Re: For Trucker

"jrw" <jrwilmott@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123457371.235750.169460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Negloid wrote:
>
>>
>> Coburn, I wrote 3.9%, not 3.1%. Also, I wrote 2000, not 2002, 2003,
>> 2004, or 2005. Finally, you are most likely looking at annual data,
>> not monthly data. The unemployment rate reached 3.9% in the last 4
>> months of 2000.
>>

You, of course, left out the response where I admitted my
error and stipulated to the 3.9, but that is quite in keeping
with your Repugnican methodology.

>>
>> You don't actually read what people write before you post. I never
>> wrote anything about personal failures. Perhaps you need to figure out
>> what I mean by "marginal worker". Are you more interested in what I
>> meant, or are you most interested in attacking what I wrote regardless?
>>

And I have also written a replu to his definition of the term
"marginal worker" in which I apologize for misunderstanding
his meaning. Stuff like that happens and the grown up people
work it out and go on with the debate.

> Hi Negloid,
>
> I know exactly how you feel. I gave this article to Trucker so that it
> could add a little credence to his little political and less economic
> philosopy. He makes statements without any sources, except his own web
> site. When it comes to economics he is religous, he is self
> referential, if its on his web site it must be true.

That is , of course, a lie. My web site was set up by me to
expand on the points that I felt were missed in the current
neoconomist trade and Repugnican trickle down version
of political economy. I am most certainly dedicated to
defending my views and that is NOT going to change.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

> He has failed to spot the single flaw that this article represents in
> his faith. And that is that many of the unemployed choose not to work,
> because they can afford too.

Such people are not included in a ststistic that is designed to
count the people wanting a job who cannot find one. People
who do not choose to work are not supposed to be accounted
in an unemployment statistic. So either the statistic is misrepresented
or you are simply jerking everyone around.

> They either have taken early retirement
> or have a spouse that allows them to drop out. Something that was
> unthinkable even thirty years ago for so many people.

This type of thing is ___GOOD___ and it is the reason that
unemployment statistics are NOT supposed to count such
people as unemployed.

> And his rantings about H1B visas and immigration are close to madness.
> There is no economic evidence that these have led to a decrease in
> wages.

That is what I call _madness_. The wage paid to a software analyst
or a systems administrator or a software test person has fallen
dramatically and there are fewer such jobs available. The wage
paid to factory workers has probably not declined but they represent
a much smaller segment of the economy than they once did. We
have a very large number of people who have changed from a high
pay job to a low pay job. While the jobs pay the same as they
once did, the mobility is reversed and the people are moving down
the ladder.

> There is plenty to suggest the opposite, that the wealth of
> America has positively benefited from the influx of such people. The
> founders of so many companies in the US, such as Yahoo! and ebay, first
> arrived on such a visa.

Yep. The owners of the means of production have gotten
MUCH wealthier by screwing the middle class using
illegal Mexicans and H1B's from India. The "wealth" is
more and more concentrated into the hands of the
Repugnican *** kissers.

> There is no point in discussing anything with him, it leads to name
> calling, and political smearing, without a shred of evidence, I might
> add. He calls me a republican, I am not, and have said so many times,
> he calls me a neocon, I am not as clearly many of my views are opposed
> to such a doctrine. I think he has missed his calling, he should have
> been a prosecuter in the Soviet Union in the 1930's where it was enough
> to accuse some one of being a 'class enemy' to win an argument.

There is NO evidence that would suggest an increase in
political wealth of the middle class or even an increase
in actual ownership of tangible assets. Your "homeowner"
owns nothing. He owes his soul to the rentier at the
bank. And as wages decline he sees the endentured
servitude stretching far into the future. I do not need
"data" to prove that water is wet.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


.

Quantcast