I miss Jobst

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:05:12 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 4/27/2011 4:41 AM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:01:54 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 4/25/2011 8:20 PM, True aka J.D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:51 am, J. D. wrote:

Frank, my parents paid my way through collage and very shortly after
finishing I enlisted in the Air Force (didn't want to go to Vietnam)
and from that date until the present I have been totally self
supporting. If I didn't like a job I moved on. Even in the A.F. it is
possible to do this, within the context of your job description. I
even changed career fields once, with no difficulties. For about half
of the twenty years I had a wife and children to support.

What does it say about these people? Why don't they have more then one
skill? Why can't they find another job?

"What does it say about these people"? It probably says that their
parents, unlike yours, did not pay for their college, probably because
they couldn't. It probably says they live a far less privileged life
than yours.

True, my parents paid for me to get an education beyond high school
however I never held a job where that specialty was a factor in my
being hired.
Nor did I make particularly good choices in a career - I joined the
U.S.A.F. and liked it so well I stayed for 20 years.
Your description of my gilded youth just isn't accurate.

I suspect that one of the more important factors in my education was
my parents teaching me that "money doesn't grow on trees". I never was
the recipient of any money that I didn't "earn" although granted that
many of my jobs around the house were essentially make work jobs to
teach me. But it did teach me and I've been saving part of my salary
since I was 12 years old.

You appear totally mesmerized by singular examples. You are one guy
who did OK, and you know one guy who earns $1000 per day. Based on
that, you pretend anybody should be able to do OK and/or become rich,
and that it's a personal failing if they don't.

No I'm not hypnotized by singular events. I could type all day and
probably not run out of examples of people who made it but (1) I'm
lazy, and (2) I assume that I am communicating with people who can
understand that I'm only offering a sample of the instance I'm
referring to..

You seem to have no understanding that others may live in much more
difficult circumstances, and have have much fewer personal resources.
They may have lesser intelligence, a lack of role models, less access
to good education. In fact, they may suffer (as many inner-city
families do) from lack of decent groceries (thus nutrition) within
reasonable distance from their homes. They may lack transportation to
the available jobs.

And equally I know improvised minority members who have become
millionaires - a Black kid with less then an 8th grade education from
Mississippi who built a million dollar electronics and more
specifically Hi-Fi business on his own. I know for a fact that he
started his business endeavors with US$ 100.

Jesus, Malcolm X was hardly a graduate of a prestigious school and he
certainly seemed to do all right.

You also seem to feel that anyone could and should become a gypsy
traveler to move to wherever a better job exists. You completely
discount the fact that most people have family and close friends they
want to stay close to, homes they've lovingly purchased and
customized, and communities they love and hope to contribute to.

I would question under what circumstances the Krygowski family
happened to be in the United States. I'd guess that Odyssey probably
refutes your argument, above.

No I don't recommend any particular life style, but to live in the
neighborhood of your dreams and lack a job while if you moved you
could get a job seems rather shortsighted, doesn't it?

A few people are willing to be itinerant workers, moving job to job
and trusting that they'll either be able to finance their eventual
retirement, or to work until they die. Most people don't fit that
mold, and shouldn't be forced to.

I know, and have worked with, literally thousands who did and as a
general statement are doing better then just ok.

But that isn't the point, is it? The point is to live the life of you
desires. If you need/want money then go where the money is and if you
can't be bothered to make the effort then don't complain about life
doin you down.

The average Mexican illegal worker is making a far greater effort to
improve his/her life then the average American worker who bleats about
the filthy rich can even begin to contemplate.

Why do you try so hard to justify unfair compensation, when you yourself
are not among the super-rich?

Whatever are you talking about?

I am writing, not talking. And your question is not convincing.


Nice attempt at dissembling; if you can't answer, just make a cryptic
remark.

But in response I'm not particularly interested in your "unfair
compensation", I'm a great deal more interested in what MY
compensation is, and I think most people are much the same. Are people
actually concerned with how much the president of ACME Thread makes?
Or are they more concerned with how much is going to be in the pay
packet on Friday?

Sure people natter about "those *******s that are responsible for...."
but when all is said and done they turn right around and vote the same
*******s back into office. Clinton, went on nation wide TV and lied to
the people, but I never heard anyone say, with an amazed look on their
face, "He lied to us". I have mentioned that I read account after
account saying things like "can't get one now, my credit card is
maxed", I read about a guy, he and his wife both work and he can't
raise $3,000.

You live in a place that accepts bald faced lies from their leader
without comment, where people can't live within their means; where
people fritter away their money as soon as they get it. In short, if I
lived like that I think I'd find a lot more to worry about then how
much somebody else is paid.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

On Apr 28, 4:54*pm, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie





wrote:
On Apr 27, 8:17*am, AMuzi wrote:
J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:49:25 -0500, T m Sherm n _
" wrote:

On 4/25/2011 8:26 PM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:51 am, J. D. *wrote:
Class warfare? Funny I must have been associating with the wrong
people as I never saw any.
That's easily understandable. * Those who are employing wars of
oppression and winning are highly motivated to pretend the wars don't
exist.

"And for those of us who have never enjoyed job security, union
protection, tenure, a retirement plan, a secure job in a solid
corporation or booming industry, the jobs we do to put the
macaroni on the dinner table are ours to select only from the jobs
we are offered" - Christopher Cooper
Nice quote. But wrong. If you want a job as dog catcher and you are
qualified why wait until you are offered one. Send out a thousand
copies of your resume get a job.
Since you like to trade in singular examples, here's one for you.
Apologies to those who may have heard this before.

One friend of mine worked for a corporation that publishes
newspapers. *He ran several papers very successfully for that
corporation, going where they sent him over the years. *His last move,
at close to retirement age, was to take over a failing paper. *He
turned it into one of the most profitable in the chain. *Then he was
paid a surprise visit by the CEO, who let him go. *My friend had
gotten the operation running well enough that it could be turned over
to a much younger, less experienced and cheaper man. *My friend, BTW,
was looking forward to retirement in just a short time.

Since that happened, he has used every trick, every contact, every
reference in his huge rolodex in an effort to get a job, to no avail.
He's still out of work.

Perhaps he could go to some other state, or even some other country,
to find work. *But again, he's very close to retirement age (even
though retirement will likely be much less prosperous now). *He's very
motivated to stay close to his many friends, his children and
grandchildren, and to live in the house he and his wife built when he
took on that last position.

By your standards, he's just a layabout with insufficient motivation.
By my standards, he's a recognized expert in his industry, one who
worked long enough hours that he missed much of his kid's childhood,
one who earned his employer tons of money, and one whose reward was to
get fired because of the great service he'd performed.

But it was "just business," I guess, as it was with the very similar
story of my engineer friend, also terminated just shy of retirement.

On Apr 28, 10:10*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
And from what I hear, they reinforce that by attaching more status to
technical and scientific careers than *does the U.S.

That's true of all countries that are doing much of anything
technology wise.

I'd like to learn more about this from folks in Germany; but what I've
been told is that in Germany, being a machinist or engineer earns
respect.

I have a friend who grew up in Germany and his nephew recently
graduated with a Masters in ME. His starting salary was over 80k
euros... which is roughly double what someone would expect in the US.
Not sure about the particulars, but a very good salary anyway. Last I
checked the average salary for an ME was $70k in the US.

Here in the U.S., a machinist career is low status. *Engineers seem to
be regarded as hopeless dweebs, with a reluctant admission that they
are actually weirdly smart.

Engineers were likely better respected from the 40s-60s when we did a
lot of engineering. Of course being an engineer would not have been
"cool" in the 60s. But I went to a midwestern university in the late
70s and early 80s, and I wasn't snubbed by the girls for being an
engineer. Even when I moved to Los Angeles it was an ok thing. With
all the crazies around, some women were comforted to know I had a high
security clearance....

Status goes to rap stars with jail history, corporate raiders sending
jobs overseas, and men whose sole talent is running with a football.
All those are all given adulation. *But if a person were to develop a
solar electric cell with 75% efficiency, he'd likely remain anonymous,
and possibly broke.

Very true...

On Apr 28, 12:36*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
More info & statistics:

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...conomic_engine

Seems to be unions as much as anything else.

I think that is an incorrect assessment. Germany is heavily unionized,
but it is the government and social environment which fosters
efficient operation and cooperation, with a minimum of antagonism. In
other words it is well managed and managed in a way that benefits the
whole country. Germany "gets it"... and so do several other European
countries. There is no improvement in living standard unless their
application of technology improves. And they have for a long time
moved in the direction of greater social benefits, and less work...
things that the US should have been pursuing for several decades as
well.

I don't believe that unions are a good thing in general. In the US the
unions are broken... along with our basic economic model... and I
believe there is a much better approach we could take to get things
back on track.

On 4/28/2011 6:54 PM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:05:12 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 4/27/2011 4:41 AM, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:01:54 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 4/25/2011 8:20 PM, True aka J.D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:51 am, J. D. wrote:

Frank, my parents paid my way through collage and very shortly after
finishing I enlisted in the Air Force (didn't want to go to Vietnam)
and from that date until the present I have been totally self
supporting. If I didn't like a job I moved on. Even in the A.F. it is
possible to do this, within the context of your job description. I
even changed career fields once, with no difficulties. For about half
of the twenty years I had a wife and children to support.

What does it say about these people? Why don't they have more then one
skill? Why can't they find another job?

"What does it say about these people"? It probably says that their
parents, unlike yours, did not pay for their college, probably because
they couldn't. It probably says they live a far less privileged life
than yours.

True, my parents paid for me to get an education beyond high school
however I never held a job where that specialty was a factor in my
being hired.
Nor did I make particularly good choices in a career - I joined the
U.S.A.F. and liked it so well I stayed for 20 years.
Your description of my gilded youth just isn't accurate.

I suspect that one of the more important factors in my education was
my parents teaching me that "money doesn't grow on trees". I never was
the recipient of any money that I didn't "earn" although granted that
many of my jobs around the house were essentially make work jobs to
teach me. But it did teach me and I've been saving part of my salary
since I was 12 years old.

You appear totally mesmerized by singular examples. You are one guy
who did OK, and you know one guy who earns $1000 per day. Based on
that, you pretend anybody should be able to do OK and/or become rich,
and that it's a personal failing if they don't.

No I'm not hypnotized by singular events. I could type all day and
probably not run out of examples of people who made it but (1) I'm
lazy, and (2) I assume that I am communicating with people who can
understand that I'm only offering a sample of the instance I'm
referring to..

You seem to have no understanding that others may live in much more
difficult circumstances, and have have much fewer personal resources.
They may have lesser intelligence, a lack of role models, less access
to good education. In fact, they may suffer (as many inner-city
families do) from lack of decent groceries (thus nutrition) within
reasonable distance from their homes. They may lack transportation to
the available jobs.

And equally I know improvised minority members who have become
millionaires - a Black kid with less then an 8th grade education from
Mississippi who built a million dollar electronics and more
specifically Hi-Fi business on his own. I know for a fact that he
started his business endeavors with US$ 100.

Jesus, Malcolm X was hardly a graduate of a prestigious school and he
certainly seemed to do all right.

You also seem to feel that anyone could and should become a gypsy
traveler to move to wherever a better job exists. You completely
discount the fact that most people have family and close friends they
want to stay close to, homes they've lovingly purchased and
customized, and communities they love and hope to contribute to.

I would question under what circumstances the Krygowski family
happened to be in the United States. I'd guess that Odyssey probably
refutes your argument, above.

No I don't recommend any particular life style, but to live in the
neighborhood of your dreams and lack a job while if you moved you
could get a job seems rather shortsighted, doesn't it?

A few people are willing to be itinerant workers, moving job to job
and trusting that they'll either be able to finance their eventual
retirement, or to work until they die. Most people don't fit that
mold, and shouldn't be forced to.

I know, and have worked with, literally thousands who did and as a
general statement are doing better then just ok.

But that isn't the point, is it? The point is to live the life of you
desires. If you need/want money then go where the money is and if you
can't be bothered to make the effort then don't complain about life
doin you down.

The average Mexican illegal worker is making a far greater effort to
improve his/her life then the average American worker who bleats about
the filthy rich can even begin to contemplate.

Why do you try so hard to justify unfair compensation, when you yourself
are not among the super-rich?

Whatever are you talking about?

I am writing, not talking. And your question is not convincing.


Nice attempt at dissembling; if you can't answer, just make a cryptic
remark.

No, you are the one dissembling, by feigning ignorance.

But in response I'm not particularly interested in your "unfair
compensation", I'm a great deal more interested in what MY
compensation is, and I think most people are much the same. Are people
actually concerned with how much the president of ACME Thread makes?
Or are they more concerned with how much is going to be in the pay
packet on Friday?

The earnings of the super-rich take away from the earning of those who
actually create the added value. So the excess compensation of the
already super rich *does* matter.

Sure people natter about "those *******s that are responsible for...."
but when all is said and done they turn right around and vote the same
*******s back into office. Clinton, went on nation wide TV and lied to
the people, but I never heard anyone say, with an amazed look on their
face, "He lied to us". I have mentioned that I read account after
account saying things like "can't get one now, my credit card is
maxed", I read about a guy, he and his wife both work and he can't
raise $3,000.

Well, the super rich run both parties, and make sure that only
candidates that support their class warfare policies get significant
financial support at the primary election stage. This limits the number
of candidates that actually intend to represent the people to a number
too small to advance any legislative agenda, and furthermore letting a
few non-corporate candidates in helps preserve the illusion of democracy.

The result is in most legislative and congressional elections and in
every gubernatorial and presidential election, the people have a choice
between two corporate candidates. And as long as the rich are allowed
to dominate campaign funding and the "winner takes all" system is in
place, democracy is dead.

Publicly fund campaigns and have instant-runoff voting, and democracy
(and much higher taxes on the rich and higher wages for workers) will
return.

You live in a place that accepts bald faced lies from their leader
without comment,

Because the rich control the corporations, and the corporations control
the right-wing mass media.

where people can't live within their means; where

Due to ever shrinking real wages (so the rich can gorge on wealth
created by labor) and real inflation higher than the CPI.

people fritter away their money as soon as they get it. In short, if I
lived like that I think I'd find a lot more to worry about then how
much somebody else is paid.

Again, you are promoting the agenda of the rich by assuming how much
they earn does not affect how much the labor that creates wealth
receives in return. That of course is nonsense, since the amount of
wealth created in a process is constant, so paying owner Peter more
takes away from employee Paul's wages.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Apr 28, 5:54*pm, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
Clinton, went on nation wide TV and lied to
the people, but I never heard anyone say, with an amazed look on their
face, "He lied to us".

I'm sorry if this is hard on your sensibilities, but I doubt there are
many politicians who would tell the truth if they were in Clinton's
predicament. Clinton paid dearly for his completely inconsequential
lie (many months of investigation and harassment)... but we had a
balanced budget, a booming economy, and no major wars. His successor
lied about all sorts of things, re-accelerated the wealth disparity,
presided over the greatest finance debacle in our history and the 2nd
worst depression, drove up the national debt for no good reason
(making it impossible to deal with the depression), and got us
involved in two major wars... one of which isn't close to being over.
Remember the psi-ops program to associate Iraq with 9/11 so the public
would be in favor of it?

On Apr 28, 3:05*am, Helmut Springer wrote:

America seems to have limited its respective abilities to military
equipment, where development is sponsored by the government.

Really?

US exports (2009, per Wikipedia)--
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%,
industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%,
capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts,
computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%,
consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%.

Tom Ace

On 4/28/2011 9:22 PM, Ron Ruff wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:54 pm, J. D. wrote:
Clinton, went on nation wide TV and lied to
the people, but I never heard anyone say, with an amazed look on their
face, "He lied to us".

I'm sorry if this is hard on your sensibilities, but I doubt there are
many politicians who would tell the truth if they were in Clinton's
predicament. Clinton paid dearly for his completely inconsequential
lie (many months of investigation and harassment)... but we had a
balanced budget, a booming economy, and no major wars. His successor
lied about all sorts of things, re-accelerated the wealth disparity,
presided over the greatest finance debacle in our history and the 2nd
worst depression, drove up the national debt for no good reason
(making it impossible to deal with the depression), and got us
involved in two major wars... one of which isn't close to being over.
Remember the psi-ops program to associate Iraq with 9/11 so the public
would be in favor of it?

Note that said "psy-ops" program was initiated by and mostly run by
Zionists in the US government - e.g. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Libby,
Abrams..., with the fake intelligence manufactured in Israel, with the
intent of destroying Iraq's remaining military and economic power (done)
and installing a puppet government to allow for theft the oil rights
(not going to plan). Fellow Zionist Greenspan blew a housing bubble to
*temporarily* boost the economy [1] to keep people from opposing the
regime on economic grounds.

Fortunately for them, Zionists also run the mass media; otherwise they
would be facing treason charges (in the public sphere, if not the legal)
for supporting the interests of a foreign country over the country they
made an oath to serve.

Now these traitors want to make things even worse by attacking Iran over
trumped up charges of violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [2]
and false claims of Iranian aggression. If said attack happens, USians
will find themselves out of work and scrounging for food in a
third-world economy, as oil goes to $250+ a barrel and gasoline to $10+
dollars a gallon.

[1] The real root cause of the later financial "meltdown"; not ACORN,
Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac as the shouting heads on television like to
falsely claim.
[2] Note that the US does not follow its obligation under the treaty to
pursue nuclear weapons elimination, and Israel refuses to sign the treaty.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 4/28/2011 9:44 PM, Tom Ace wrote:
On Apr 28, 3:05 am, Helmut wrote:

America seems to have limited its respective abilities to military
equipment, where development is sponsored by the government.

Really?

US exports (2009, per Wikipedia)--
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%,
industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%,
capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts,
computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%,
consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%.

Hmmm..., no mention of intellectual property, e.g. Hollywood movies.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Apr 28, 10:22*pm, Ron Ruff wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:54*pm, J. D. Slocomb wrote:

Clinton, went on nation wide TV and lied to
the people, but I never heard anyone say, with an amazed look on their
face, "He lied to us".

I'm sorry if this is hard on your sensibilities, but I doubt there are
many politicians who would tell the truth if they were in Clinton's
predicament. Clinton paid dearly for his completely inconsequential
lie (many months of investigation and harassment)... but we had a
balanced budget, a booming economy, and no major wars. His successor
lied about all sorts of things, re-accelerated the wealth disparity,
presided over the greatest finance debacle in our history and the 2nd
worst depression, drove up the national debt for no good reason
(making it impossible to deal with the depression), and got us
involved in two major wars... one of which isn't close to being over.
Remember the psi-ops program to associate Iraq with 9/11 so the public
would be in favor of it?

+1

I'm not a Bill Clinton fan. But there are few lies that are less
important than "I did not have sex with that woman;" and there have
been many more lies since that have done immensely greater damage to
the nation.

- Frank Krygowski