"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?

If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed
going
there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked
side-by-side
with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However,
because
of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do
some
those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few
farmers
in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for
the
fun of it.

Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.

The reason that this is "undesirable" work is simply because the
producers are allowed to get away with paying such low wages. If they
don't even pay minimum, how is a citizen even supposed to legally hold
the job?

Heck, even Wal Mart is doing it now. They've been caught using illegal
immigrant labor on contract for cleaning. (I can just hear Paul Harvey
"You couldn't have a better neighbor, I suppose *they* can't afford to
pay decent wages?

Why does WalMart have an obligation to "police" the pay scale of
a contractor's employees. As a homeowner, I "hire" contractors now
and then to do various jobs...it ain't my responsibility to know
how much Company X contractor pays its employees

People picked crops as citizens long before it became "undesireable"
work that could only be filled by illegal immigrants.

Heck, some folks PAY for the privilege of "pick your own" (enter
appropriate farm product name).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare
and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).

But those that are unwilling to work when they are able to,
shouldn't expect the handout (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.


But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare
and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



I get it....the federal government takes from the states, the states take
from its workers. The Federal government redistributes the monies received
from the state and the people back to the states, that now redistributes it
to the people.

Sounds like the failed Socialist system....just with one more step.

Sorry.....that ain't what is 'supposed' to happen in this country. Don't
get me started on that one.

Dan/W4NTI

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare
and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In
my
opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the
benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy).

But those that are unwilling to work when they are able to,
shouldn't expect the handout (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK






In the beginning........there was Philadelphia.

It was decided to have a loooooose confederation of states brought together
under a weak Federal government. The purpose of which was to provide such
things as; common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to INTERSTATE commerce. And if needed to provide for the defense
of one, or all of the states.

What the hell happened?

Dan/W4NTI

"charlesb" wrote in message
y.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and
keep
market prices reasonable?

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL


I would like to add that very few companies make astronomical profits. Most
make just enough to manage to stay in business.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Another serious problem. It wouldn't have been so bad had the government
invested that money over the years so it could bring in a healthy return,
but they didn't. So what do we do now? First of all, money is available
without raising taxes. The government collects billions of dollars in taxes
each year. The question is where that money is spent. Do we buy new military
hardware and finance art shows, or do we provide for the elderly? If we want
to do all of that, we have to raise taxes. If we only want to do some of it,
and cut some, we don't need to raise taxes. Some say cut the benefits for
the elderly and keep the other stuff. I think we should cut some of the
other stuff and keep the benefits for the elderly.

If the government would stop the foreign aid to those countries where
that aid mainly supports little 2-bit dictators we would have enough
money to take care of the elderly.

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"charlesb" wrote in message
y.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Why is it so impossible for this great country to
do what other countries have already done - provide decent wages for
workers, provide decent (not astronomical) profits for business, and

keep

market prices reasonable?

Government does not and cannot provide prosperity.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL



I would like to add that very few companies make astronomical profits. Most
make just enough to manage to stay in business.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It's the CEO's that make the astronomical profits in the form of
salaries, stock options, and other golden parachute benefits.

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:


OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor?

If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My
grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed

going

there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked

side-by-side

with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However,

because

of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do

some

those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few

farmers

in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I
could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for

the

fun of it.

Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views
on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject.

The reason that this is "undesirable" work is simply because the
producers are allowed to get away with paying such low wages. If they
don't even pay minimum, how is a citizen even supposed to legally hold
the job?

Heck, even Wal Mart is doing it now. They've been caught using illegal
immigrant labor on contract for cleaning. (I can just hear Paul Harvey
"You couldn't have a better neighbor, I suppose *they* can't afford to
pay decent wages?


Why does WalMart have an obligation to "police" the pay scale of
a contractor's employees. As a homeowner, I "hire" contractors now
and then to do various jobs...it ain't my responsibility to know
how much Company X contractor pays its employees

For the same reason they might want a contractors employees tested for
drugs. For the same reason you might not want to invest in an
organization that has practices you don't like. Wal Mart has
accountants, the accountants know - or should know - the hours needed to
do a certain function, therefore they should have an idea what it should
cost to contract out a service. If a bid comes in below what it should
cost, the contract company is either not doing the job it should, is
using illegal help, or is so incredibly efficient that the hiring
company should have the contracting company do some seminars on how they
got so efficient.

You might want to think about your practice of apathy toward
subcontractors. One way that they can charge lower prices is to not
carry insurance. I recently had tree work done, and we got several
quotes. We asked the lowest couple quotes to provide proof of insurance.
Guess what? No insurance. So I do want to know a few things about those
who I hire. YMMV. For myself I won't try to stand up for something illegal.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:


I would like to add that very few companies make astronomical profits. Most
make just enough to manage to stay in business.

You would think they would pay their CEO's a tad less then!

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

In the beginning........there was Philadelphia.

It's still here.

It was decided to have a loooooose confederation of states brought together
under a weak Federal government. The purpose of which was to provide such
things as; common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to INTERSTATE commerce. And if needed to provide for the defense
of one, or all of the states.

Yep - Articles of Confederation.

What the hell happened?

Simple - the founders discovered that the Articles simply didn't work. Without
a strong central (federal) government, there was no way to force any of the
states to work for the common good if they didn't want to.

Common roads, common monies, common rules and regulations
pertaining to interstate commerce and defense of one, or all of the states all
require a certain amount of central authority and funding. If New York's
legislature decided they didn't want to honor money from South Carolina at face
value, who was there to make them? Or if a ship from Maryland didn't want to
take orders from an admiral from Maine, what authority was there to require
them to do so?

And when it came to taxes.....

End result was another convention here in Philadelphia in 1787, when the
Constitution was written and ratified by representatives from all of the
states. Three did not sign - they refused to do so because there was no Bill of
Rights in the original Constitution. That was rectified by the first ten
amendments.

You may not like everyhting the Feds do - I know I sure don't! - but the
founders tried the loose confederation idea and it didn't work.

And when it was tried again (1861-1865, 11 states) it ran into the same
problems all over again.

In some ways the Feds have been moving towards a weaker central government, by
cutting domestic spending - and letting the states take up the slack. Of course
the Feds don't give up regulatory control, just funding....

What functions would you have the Feds turn over to the states?

73 de Jim, N2EY