OT: Why there are no new jobs

[Robert Baer]

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one
you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're
going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in –
as long as it's legal.

But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your
own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I
will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what
products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay
your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your
business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever
you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think
so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to
pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for
promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and
how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now… after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this
business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying
me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd
like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire –
is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell
whenever you'd like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have
to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the
business is at that time.

I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the
risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my
part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always
come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I
deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh… and one more thing…

Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees… I'd
recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been
retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever
your estate is worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as
successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your
kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance,
you can finance this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur… if you're one of
the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company,
employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you'll end up paying me
more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with
me… but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you
ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll
break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your
family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is "Amerika,"
isn't it?

That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in
Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

 

[rickman]

On 9/24/2015 3:52 PM, Robert Baer wrote:

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one
you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're
going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in –
as long as it's legal.

But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your
own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I
will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what
products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay
your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your
business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever
you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think
so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to
pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for
promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and
how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now… after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this
business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying
me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd
like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire –
is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell
whenever you'd like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have
to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the
business is at that time.

I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the
risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my
part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always
come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I
deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh… and one more thing…

Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees… I'd
recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been
retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever
your estate is worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as
successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your
kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance,
you can finance this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur… if you're one of
the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company,
employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you'll end up paying me
more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with
me… but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you
ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll
break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your
family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is "Amerika,"
isn't it?

That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in
Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

All of the idiots aren't in Washington....

Many choose to accept that partner rather than one of the many other
partners they could choose because of the excellent business environment
that has resulted from the arrangement.

You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else? Have you had any better offers?

--

Rick

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:52:38 -0700, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one
you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're
going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in –
as long as it's legal.

But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your
own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I
will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what
products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay
your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your
business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever
you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think
so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to
pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for
promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and
how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now… after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this
business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying
me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd
like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire –
is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell
whenever you'd like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have
to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the
business is at that time.

I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the
risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my
part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always
come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I
deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh… and one more thing…

Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees… I'd
recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been
retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever
your estate is worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as
successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your
kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance,
you can finance this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur… if you're one of
the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company,
employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you'll end up paying me
more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with
me… but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you
ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll
break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your
family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is "Amerika,"
isn't it?

That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in
Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

There are workarounds. Hire illegal aliens off the books. Offshore
most of your manufacturing and programming and customer service. Hide
the profits in Ireland. That's what big boys do, the ones who can
afford to pay lots of lawyers and politicians.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 25 September 2015 10:19:28 UTC+10, krw wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:37:18 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/24/2015 3:52 PM, Robert Baer wrote:

<snipped the over-long rewrite of Bastiat>

All of the idiots aren't in Washington....

Many choose to accept that partner rather than one of the many other
partners they could choose because of the excellent business environment
that has resulted from the arrangement.

You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else? Have you had any better offers?

Yeah, that's the old "America, Love it or Leave it" mentality. Well,
jobs are leaving it. ...and you're happy about it.

Pretty much all advanced industrial countries offer the same kind of deal. Some of them will fine-tune it in the hope of attracting start-ups, but if you want to business in a country country that offers universal education, public transport, a legal system and a bunch of other luxuries, you'll have to pay for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

makes the point that the USA is a remarkably unequal country, so that the people who have already set up a business get a rather better deal from the government than anybody who is starting up a new business and has to pay for lobbyists - on top of everything else - to get favourable deals from the administration.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[krw]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:37:18 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/24/2015 3:52 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one
you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're
going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in –
as long as it's legal.

But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your
own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I
will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what
products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay
your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your
business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever
you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think
so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to
pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for
promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and
how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now… after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this
business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying
me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd
like to cash out – to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire –
is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell
whenever you'd like… because our agreement says, if you sell, you have
to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the
business is at that time.

I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the
risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my
part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always
come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I
deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh… and one more thing…

Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees… I'd
recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been
retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever
your estate is worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as
successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your
kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance,
you can finance this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur… if you're one of
the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company,
employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you'll end up paying me
more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with
me… but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you
ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll
break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your
family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is "Amerika,"
isn't it?

That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in
Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…

All of the idiots aren't in Washington....

Many choose to accept that partner rather than one of the many other
partners they could choose because of the excellent business environment
that has resulted from the arrangement.

You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else? Have you had any better offers?

Yeah, that's the old "America, Love it or Leave it" mentality. Well,
jobs are leaving it. ...and you're happy about it.

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]

You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?

That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

... Have you had any better offers?

Yes. From Costa Rica.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[rickman]

On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:

On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]


You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?


That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

Engineering jobs? Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.

... Have you had any better offers?


Yes. From Costa Rica.

So why are you still here? Is that a better place to do your job?

--

Rick

 

[P E Schoen]

"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...

> On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]

You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?

That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US jobs
in the wake.

... Have you had any better offers?

Yes. From Costa Rica.

Here's the real deal. First, you must find a product or service that people
really need. Most people already have plenty of food (although truly healthy
food may be costly) and essentially free water. And also most people have
access to shelter, although it can be expensive. Those are traditionally all
that people actually *need*. As a civilized society, we may say that health
care is a basic need, but it is not available to some people because of cost
or inability to get insurance.

The common denominator in these necessities is money, unless society
provides them for free (paid for by those who have money).

Now consider the usual conservative whine that nobody should get anything
for free (unless they are seriously disabled) - they must get jobs and earn
the money they need. So now we must examine these jobs and how to create
them. Fundamentally, jobs are created by need for the products and services
they provide. But we already have plenty of food, and there are lots of
vacant houses, and plenty of doctors and hospitals to provide health
services. However, people need money for these necessities, and no new jobs
are needed unless the demand skyrockets.

If you want to create jobs for the "common people", as some people claim
they can, you might do something like invest in building a new shopping
center that will temporarily create construction jobs, many of which require
skills and physical stamina that many people don't have, so they are often
filled by foreign labor. Then the stores open up, selling goods that are
mostly made in China, and they hire a bunch of local sales people to sell
the same stuff that is already being sold by the other shopping center a few
miles down the road. What happens?

People are attracted to the new stores and start going there, rather than
the old store that was not very busy anyway, so they gradually lay off
workers and eventually go bankrupt. These laid-off workers beg for jobs at
the new store, and may accept pay cuts for the privilege. The construction
workers spend their paychecks and then move elsewhere, so sales start
falling and workers are let go.

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet another
shopping center...

Meanwhile, the top management and owners siphon off the profits and make
other investments. They don't really need to start new retail businesses,
but some may do so because of subsidies and incentives and sweetheart deals
that leave them fat and happy if and when their business goes tits up.

You may say we need more high-tech jobs, and factories to produce goods
locally instead of China and India and Mexico. But those who have the skills
to take such jobs demand high salaries, so it is not profitable for
investors to start and build such local businesses. And what sort of goods
are to be produced? Demand must be created by convincing affluent people
that they need new cars and new cell phones and TVs and bigger houses and
the latest fashions, so there are intensive advertising campaigns to
convince people they need these things and can pay by credit. But we've seen
how well that has worked, and it is worse now that home values and real
wages have stagnated.

There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good" jobs
that conservatives are always promising by shrinking government and reducing
taxes and regulations on businesses. Government *does* create jobs, despite
right-wing dogmatic belief. And the government would literally have to
remove all regulations and give investors money to make the prospect of
running a business (especially manufacturing) in the US.

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in the
hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down economics
proved disastrous, but the economy turned around when he later provided tax
cuts to benefit the middle class, and then by the effects of the collapse of
the USSR, the IBM PC revolution in 1982, the stock market/day trader
phenomenon, and then the dot-com and housing bubbles. But these mostly
produced many millionaires and billionaires, and short-term rich people who
trickled back down to the lower end of the middle class when their excesses
got the better of them.

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or not,
redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's stability
and survival. It can still be done equitably (and not equally, as
right-wing-nuts seem to fear), but continued and growing disparity will
inevitably lead to collapse and violent revolution. If every one of the 1%
would lose 90%, or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would still be at
least multi-millionaires and would hardly have their lifestyles diminished.
But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and tripled, yet only to levels
equivalent to what was normal during the 50s and 60s when we were truly
prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.

Yeah, that's a lot to read, and the conservatives probably ignored it all,
holding onto their own smug beliefs in their superiority and absolute
knowledge. I don't claim all of my statements and beliefs are perfect - it
is very complex, after all. But I think they hold much more validity than
than those who believe we can return to BAU based on their hazy
recollections of yesteryear and the era of unlimited growth and infinite
resources.

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

 

Well put.

 

"Engineering jobs? Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get >into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering."

Yup and they are getting in because as said IN THIS GROUP, they don't even want to pay new out of the school engineers ANYTHING because they don't know shit. So you hire them from the foreign countries. there are videos out there that teach how to avoid hiring USians for these jobs. It is not all that they are that much better, it is their attitude.

Workers in the US have an attitude, they are more defiant, arrogant and disrespectful than those in other countries. At least they used to be and I am sure the higher class ones still are. I was. I quit a job like eight times and got called back nine, what do you think my attitude was ? I got every dime I could out of them AND had reign of the place. While making more per hour than the owner. And this went on and on, like for ten years.

I want nothing to do with that big pond. they NEVER treat you right because you cannot force them to do it. I like the small pond.

 

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:34:58 AM UTC-4, P E Schoen wrote:

"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...

On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]

You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?

That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US jobs
in the wake.

... Have you had any better offers?

Yes. From Costa Rica.

Here's the real deal. First, you must find a product or service that people
really need. Most people already have plenty of food (although truly healthy
food may be costly) and essentially free water. And also most people have
access to shelter, although it can be expensive. Those are traditionally all
that people actually *need*. As a civilized society, we may say that health
care is a basic need, but it is not available to some people because of cost
or inability to get insurance.

The common denominator in these necessities is money, unless society
provides them for free (paid for by those who have money).

Now consider the usual conservative whine that nobody should get anything
for free (unless they are seriously disabled) - they must get jobs and earn
the money they need. So now we must examine these jobs and how to create
them. Fundamentally, jobs are created by need for the products and services
they provide. But we already have plenty of food, and there are lots of
vacant houses, and plenty of doctors and hospitals to provide health
services. However, people need money for these necessities, and no new jobs
are needed unless the demand skyrockets.

If you want to create jobs for the "common people", as some people claim
they can, you might do something like invest in building a new shopping
center that will temporarily create construction jobs, many of which require
skills and physical stamina that many people don't have, so they are often
filled by foreign labor. Then the stores open up, selling goods that are
mostly made in China, and they hire a bunch of local sales people to sell
the same stuff that is already being sold by the other shopping center a few
miles down the road. What happens?

People are attracted to the new stores and start going there, rather than
the old store that was not very busy anyway, so they gradually lay off
workers and eventually go bankrupt. These laid-off workers beg for jobs at
the new store, and may accept pay cuts for the privilege. The construction
workers spend their paychecks and then move elsewhere, so sales start
falling and workers are let go.

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet another
shopping center...

Meanwhile, the top management and owners siphon off the profits and make
other investments. They don't really need to start new retail businesses,
but some may do so because of subsidies and incentives and sweetheart deals
that leave them fat and happy if and when their business goes tits up.

You may say we need more high-tech jobs, and factories to produce goods
locally instead of China and India and Mexico. But those who have the skills
to take such jobs demand high salaries, so it is not profitable for
investors to start and build such local businesses. And what sort of goods
are to be produced? Demand must be created by convincing affluent people
that they need new cars and new cell phones and TVs and bigger houses and
the latest fashions, so there are intensive advertising campaigns to
convince people they need these things and can pay by credit. But we've seen
how well that has worked, and it is worse now that home values and real
wages have stagnated.

There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good" jobs
that conservatives are always promising by shrinking government and reducing
taxes and regulations on businesses. Government *does* create jobs, despite
right-wing dogmatic belief. And the government would literally have to
remove all regulations and give investors money to make the prospect of
running a business (especially manufacturing) in the US.

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in the
hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down economics
proved disastrous, but the economy turned around when he later provided tax
cuts to benefit the middle class, and then by the effects of the collapse of
the USSR, the IBM PC revolution in 1982, the stock market/day trader
phenomenon, and then the dot-com and housing bubbles. But these mostly
produced many millionaires and billionaires, and short-term rich people who
trickled back down to the lower end of the middle class when their excesses
got the better of them.

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or not,
redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's stability
and survival. It can still be done equitably (and not equally, as
right-wing-nuts seem to fear), but continued and growing disparity will
inevitably lead to collapse and violent revolution. If every one of the 1%
would lose 90%, or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would still be at
least multi-millionaires and would hardly have their lifestyles diminished.
But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and tripled, yet only to levels
equivalent to what was normal during the 50s and 60s when we were truly
prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.

Yeah, that's a lot to read, and the conservatives probably ignored it all,
holding onto their own smug beliefs in their superiority and absolute
knowledge. I don't claim all of my statements and beliefs are perfect - it
is very complex, after all. But I think they hold much more validity than
than those who believe we can return to BAU based on their hazy
recollections of yesteryear and the era of unlimited growth and infinite
resources.

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

I did read it, you've made a lot of assumptions, and not all of them are
right.

The way we create jobs: someone has an idea--sees a need, or a better
way--risks their money, and starts or expands a business to address it.

Let's tax that! Let's make 'em file loads of paperwork no one understands!
Let's tax capital! Let's impede the productive employment of labor! And let's
make sure that no one who tries and succeeds makes a profit!


If you want to know in great detail why the U.S. isn't making jobs, here's
top-notch economist summarizing the U.S. situation to some European ministers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YP8OAmH_4k

You can learn a lot about the U.S.' status in the first ten minutes, or
hang in longer and learn in documented detail why all of the welfare
states--ours, & Europe's--are absolutely unsustainable, and all headed
to fiscal collapse.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-4, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:47:36 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:34:58 AM UTC-4, P E Schoen wrote:
[snip].

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

I did read it, you've made a lot of assumptions, and not all of them are
right.

The way we create jobs: someone has an idea--sees a need, or a better
way--risks their money, and starts or expands a business to address it.

Let's tax that! Let's make 'em file loads of paperwork no one understands!
Let's tax capital! Let's impede the productive employment of labor! And let's
make sure that no one who tries and succeeds makes a profit!


If you want to know in great detail why the U.S. isn't making jobs, here's
top-notch economist summarizing the U.S. situation to some European ministers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YP8OAmH_4k

You can learn a lot about the U.S.' status in the first ten minutes, or
hang in longer and learn in documented detail why all of the welfare
states--ours, & Europe's--are absolutely unsustainable, and all headed
to fiscal collapse.


Don't feed the socialist troll P E Schoen, from Baltimore of all
"perfect" socialist places >:-}

Gee Jim, I didn't take Paul's post as a troll at all. He poured his heart out
in a lengthy, detailed post. And he's frustrated with the way things are
going, which is easy to understand.

The only problems I saw were a few assumptions early in the logic chain, so
I tried to offer some info.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-09-24 9:34 PM, P E Schoen wrote:

"Joerg" wrote in message news:d6jig8Fa1dpU1@mid.individual.net...

On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]

You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?

That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

... Have you had any better offers?

Yes. From Costa Rica.

Here's the real deal. First, you must find a product or service that
people really need.

We did that in the 90's with this company and it's still needed. As long
as people eat so much junk food the market is guaranteed.

... Most people already have plenty of food (although
truly healthy food may be costly) and essentially free water. And also
most people have access to shelter, although it can be expensive. Those
are traditionally all that people actually *need*. As a civilized
society, we may say that health care is a basic need, but it is not
available to some people because of cost or inability to get insurance.

The common denominator in these necessities is money, unless society
provides them for free (paid for by those who have money).

Now consider the usual conservative whine that nobody should get
anything for free (unless they are seriously disabled) - they must get
jobs and earn the money they need. So now we must examine these jobs and
how to create them. ...

Here is where we disagree. It is not the government's job to create
jobs. How wrong that usually goes has been extensively demonstrated in
socialist systems.

If there aren't enough jobs each person has to become creative and yes,
sometimes like during a recession that requires taking a job "below
one's pay grade".

... Fundamentally, jobs are created by need for the
products and services they provide. But we already have plenty of food,
and there are lots of vacant houses, and plenty of doctors and hospitals
to provide health services. However, people need money for these
necessities, and no new jobs are needed unless the demand skyrockets.

Then we must either increase our level of value creation in the various
jobs or lower our standard of living. I prefer the first. I also
strongly believe in living within ones means. We must be willing to
accept no-growth situations and concentrate on what we already have, not
what we want. Be thankful for it, which at least in my prayers I am
every day.

It is a normal course of events in human history that man invents ever
better method to achieve his goals with less and less labor. Highly
developed countries such as ours will be at the top and, therefore,
create the highest value additions. xxxxx hours of work does not only
result in a train with hundred of cars full of tomatoes but instead it
can result in a shiny new aircraft. Which can then be exported for much
more money than canned tomatoes.

This naturally forces people to have to step up in their skill sets.
Here many groups lament that they are oh so disadvantaged. Not buying
it. We have to ask ourselves why it is that Asians who often came with
barely more that the clothes on their bodies excel in making it and also
score hightes in SAT and other goals, by far. I know why that is.

If you want to create jobs for the "common people", as some people claim
they can, you might do something like invest in building a new shopping
center that will temporarily create construction jobs, many of which
require skills and physical stamina that many people don't have, so they
are often filled by foreign labor. Then the stores open up, selling
goods that are mostly made in China, and they hire a bunch of local
sales people to sell the same stuff that is already being sold by the
other shopping center a few miles down the road. What happens?

A Ponzi scheme, just like what many governments do.

People are attracted to the new stores and start going there, rather
than the old store that was not very busy anyway, so they gradually lay
off workers and eventually go bankrupt. These laid-off workers beg for
jobs at the new store, and may accept pay cuts for the privilege. The
construction workers spend their paychecks and then move elsewhere, so
sales start falling and workers are let go.

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet
another shopping center...

Meanwhile, the top management and owners siphon off the profits and make
other investments. They don't really need to start new retail
businesses, but some may do so because of subsidies and incentives and
sweetheart deals that leave them fat and happy if and when their
business goes tits up.

You may say we need more high-tech jobs, and factories to produce goods
locally instead of China and India and Mexico. But those who have the
skills to take such jobs demand high salaries, so it is not profitable
for investors to start and build such local businesses.

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

... And what sort of
goods are to be produced? Demand must be created by convincing affluent
people that they need new cars and new cell phones and TVs and bigger
houses and the latest fashions, so there are intensive advertising
campaigns to convince people they need these things and can pay by
credit. But we've seen how well that has worked, and it is worse now
that home values and real wages have stagnated.

Real value in a society is only created by export. Trying as a society
to survive just by creating increased inland demand is as stupid as
trying to live off of a "service society". It does not work in the long run.

There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good"
jobs that conservatives are always promising by shrinking government and
reducing taxes and regulations on businesses. Government *does* create
jobs, despite right-wing dogmatic belief.

It does not. Only as a sort of Ponzi scheme.

... And the government would
literally have to remove all regulations and give investors money to
make the prospect of running a business (especially manufacturing) in
the US.

The government only has to make things competitive and this does not
require tossing all regulation. Some of the more stupid ones, yes.
Mandating a corporate tax rate that exceeds even that in left-leaning
countries is not the way to do that. Jacking up the price of electrity
to more than 2x of other places is not the way to do that. Allowing a
predatory tort law isn't either. And so on. It's simple, really.

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in
the hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down
economics proved disastrous, but the economy turned around when he later
provided tax cuts to benefit the middle class, and then by the effects
of the collapse of the USSR, the IBM PC revolution in 1982, the stock
market/day trader phenomenon, and then the dot-com and housing bubbles.
But these mostly produced many millionaires and billionaires, and
short-term rich people who trickled back down to the lower end of the
middle class when their excesses got the better of them.

The current administration is destroying the middle class piece by
piece. Example: They tout that Obamacare "works" yet all it does is
flush people into yet another welfare system. Government essentially
pays most of the premiums and many other costs. They started taxing the
middle class health plans, the folks that still pay their own way, which
made their health insurance even more expensive. Great wealth
redistribution, ain't it? I personally met people who, in consequence,
hung it up. They quit working so much and plopped themselves into
Obamacare. As a result of this and other failed policies our labor
participation rate fell by several percentage points. That is really
dangerous because even if we get a better administration next time
around, which I seriously hope, the labor participation rate typically
never bounces back.

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or
not, redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's
stability and survival. It can still be done equitably (and not equally,
as right-wing-nuts seem to fear), but continued and growing disparity
will inevitably lead to collapse and violent revolution. If every one of
the 1% would lose 90%, or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would
still be at least multi-millionaires and would hardly have their
lifestyles diminished. But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and
tripled, yet only to levels equivalent to what was normal during the 50s
and 60s when we were truly prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.

Most of the 99% would just fritter it away and then complain again. Why
is it that the "poor" I meet have trouble making rent yet they drive
Cadillac Escalades and the like, "need" 60" TV sets, buy a $5 coffee
every workday, have $200+/month family cell plans, $100 gym membership,
cannot live without a $80/most cable TV, and so on? That's where the key
problems are.

Or ask yourself this: Why is it that I comfortably live with a $7/mo
cell plan that suffices even for business use? Same for my wife. For
about a decade now, and before that we didn't even have a cell phone.
Our car are 18 and 19 years old and are simple basic models, our antenna
delivers TV for free, we make our own coffee, my gym is in nature and
also free.

Yeah, that's a lot to read, and the conservatives probably ignored it
all, holding onto their own smug beliefs in their superiority and
absolute knowledge. I don't claim all of my statements and beliefs are
perfect - it is very complex, after all. But I think they hold much more
validity than than those who believe we can return to BAU based on their
hazy recollections of yesteryear and the era of unlimited growth and
infinite resources.

What is BAU?

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

Jobs that the unions, government or predatory lawyers have driven out of
the country will usually not come back.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:

On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]


You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?


That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

Engineering jobs?

Most businesses do not consist of engineering jobs alone.

... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.

Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(

... Have you had any better offers?


Yes. From Costa Rica.

So why are you still here? Is that a better place to do your job?

a. Engineering work is plentiful in the US.

b. Especially in view of the failed policies of the current
administration I'd be more than willing to emigrate to a nice place in
the Caribbean. But I have a family and not everyone has an easy time to
learn yet anotehr language. Which you have to or will remain a foreigner
forever.

c. I absolutely do not like moving. Else I'd be out of socialist
California since a long time because in my line of work it no longer
matters where one lives. As long as there is >1Mbit/sec Internet and
Fedex goes there.

Wasn't it you who farmed out production to Mexiko? Care to elaborate?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:47:36 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:34:58 AM UTC-4, P E Schoen wrote:
[snip].

Those days are gone, "comrades", and like those jobs, they "aint coming
back"!

I did read it, you've made a lot of assumptions, and not all of them are
right.

The way we create jobs: someone has an idea--sees a need, or a better
way--risks their money, and starts or expands a business to address it.

Let's tax that! Let's make 'em file loads of paperwork no one understands!
Let's tax capital! Let's impede the productive employment of labor! And let's
make sure that no one who tries and succeeds makes a profit!


If you want to know in great detail why the U.S. isn't making jobs, here's
top-notch economist summarizing the U.S. situation to some European ministers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YP8OAmH_4k

You can learn a lot about the U.S.' status in the first ten minutes, or
hang in longer and learn in documented detail why all of the welfare
states--ours, & Europe's--are absolutely unsustainable, and all headed
to fiscal collapse.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Don't feed the socialist troll P E Schoen, from Baltimore of all
"perfect" socialist places >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[rickman]

On 9/26/2015 11:17 AM, Joerg wrote:

On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]


You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?


That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

Engineering jobs?


Most businesses do not consist of engineering jobs alone.


... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.


Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(


... Have you had any better offers?


Yes. From Costa Rica.

So why are you still here? Is that a better place to do your job?


a. Engineering work is plentiful in the US.

But you said "better" offers from Costa Rica.

b. Especially in view of the failed policies of the current
administration I'd be more than willing to emigrate to a nice place in
the Caribbean. But I have a family and not everyone has an easy time to
learn yet anotehr language. Which you have to or will remain a foreigner
forever.

Really? So standing between you and Costa Rica is a copy or two of
Rosetta Stone?

c. I absolutely do not like moving. Else I'd be out of socialist
California since a long time because in my line of work it no longer
matters where one lives. As long as there is >1Mbit/sec Internet and
Fedex goes there.

Obviously the "better" offer in Costa Rica isn't very much better.


> Wasn't it you who farmed out production to Mexiko? Care to elaborate?

I don't know where Mexiko is. My production is in the US, local in
fact. I'm not the one saying things are better elsewhere.

--

Rick

 

On Friday, 25 September 2015 05:34:58 UTC+1, P E Schoen wrote:

Here's the real deal. First, you must find a product or service that people
really need. Most people already have plenty of food (although truly healthy
food may be costly) and essentially free water. And also most people have
access to shelter, although it can be expensive. Those are traditionally all
that people actually *need*. As a civilized society, we may say that health
care is a basic need, but it is not available to some people because of cost
or inability to get insurance.

The common denominator in these necessities is money, unless society
provides them for free (paid for by those who have money).

Now consider the usual conservative whine that nobody should get anything
for free (unless they are seriously disabled) - they must get jobs and earn
the money they need. So now we must examine these jobs and how to create
them. Fundamentally, jobs are created by need for the products and services
they provide. But we already have plenty of food, and there are lots of
vacant houses, and plenty of doctors and hospitals to provide health
services. However, people need money for these necessities, and no new jobs
are needed unless the demand skyrockets.

If you want to create jobs for the "common people", as some people claim
they can, you might do something like invest in building a new shopping
center that will temporarily create construction jobs, many of which require
skills and physical stamina that many people don't have, so they are often
filled by foreign labor. Then the stores open up, selling goods that are
mostly made in China, and they hire a bunch of local sales people to sell
the same stuff that is already being sold by the other shopping center a few
miles down the road. What happens?

People are attracted to the new stores and start going there, rather than
the old store that was not very busy anyway, so they gradually lay off
workers and eventually go bankrupt. These laid-off workers beg for jobs at
the new store, and may accept pay cuts for the privilege. The construction
workers spend their paychecks and then move elsewhere, so sales start
falling and workers are let go.

And then some wise guy says they can create more jobs by opening yet another
shopping center...

the advantage of more shopping centres is that there are more attempts made at successful business, out of which the most capable survive.

Meanwhile, the top management and owners siphon off the profits and make
other investments.

profits from shopping centres that go bust? self contradiction there.

They don't really need to start new retail businesses,
but some may do so because of subsidies and incentives and sweetheart deals
that leave them fat and happy if and when their business goes tits up.

wish I could find such deals

You may say we need more high-tech jobs, and factories to produce goods
locally instead of China and India and Mexico. But those who have the skills
to take such jobs demand high salaries, so it is not profitable for
investors to start and build such local businesses. And what sort of goods
are to be produced? Demand must be created by convincing affluent people
that they need new cars and new cell phones and TVs and bigger houses and
the latest fashions, so there are intensive advertising campaigns to
convince people they need these things and can pay by credit. But we've seen
how well that has worked, and it is worse now that home values and real
wages have stagnated.

that's not the only way to stimulate demand. Another approach is to recognise the existing demand and serve it. Medical technology is a good example of that.

> There just isn't enough demand to support the plethora of new, "good" jobs

demand is endless. You don't need to create it. For example we always need new medical technology to address a long list of killers and lesser ills.

If you serve existing demand, it has much higher chance of providing something that's actually of value to society. Artifically created demand is more likely to not be.

that conservatives are always promising by shrinking government and reducing
taxes and regulations on businesses. Government *does* create jobs, despite
right-wing dogmatic belief.

it does both of course, stifle jobs and create jobs

And the government would literally have to
remove all regulations and give investors money to make the prospect of
running a business (especially manufacturing) in the US.

that's rubbish

There is plenty of wealth to go around, but most of it is stagnating in the
hands of the top 1%. Reagan's corporate tax cuts and trickle down economics
proved disastrous, but the economy turned around when he later provided tax
cuts to benefit the middle class, and then by the effects of the collapse of
the USSR, the IBM PC revolution in 1982, the stock market/day trader
phenomenon, and then the dot-com and housing bubbles. But these mostly
produced many millionaires and billionaires, and short-term rich people who
trickled back down to the lower end of the middle class when their excesses
got the better of them.

The middle class and the lower class need money so they can spend it and
stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or not,
redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's stability
and survival.

According to you, the wealthy stagnate it and the unwealthy spend it. Reality is anyone with significant money doesn't put it under the mattress. It gets invested in shares, which fund businesses. It goes into rental property, which provides needed accomodation. Even if it just goes in the bank, the bank lend it to businesses and house buyers.

If anything the difference is that the wealthier use it more wisely on average.

It can still be done equitably (and not equally, as
right-wing-nuts seem to fear), but continued and growing disparity will
inevitably lead to collapse and violent revolution. If every one of the 1%
would lose 90%, or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would still be at
least multi-millionaires and would hardly have their lifestyles diminished.
But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and tripled, yet only to levels
equivalent to what was normal during the 50s and 60s when we were truly
prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.

then a lot of the wealthy would say sod this, I'm moving abroad. Hint: its largely the wealthy that start businesses, and its businesses that pay everyone an income.


NT

 

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 16:05:57 UTC+1, Joerg wrote:

Then there are only three option for the worker:

a. Increase their skill level.

b. Accept lower wages.

or

c. Emigrate.

d. start a business

... And the government would
literally have to remove all regulations and give investors money to
make the prospect of running a business (especially manufacturing) in
the US.


The government only has to make things competitive and this does not
require tossing all regulation. Some of the more stupid ones, yes.

The world already is competitive. Wherever you go there are successful businesses. In the developed world the government needs to get out the way a lot more. Only in the 3rd world does government have a real job to do changing things.

stimulate the economy, rather than hoard it like the top 1%. Like it or
not, redistribution of wealth is absolutely necessary for our nation's
stability and survival. It can still be done equitably (and not equally,
as right-wing-nuts seem to fear), but continued and growing disparity
will inevitably lead to collapse and violent revolution. If every one of
the 1% would lose 90%, or even 50%, of their present wealth, they would
still be at least multi-millionaires and would hardly have their
lifestyles diminished. But the 99% would see their wealth doubled and
tripled, yet only to levels equivalent to what was normal during the 50s
and 60s when we were truly prosperous and everyone had a fair chance.


Most of the 99% would just fritter it away and then complain again. Why
is it that the "poor" I meet have trouble making rent yet they drive
Cadillac Escalades and the like, "need" 60" TV sets, buy a $5 coffee
every workday, have $200+/month family cell plans, $100 gym membership,
cannot live without a $80/most cable TV, and so on? That's where the key
problems are.

+2. Why most are like that I really don't understand.

Or ask yourself this: Why is it that I comfortably live with a $7/mo
cell plan that suffices even for business use? Same for my wife. For
about a decade now, and before that we didn't even have a cell phone.
Our car are 18 and 19 years old and are simple basic models, our antenna
delivers TV for free, we make our own coffee, my gym is in nature and
also free.

NT

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-09-26 9:41 AM, rickman wrote:

On 9/26/2015 11:17 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]


You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?


That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

Engineering jobs?


Most businesses do not consist of engineering jobs alone.


... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.


Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(


... Have you had any better offers?


Yes. From Costa Rica.

So why are you still here? Is that a better place to do your job?


a. Engineering work is plentiful in the US.

But you said "better" offers from Costa Rica.

Better for the production part. There are engineering jobs as well
though. As I said, for me it doesn't really matter where I live. As long
as the word "winter" does not exist in their vocabulary (per SWMBO).

b. Especially in view of the failed policies of the current
administration I'd be more than willing to emigrate to a nice place in
the Caribbean. But I have a family and not everyone has an easy time to
learn yet anotehr language. Which you have to or will remain a foreigner
forever.

Really? So standing between you and Costa Rica is a copy or two of
Rosetta Stone?

I wouldn't go to Costa Rica, more the former Dutch colonies. While I am
fluent in Dutch and Papiamento doesn't sound totally foreign to me it
wouldn't be fair to my wife. And no, courses do not get you there, local
full immersion is the only way and that takes a lot of time. Here is
why: Imagine someone learning English at Berlitz, at school or via
Rosetta stone. Perfect English. Then he or she gets an assignment way
out in the boonies in jaw-jah. I have been in meetings where Europeans
with an excellent command of English participated and during the breaks
I had to explain just about everything over again. They hadn't
understood a thing. Not just after Texans were presenting, also when
Californians did.

c. I absolutely do not like moving. Else I'd be out of socialist
California since a long time because in my line of work it no longer
matters where one lives. As long as there is >1Mbit/sec Internet and
Fedex goes there.

Obviously the "better" offer in Costa Rica isn't very much better.

It was for my former employer. They are now there, along with scores of
well-paying production jobs that have vanished here.

Wasn't it you who farmed out production to Mexiko? Care to elaborate?

I don't know where Mexiko is. My production is in the US, local in
fact. I'm not the one saying things are better elsewhere.

Then it must have been someone else in this NG who has his stuff
produced in Mexiko. Some of my designs are produced overseas as well.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[rickman]

On 9/26/2015 3:11 PM, Joerg wrote:

On 2015-09-26 9:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/26/2015 11:17 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:

[...]


You can whine and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that
this is one of the very best countries in the world for starting a
business. If you don't like it, why don't you take your business
somewhere else?


That is what my former employer did, shedding tons of well-paying US
jobs in the wake.

Engineering jobs?


Most businesses do not consist of engineering jobs alone.


... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.


Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(


... Have you had any better offers?


Yes. From Costa Rica.

So why are you still here? Is that a better place to do your job?


a. Engineering work is plentiful in the US.

But you said "better" offers from Costa Rica.


Better for the production part. There are engineering jobs as well
though. As I said, for me it doesn't really matter where I live. As long
as the word "winter" does not exist in their vocabulary (per SWMBO).


b. Especially in view of the failed policies of the current
administration I'd be more than willing to emigrate to a nice place in
the Caribbean. But I have a family and not everyone has an easy time to
learn yet anotehr language. Which you have to or will remain a foreigner
forever.

Really? So standing between you and Costa Rica is a copy or two of
Rosetta Stone?


I wouldn't go to Costa Rica, more the former Dutch colonies. While I am
fluent in Dutch and Papiamento doesn't sound totally foreign to me it
wouldn't be fair to my wife. And no, courses do not get you there, local
full immersion is the only way and that takes a lot of time. Here is
why: Imagine someone learning English at Berlitz, at school or via
Rosetta stone. Perfect English. Then he or she gets an assignment way
out in the boonies in jaw-jah. I have been in meetings where Europeans
with an excellent command of English participated and during the breaks
I had to explain just about everything over again. They hadn't
understood a thing. Not just after Texans were presenting, also when
Californians did.


c. I absolutely do not like moving. Else I'd be out of socialist
California since a long time because in my line of work it no longer
matters where one lives. As long as there is >1Mbit/sec Internet and
Fedex goes there.

Obviously the "better" offer in Costa Rica isn't very much better.


It was for my former employer. They are now there, along with scores of
well-paying production jobs that have vanished here.



Wasn't it you who farmed out production to Mexiko? Care to elaborate?

I don't know where Mexiko is. My production is in the US, local in
fact. I'm not the one saying things are better elsewhere.


Then it must have been someone else in this NG who has his stuff
produced in Mexiko. Some of my designs are produced overseas as well.

Is that near Vietnam? I'm not familiar with that country.

--

Rick