.

Tommy, do you see where Jay wrote "BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading.. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!" Notice he wrote claims of insider trading, and take all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups and Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!. Jay was using humor, sarcasm to kid you and make fun of you. And you just gobbled it up. I thought Jay's comments were funny. But your response has really got me laughing hard for actually believing it. HaHaHa.

You really think Joe Biden's White House cares enough about you to order Facebook to suspend your account? Your ego or whatever must be bigger than the Goodyear blimp.

> You get the sort of world you want and deserve. So don't be surprised when you can't afford to buy a gallon of gas

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:38:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/22/2021 5:16 PM, William Crowell wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>> William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
>>>>>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
>>>>>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
>>>>>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
>>>>>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
>>>>>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
>>>>>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
>>>>>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
>>>>>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
>>>>>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
>>>>>>>> therefore work more safely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
>>>>>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
>>>>>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
>>>>>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
>>>>>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
>>>>>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
>>>>>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
>>>>>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
>>>>>>> latter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
>>>>>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
>>>>>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
>>>>>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
>>>>>> expense high among them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
>>>>> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
>>>>> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
>>>>> their only option was to quit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
>>>>> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
>>>>> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
>>>>> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
>>>>> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
>>>>> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
>>>>> financially.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
>>>> on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
>>>> culture _that_ would be news.
>>> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
>>> 1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
>>> workers.
>>>
>>> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
>>> weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.
>>
>> As Thomas Sowell points out, unions increase the wages of their members, at the expense of non-union employees, essentially by restricting the labor supply. The labor movement used to claim that union labor would benefit non-union labor because "a rising tide lifts all boats". However, not even the AFL-CIO any longer makes this claim because it's been proven beyond dispute that the rising wages of union labor cause inflation because the wage increases are not related to increases in productivity. Therefore non-union labor suffers because their wages do not increase, yet they have to pay the inflated prices.
>
>Increases in productivity - especially modern ones - have led to huge
>compensation increases and bonuses for top executives, but wages of
>ordinary workers have not risen in parallel. In fact, when productivity
>rises ordinary workers may suffer layoffs.

Lee Iacocca basically kept Chrysler from going bankrupt saving the
jobs of, probably, 15,000, or maybe more people. Doesn't he deserve a
big raise?

Or, in my case, I negotiated a contract with the Indonesian National
Oil company, and then managed the construction of a project that gave
the company an additional $1,000,000 income the first full year of
operation. Don't I deserve a bit, may even more, than a guy twisting
valves on the production site?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:39:32 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/22/2021 6:11 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:15:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
>>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
>>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>>
>>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
>>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?
>>>>
>>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater influence then a
>>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine whether you get
>>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be quite happy to
>>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>>
>>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>>
>>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can attend a meet
>>> & greet session at (say) a church in a low income neighborhood; or he
>>> can attend a fund raising dinner hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>>
>>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But let's pretend
>>> he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think "Maybe I can get 700 to vote
>>> for me."
>>>
>>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands of dollars.
>>> Those dollars could help pay for television spots in which he portrays
>>> his rivals as spawn of the devil. Those ads would be seen my tens of
>>> thousands. They'd have far more impact.
>>>
>>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk to the rich
>>> folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they wanted ("More tax
>>> breaks, dammit!") and promise to do whatever he can.
>>
>> You seem intent on furthering my arguments. The "television spots" you
>> mention? Are these intended to influence a few rich folks? Or the
>> "unwashed multitudes".
>>
>> If your argument is correct then all a politician has to do is simply
>> attend a few high dollar suppers and be assured of being elected.
>> Goodness, Gracious, he wouldn't have to run frantically all around the
>> country making speeches, shaking hands and kissing babies.
>>
>
>Ms Clinton spent twice as much as Mr Trump in 2016.
>
>Not the only example. Money does help but is sometimes not
>dispositive.

I think that in many cases it is a case of "Well I don't like that
one, so I'll just vote for the other one".
I wonder how Ms Clinton would have done if Hillary Diane Rodham had
run as opposed to Mrs. Clinton.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:40:54 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 9/22/2021 6:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:22:26 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/22/2021 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool
>>>>>> enough of them into
>>>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are
>>>>>> all coming
>>>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as
>>>>>> much influence
>>>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner?
>>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>>>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater
>>>>> influence then a
>>>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine
>>>>> whether you get
>>>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be
>>>>> quite happy to
>>>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>>>
>>>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can
>>>> attend a meet & greet session at (say) a church in a low
>>>> income neighborhood; or he can attend a fund raising dinner
>>>> hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>>>
>>>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But
>>>> let's pretend he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think
>>>> "Maybe I can get 700 to vote for me."
>>>>
>>>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands
>>>> of dollars. Those dollars could help pay for television
>>>> spots in which he portrays his rivals as spawn of the devil.
>>>> Those ads would be seen my tens of thousands. They'd have
>>>> far more impact.
>>>>
>>>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk
>>>> to the rich folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they
>>>> wanted ("More tax breaks, dammit!") and promise to do
>>>> whatever he can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> All those scenarios are probable.
>>>
>>> And yet among the largest campaign contributors are unions,
>>> year after year.
>>
>> And, I think that if you look into it quite a number of those making
>> large donations to political parties give equally to both parties so
>> that no matter who wins they can always say, "See, we supported you
>> when you needed it, so now we'd like you to..."
>>
>
>Yes, absolutely.
>'We're thinking about including a line or two about your
>industry in our next tax legislation...'

Remember, it was Winston Churchill who once said that "Democracy is
the very worst political system... except for all the others".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 5:39:35 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 6:11 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:15:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
> >>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
> >>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
> >>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
> >>>>
> >>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
> >>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?
> >>>
> >>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
> >>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater influence then a
> >>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine whether you get
> >>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be quite happy to
> >>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
> >>
> >> I believe this is the way it works:
> >>
> >> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can attend a meet
> >> & greet session at (say) a church in a low income neighborhood; or he
> >> can attend a fund raising dinner hosted by a wealthy friend.
> >>
> >> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But let's pretend
> >> he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think "Maybe I can get 700 to vote
> >> for me."
> >>
> >> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands of dollars.
> >> Those dollars could help pay for television spots in which he portrays
> >> his rivals as spawn of the devil. Those ads would be seen my tens of
> >> thousands. They'd have far more impact.
> >>
> >> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk to the rich
> >> folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they wanted ("More tax
> >> breaks, dammit!") and promise to do whatever he can.
> >
> > You seem intent on furthering my arguments. The "television spots" you
> > mention? Are these intended to influence a few rich folks? Or the
> > "unwashed multitudes".
> >
> > If your argument is correct then all a politician has to do is simply
> > attend a few high dollar suppers and be assured of being elected.
> > Goodness, Gracious, he wouldn't have to run frantically all around the
> > country making speeches, shaking hands and kissing babies.
> >
> Ms Clinton spent twice as much as Mr Trump in 2016.
>
> Not the only example. Money does help but is sometimes not
> dispositive.

Moreover, Trump was entirely self financed. That is why he spent so much less than Hillary.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 6:03:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 7:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 9/22/2021 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer?
> >> I'm shaking my head at Tom's "memory" again.
> >>
> >> Wow.
> >
> > Explain to us all how you were shaking your head after Jay said that he was representing Fauci in a suit for me saying he was insider trading - which he stated in public and then it was promptly erased off of the Internet.. Sort of like the White House ordered Facebook to suspend my account for citing the CDC's own statistics.
> >
> > You get the sort of world you want and deserve. So don't be surprised when you can't afford to buy a gallon of gas.
>
> Tom, you've been posting similar dire warnings and threats for years.
> And yet, here I am, still prosperous, no economic problems at all.
>
> How's your neighborhood doing these days?

Dire warnings when gas here is at $5/gal? Yesterday I went to pick up a set of superlight wheels from a man in Alamo, CA. The houses there had to be seen to be believed. I don't think I saw a house under 3,000 sq ft and most probably at least 5,000. Google maps literally ran me around in circles since every road was being resurfaced. But a block away from me the road surface is practically gravel. Literally.

Again - this is the world you wish for this country and it is going to explode in your face.

Didn't you just post that people without a degree couldn't be hired? Well, 5 major companies have contacted me to work for them now that they've chased the degreed people out of this state. Tesla who hung up on me because I predicted their very problems now want me to work for them.

Why should I work at all? I'm in good condition and getting better every month. Screw them and you. You are some brainless, mindless idiot who is incapable of seeing what your kind is doing to this country.

You and your Democrat pals have seized upon the same strategy as the ancient Egyptians. Control your populace by maintaining a fear in the population. Well, we know what happened to them - the Angel of Death visited them leaving those supposed to be afraid unscathed.

There is no climate change stupid. There is no covid-19 deaths stupid. Europe is no longer using vaccines - the are using a number of TREATMENTS, including chiefly Ivermectin.

What do you suppose occurs after the fear has passed - anger. And we live in a country that has more arms than humans. Be sure and smile at people before they blow your fucking head off.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:32:35 PM UTC-7, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 6:08:20 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 9/22/2021 5:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I thought that you were a personal injury lawyer?
> > > I'm shaking my head at Tom's "memory" again.
> > >
> > > Wow.
> > Explain to us all how you were shaking your head after Jay said that he was representing Fauci in a suit for me saying he was insider trading - which he stated in public and then it was promptly erased off of the Internet.. Sort of like the White House ordered Facebook to suspend my account for citing the CDC's own statistics.
> >
> Oh my gosh Tommy. I understand you being a right wing nut case Trumper Republican Qanon shaman, you have no concept of or understanding of humor, sarcasm, cynicism. Below is Jay's post from earlier in this thread:
>
> jbeattie
> Sep 21, 2021, 12:43:47 PM (yesterday)
> to
> Medication time, Tom. In fact, you should not post until you are in therapeutic range, which seems to occur sometime between 11:58 and 12.03 PST. It's a tight window that closes quickly. BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
> Tommy, do you see where Jay wrote "BTW, I'm representing Anthony Fauci in his defamation suit against you for your unfounded claims of insider trading. We're going to take your house and all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups. Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!" Notice he wrote claims of insider trading, and take all your odd-ball last-century Ti bikes with non-functioning Campy groups and Dr. Fauci will be a thousandaire!. Jay was using humor, sarcasm to kid you and make fun of you. And you just gobbled it up. I thought Jay's comments were funny. But your response has really got me laughing hard for actually believing it. HaHaHa.
>
> You really think Joe Biden's White House cares enough about you to order Facebook to suspend your account? Your ego or whatever must be bigger than the Goodyear blimp.
> > You get the sort of world you want and deserve. So don't be surprised when you can't afford to buy a gallon of gas
Russell, you have finally come to the point where your posting simply show you as being a seriously mentally deranged person who doesn't even know he is. That's OK, you are nothing and will always remain a nothing because you don't even WANT to be successful. You are only interested pulling down those who are. Well, one of the reasons I am successful is because I have never succumbed to the likes of you.

I guess I will have to take another 45 mile ride on my "non-functioning" campy bike made of "last century" titanium while you ride your Schwinn a mile and pretend to be a bicyclist.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:48:02 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:38:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 9/22/2021 5:16 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
> >>>>>>> William Crowell wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
> >>>>>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
> >>>>>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
> >>>>>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
> >>>>>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
> >>>>>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
> >>>>>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
> >>>>>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
> >>>>>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
> >>>>>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
> >>>>>>>> therefore work more safely.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
> >>>>>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
> >>>>>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
> >>>>>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
> >>>>>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
> >>>>>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
> >>>>>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
> >>>>>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
> >>>>>>> latter.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
> >>>>>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
> >>>>>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
> >>>>>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
> >>>>>> expense high among them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
> >>>>> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
> >>>>> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
> >>>>> their only option was to quit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
> >>>>> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
> >>>>> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
> >>>>> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
> >>>>> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
> >>>>> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
> >>>>> financially.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
> >>>> on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
> >>>> culture _that_ would be news.
> >>> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
> >>> 1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
> >>> workers.
> >>>
> >>> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
> >>> weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.
> >>
> >> As Thomas Sowell points out, unions increase the wages of their members, at the expense of non-union employees, essentially by restricting the labor supply. The labor movement used to claim that union labor would benefit non-union labor because "a rising tide lifts all boats". However, not even the AFL-CIO any longer makes this claim because it's been proven beyond dispute that the rising wages of union labor cause inflation because the wage increases are not related to increases in productivity. Therefore non-union labor suffers because their wages do not increase, yet they have to pay the inflated prices.
> >
> >Increases in productivity - especially modern ones - have led to huge
> >compensation increases and bonuses for top executives, but wages of
> >ordinary workers have not risen in parallel. In fact, when productivity
> >rises ordinary workers may suffer layoffs.
> Lee Iacocca basically kept Chrysler from going bankrupt saving the
> jobs of, probably, 15,000, or maybe more people. Doesn't he deserve a
> big raise?
>
> Or, in my case, I negotiated a contract with the Indonesian National
> Oil company, and then managed the construction of a project that gave
> the company an additional $1,000,000 income the first full year of
> operation. Don't I deserve a bit, may even more, than a guy twisting
> valves on the production site?

According to these people who have been nothing and accomplished nothing - you're a leach upon society and they should have everything you've ever done or made. Look John, my argument with you isn't that I don't believe what you say you did. It is your own personal experience showing you what you, as some average IQ, rather poorly educated person can succeed FAR above what people like Frank or Jay would ever predict and then saying that I am bragging to say I did the same thing. What the hell are you doing? Bragging or simply telling your experiences in life?

On 9/22/2021 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:38:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2021 5:16 PM, William Crowell wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:39:51 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2021 4:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2021 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2021 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/22/2021 1:26 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 2:14:40 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>> William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have seen quite a few studies that say the primary
>>>>>>>>> factor in workplace safety is employer concern and
>>>>>>>>> attention to the issue. For example, it has been shown
>>>>>>>>> that employers that knock off work 15 minutes early for
>>>>>>>>> lunch every Friday in order to have a brief safety
>>>>>>>>> meeting have far fewer industrial accidents than
>>>>>>>>> employers who don't. The causation seems to be that the
>>>>>>>>> employees realize that their employer really is
>>>>>>>>> concerned about their safety, so they have a greater
>>>>>>>>> self-regard, place a higher importance on safety and
>>>>>>>>> therefore work more safely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll concede there are instances where an employer shows
>>>>>>>> genuine empathy and concern for the well-being of the
>>>>>>>> employees, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of
>>>>>>>> the companies that have such programs are driven more by
>>>>>>>> insurance benefits. Having a safety program like you
>>>>>>>> describe is required by some insurance policies, and
>>>>>>>> other companies may give a discount if such a program is
>>>>>>>> implemented and followed. The company I'm with now is the
>>>>>>>> latter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All well and good but the employer's experience rate is a
>>>>>>> valuable and treasured thing. You don't need Mother
>>>>>>> Theresa on the board of directors to embrace safety
>>>>>>> measures & policies; they pay off in many was, insurance
>>>>>>> expense high among them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the prevailing attitudes were far different in the
>>>>>> pre-union days. Getting product shipped was the primary
>>>>>> concern, and if workers didn't like being exposed to risk,
>>>>>> their only option was to quit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure there was no plant safety committee with union
>>>>>> representation in the factory where my grandfather was
>>>>>> killed. But there was such a committee in the plant where I
>>>>>> worked as a plant engineer. Yes, it was sometimes an
>>>>>> annoyance, but I think those sorts of things have made labor
>>>>>> jobs much safer. In many cases, I bet they even paid off
>>>>>> financially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot has changed; clean tap water, radio, divided highways, I could go
>>>>> on. If workplaces had not changed along with every other part of our
>>>>> culture _that_ would be news.
>>>> But it's completely implausible that unions, when they peaked at over
>>>> 1/3 of the labor force, produced no significant benefits for those
>>>> workers.
>>>>
>>>> And provided benefits to even non-union workers. I always enjoyed my
>>>> weekends, as well as other benefits that unions provided.
>>>
>>> As Thomas Sowell points out, unions increase the wages of their members, at the expense of non-union employees, essentially by restricting the labor supply. The labor movement used to claim that union labor would benefit non-union labor because "a rising tide lifts all boats". However, not even the AFL-CIO any longer makes this claim because it's been proven beyond dispute that the rising wages of union labor cause inflation because the wage increases are not related to increases in productivity. Therefore non-union labor suffers because their wages do not increase, yet they have to pay the inflated prices.
>>
>> Increases in productivity - especially modern ones - have led to huge
>> compensation increases and bonuses for top executives, but wages of
>> ordinary workers have not risen in parallel. In fact, when productivity
>> rises ordinary workers may suffer layoffs.
>
> Lee Iacocca basically kept Chrysler from going bankrupt saving the
> jobs of, probably, 15,000, or maybe more people. Doesn't he deserve a
> big raise?
>
> Or, in my case, I negotiated a contract with the Indonesian National
> Oil company, and then managed the construction of a project that gave
> the company an additional $1,000,000 income the first full year of
> operation. Don't I deserve a bit, may even more, than a guy twisting
> valves on the production site?
>

Like so many tropes, it simplifies a complex area.

IMHO Jack Welch was worth every penny of his huge salary, As
was Sergio Marchionne, a genius and visionary combined with
a superhuman work ethic; his huge salary was cheap for what
he brought to the companies. I dislike a lot of things about
Jeff Bezos but he's brought success and profit to the firm
in excess of his excessive pay; he does that job better than
anyone else. Elon Musk is more likeable and no less
worthwhile, again highly paid but a steal at the price (and
a walking talking advertisement for gifted immigrants- the
more the better).

Assume you were on Apple's board salary committee reviewing
Steve Jobs, pre-cancer. That's a huge salary but who else is
qualified? Apple could have easily become Motorola.

Then of course there's Jeffrey Imelt, not only a wrecker of
shareholder value but I recently read a long interview with
him. Like losers generally he's still blaming everyone else.
Putz. Don't leave out Chainsaw Al Dunlap.

Exceptional people earn exceptional compensation, which is
right and proper.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/23/2021 8:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 5:39:35 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/22/2021 6:11 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:15:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/21/2021 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:11:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to the poor voters: Yes, a politician has to fool enough of them into
>>>>>> voting for him. ("Only I can fix it!" and "Those jobs are all coming
>>>>>> back... Don't sell your house!")
>>>>>> https://www.wkbn.com/news/trump-speaks-on-jobs-tells-valley-residents-dont-sell-your-house/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But do you seriously think even 1000 poor voters have as much influence
>>>>>> as one wealthy guy at a private fund raising dinner? Seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> I see what you are trying to do but yes, all them uneducated.
>>>>> unemployed, dumbass, voters do have a far greater influence then a
>>>>> rich chap at a private fund raising.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly a whole pack of voters that can determine whether you get
>>>>> the job or not rather then one rich bloke who will be quite happy to
>>>>> be named Ambassador to Lower Slobovia.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this is the way it works:
>>>>
>>>> Say a politician has two conflicting opportunities. He can attend a meet
>>>> & greet session at (say) a church in a low income neighborhood; or he
>>>> can attend a fund raising dinner hosted by a wealthy friend.
>>>>
>>>> Low income neighborhoods tend to have small parishes. But let's pretend
>>>> he'd get to talk to 1000 people. He'd think "Maybe I can get 700 to vote
>>>> for me."
>>>>
>>>> If he goes to the fund raiser, he'd probably clear thousands of dollars.
>>>> Those dollars could help pay for television spots in which he portrays
>>>> his rivals as spawn of the devil. Those ads would be seen my tens of
>>>> thousands. They'd have far more impact.
>>>>
>>>> Given the exclusive choice, any smart politician would talk to the rich
>>>> folks. And in doing so, he'd find out what they wanted ("More tax
>>>> breaks, dammit!") and promise to do whatever he can.
>>>
>>> You seem intent on furthering my arguments. The "television spots" you
>>> mention? Are these intended to influence a few rich folks? Or the
>>> "unwashed multitudes".
>>>
>>> If your argument is correct then all a politician has to do is simply
>>> attend a few high dollar suppers and be assured of being elected.
>>> Goodness, Gracious, he wouldn't have to run frantically all around the
>>> country making speeches, shaking hands and kissing babies.
>>>
>> Ms Clinton spent twice as much as Mr Trump in 2016.
>>
>> Not the only example. Money does help but is sometimes not
>> dispositive.
>
> Moreover, Trump was entirely self financed. That is why he spent so much less than Hillary.
>

Uh, that's not what happened.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971