Big Kahunas

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:8k2Cb.310897$Dw6.1047782@attbi_s02...
Oh yes, that's right. The "Thai (and Chinese) people are simply more
dedicated to what they're trying to do economically than we are".

Perhaps the fact that the workers are paid 24 cents an hour and work 84
hours a week might have something to do with it. But who cares what the
Chinese are paid. We get our toys dirt-cheap.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/7449186.htm

Okay, how else would YOU define "dedication"?

Well, there is the dictionary definition:

Main Entry: ded·i·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "de-di-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or rite of dedicating to a divine being or to a sacred use
2 : a devoting or setting aside for a particular purpose
3 : a name and often a message prefixed to a literary, musical, or artistic
production in tribute to a person or cause
4 : self-sacrificing devotion
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

However, when it comes to work I would define dedication to a job as loving
the job. In so far as these Chinese workers I would say they are exploited,
not dedicated. If you think that these people love working 84 hours a week
for 24 cents an hour then you really are in a fantasy world. And please
spare me the nonsense of its "the market and capitalism" at work, or how
much better off they are now than before they had these great jobs.


If these folks are willing to work 84 hours per week, for 24 cents per
hour,
I'd say it's pretty obvious who is more devoted to what they're trying to
do
economically. Would YOU work for that pay?

The obvious answer is "nope". Guess who is more dedicated?
--

Of course I wouldn't work for that. Why should I? I give up, who is more
dedicated?

2 : a devoting or setting aside for a particular purpose

I'd say that just about covers it.

However, when it comes to work I would define dedication to a job as
loving
the job. In so far as these Chinese workers I would say they are
exploited,
not dedicated.

They are only being "exploited" if they are being coerced into working long
hours for "low" pay. Is someone standing there with a gun at their heads?
Do they have better alternatives? Have they *ever* had better alternatives?

24 cents an hour is better than they have ever had before. Don't ask the
unemployed American steel worker what he thinks -- that's irrelevant.
Instead, ask the Chinese guy who was making 18 cents an hour five years ago
what *he* thinks -- I imagine he'll think a 33% wage increase looks pretty
darned good.

Everything is relative. Right now, I'm working 60+hours per week and
earning less than I used to pay my motor route newspaper drivers -- and
loving it. Would you do it? Only if you're "devoted" to achieving a goal,
like I am. The Chinese are no different.

Of course I wouldn't work for that. Why should I? I give up, who is more
dedicated?

Well, let me spell it out for you: The Chinese guy!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article QjaCb.182$pY.74@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


Clearly we all aren't aware of the limitations, but talking about it is a
start.
Can you imagine selling your child forever to indentured servitude? That's
happening. Get your G.I. Joe for $4.95 but at least be aware that the low
price
bares another social cost.


But you must also keep in mind that NOT buying that $4.95 action figure also
bears a social cost. Every choice has social costs for someone.

And, the free market makes those choices better than your social ideology.
Those third world laborers most willing to work for low wages are the ones most
desparately in need of employment.

If you really want to help them, get rich, get government out of everyone
else's way so they can get rich, balance environmental concerns with economic
concerns, here and abroad, so we get even richer, and we can afford LOTS of
picture frames and action figures.

And don't impose your value system and environmental concerns on those in
developing countries. To you, that mahogany rainforest in Sumatra might be most
valuable as orangutan housing, but to the people who live there, that
rainforest is capital they can convert into houses, schools and hospitals. If
you want it saved for the orangutans, then make it worth their while by
planning your vacation to include orangutan watching and spend lots of money
there.

But don't tell them that their children have to starve because you won't
purchase anything made of tropical hardwoods because the orangutans are more
important than their children.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article QjaCb.182$pY.74@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


You know, your platitudes are getting tiresome.

Insults are a sign of a lack of an argument. Ad hominem.



You're misusing Ad Hominem.

If I said, "Because Hubbell says X=1, X must equal something other than 1,"
that would be an Ad Hominem argument, that the statement is false simply
because of your advocacy of that position.

Ad Hominem would not include the statement "Hubbell is insufficiently grounded
in reality to determine the value of X." That would be a personal insult, but
not an Ad Hominem argument.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , "Earl Grieda"
writes:


However, when it comes to work I would define dedication to a job as loving
the job. In so far as these Chinese workers I would say they are exploited,
not dedicated. If you think that these people love working 84 hours a week
for 24 cents an hour then you really are in a fantasy world. And please
spare me the nonsense of its "the market and capitalism" at work, or how
much better off they are now than before they had these great jobs.


Why would you want to be spared from the truth?

Were it your own family in question, would you rather work long hours at low
pay to feed them or be unemployed because you demanded a higher rate of pay,
and sit home to watch them starve to death at leisure?

Like it or not, those are the choices for much of the third world, and you
can't do anything about it by simply insisting that we pay more for our
products to support a higher wage.

First, paying more is unliklely to filter down to those workers when there are
plenty of others still willing to work for the lower wage, and more
importantly, we in the developed world have a limited amount of discretionary
income to spend on non-essentials like picture frames. Paying more for some
items means we buy less of others, and those workers making the other products
go back to starving.

If your heart really bleeds for those third world families, then the best thing
for you to do would be to work hard, be productive and earn a lot of money,
then give up expensive hobbies like flying and use your increased earnings and
savings to buy a lot of picture frames at the market price.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Tom" wrote in message
news

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ja2Cb.310866$Dw6.1046389@attbi_s02...
If you do a web search you'll see reports of between 200,000 to
500,000
popular votes favoring Gore and of course an argument of what that
really
means.

Considering that an estimate 800K to 1.2M illegal aliens voted in the 2000
election, those numbers are dubious. And that's not to mention the several
states that had very quesionable vote totals...that all got lost in the
Florida flare-up.

Do you have a reference for those numbers? I would believe some, but that
is awfully large.

Well, then let's talk about the flawed voter roll purges that occured in
both Texas and Florida.
http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ile/index.html

Or the shenanigans in Tennessee
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10589

Plenty of dirt to go around.

But .... the original assertion was that an overwhelming number of Americans
voted for Bush.
Simply visit http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm and look at the
tabular data, you'll see the results.
Consider the Nader votes anti-Bush and Buchanan anti-Gore, add up the other
candidates if you like in a similar fashion. Nowhere near overwhelming and
the results seem to slightly favor Gore.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 12/9/2003

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message ...
Name one thing, of which, the planet has ever run out. Trees can be
replanted and in a matter of years you can't tell they were ever gone.

We will not ever run out of oil. It will become more expensive but as it
does the motivation to create an alternative will increase.

That is what an free market does. Left alone a free market will cause all
materials to be used for the most efficient use.

I think there some confusion about what the "most efficient use"
means.

It does not mean in the most conservative manner, or in a manner which
maximizes its use or availability or longevity, nor does it mean for
the higher good or best use, whatever that may be.

It means in a manner which maximizes the profit derived from its use.

- Carl -

Wdtabor wrote:

In article , Frank writes:


As an example take the "sanctions" imposed on Iraq. Many scoff and say
they didn't work and they are right. But we pretty much guaranteed they
wouldn't work by not pressuring others to support them and turning a blind
eye when we knew they were being violated. In other words, we weren't as
committed to using our economic power as we are now to using our military.
As a result we lost much of our moral high ground.


How, exactly, does one pressure France?

Short of standing on their border and shouting at them in German.

LOL! Thanks for the chuckle....

Pressure in the context above could take many forms, including incentives
for future consideration. Most everyone wants/gets something from us we
could leverage. Of course promoting climates of cooperation among would go
a long way to eliminating the need for pressure.

--
Frank....H

On 12 Dec 2003 14:53:05 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article QjaCb.182$pY.74@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
writes:


Clearly we all aren't aware of the limitations, but talking about it is a
start.
Can you imagine selling your child forever to indentured servitude? That's
happening. Get your G.I. Joe for $4.95 but at least be aware that the low
price
bares another social cost.


But you must also keep in mind that NOT buying that $4.95 action figure also
bears a social cost. Every choice has social costs for someone.


No you're wrong it fuels the fire. You're making it clear to parents that
selling off their children into indentured servitude is worthwhile. They
think let's have another kid, let's sell them off too. And on and on.



And, the free market makes those choices better than your social ideology.
Those third world laborers most willing to work for low wages are the ones most
desparately in need of employment.

Social ideology? It's a fact, if you want proof pick up last months Nat. Geo.
I had a hard time reading the whole thing. It's pretty shocking.



If you really want to help them, get rich, get government out of everyone
else's way so they can get rich, balance environmental concerns with economic
concerns, here and abroad, so we get even richer, and we can afford LOTS of
picture frames and action figures.


What a simplistic view. What you're talking about won't ever happen, you're
counting on many people to do the right thing. Not going to happen.
"get government out of everyone else's way" is not a panacea.
I can afford lots of picture frames, they cannot afford to cut their forests
bare.

BTW speaking of "get government out of everyone else's way" Dubya has yet
to turn down, in 3 years, one single spending bill. How's that for getting
government out of the way.


And don't impose your value system and environmental concerns on those in
developing countries. To you, that mahogany rainforest in Sumatra might be most

That mohogany forest can be their lifeline if they manage it properly but they
aren't manaing it properly. They're clear cutting it. Extincting species
along the way.

valuable as orangutan housing, but to the people who live there, that
rainforest is capital they can convert into houses, schools and hospitals. If
you want it saved for the orangutans, then make it worth their while by
planning your vacation to include orangutan watching and spend lots of money
there.


Again a simplistic view of the problem not tempered with enough facts.
See above.


But don't tell them that their children have to starve because you won't
purchase anything made of tropical hardwoods because the orangutans are more
important than their children.

The idea is to tell them that if they manage their resources much more carefully
then in the long haul they will be better off.


R. Hubbell


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , Frank writes:


Pressure in the context above could take many forms, including incentives
for future consideration. Most everyone wants/gets something from us we
could leverage. Of course promoting climates of cooperation among would go
a long way to eliminating the need for pressure.


OK, so instead of putting pressure on France, how do you promote a climate of
cooperation with France, given that they have been explicit that they will
oppose us for the simple reason of beign a "counterweight" to US power and
prestige?

They have admitted they will oppose us, just to oppose us, to prevent us from
being successful as a world leader. There is no way to find cooperation with
that mindset.

I think they're just still ****ed that the international language of ATC is
English instead of French.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG