| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Who will be U.S president |
| Bush |
|
53% |
[ 16 ] |
| Kerry |
|
46% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 30 |
The Republican
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 28
|
Everything you need to know about who pays taxs:
quote:
Only The Rich Pay Taxes?
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes
October 10, 2003
There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.
*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
Source: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:34 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by The Republican
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
And Kerry married his dough. *cough* 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:45 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Bartacus
AND DO YOU THINK IT'S OK TO KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY AREN'T AMERICANS? The movie made that clear. If you think Rules of Engagement is the right way, I'l have no respect for you NOT AT ALL!
Of course I believe in the rules of engagement. Having rules of engagement is 100% better than having no rules at all. For different deployments while I was an Infantryman in the 82nd Airborne I was issued and followed ROE's. And they all (no matter what NATO, or UN country I was deployed with they all have them) say that if someone is shooting at me, or attempting to take my life I can kill them.
Sam Jackson didn't have to give an order to open fire. As soon as his men took fire they had a human right to defend themselves accourding to NATO and the UN.
I do not believe it is OK to kill people based on their nation of birth or nation of occupation. You are the one that said Sam Jackson killed people when he in fact defended himslef and his men. To think that a US soldier should take hostile fire without returning it is rediculous. Again I ask you what he did wrong? And why was it wrong? Would you have had him let more of his men die and do nothing? Do you expect soldiers of any country's army to stand there with a smile on their face while people are shooting at them? If you shoot at someone with a rifle in their hands, expect to be shot back at.
ROE protects civilians and non-combatants. It protects enemy soldiers or militans that surrender. And it protects the soldiers that go and do what their countries tell them too.
If rules of engagement is not the right way, then what is?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:23 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by MageofFire
@Val- Oh God no! Not taxes!  In case you forgot, 60% of the Bush tax cuts benefit the very upper class, which makes up roughly 1% of the population. He just want's their money contributions for his campaign. Oh yeah, and their influence if they have it. Besides, do you realize how much of a pay cut teachers have been having to take? You see, teachers teach school, and school gives people education, and if we take money from school, we produce dumber Americans. You see, if we don't pay teachers more, none of the smart people are going to want to teach, and we're going to have to stop being at all choosy about who gets a teaching job. And if we hire crappy teachers, kids don't get as good an education, which results in more low-income families (and fewer kids going to college), thus making the gap between rich and poor much wider.
If well paid teachers equals smarter people then why do Indians (from India) have such supperior educations than us, or China? There teachers are paid crap. How did Russia beat us into space? There teachers were paid the same as doctors or rocket scientists.
Studying makes you more educated. Applying yourselfe makes you smarter. Going to an expensive school with high-paid teachers gets you nothing if you don't apply yourself. I didn't try in Highschool, I have a friend that tried his ass off and he is 10 times smarter than I am. You give some one that wants to learn, and really excell, then you could send them to any school any where in the world and he/she will be smarter and more "educated" than a jackass like myself who just wanted to get by. I could have got by if the teachers made $5 or $5 million.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:39 am |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
@Val- Good point, I think I should take an economics class when it becomes available for me. Now about the teacher thing, my parents teach at a public university called Georgia Southern University. Since it is a public university, and it's cheap to go there, it gets a lot of its funding from the state. And the state gets its funding from the lottery (which is going down the drain) and taxes. So now since taxes are cut, the university gets less money, which means a lot of people get laid off. Thus, the temporaries, one of which is my mom, are forced to teach more classes for the same or less pay (my dad doesn't have to worry that much because he's got a Ph.D and tenure, but he's still pissed for my mom's sake  ). This is bad for the university and other public universities. Now, your dad may have made more money, and that's good for him, but I've heard a lot of teachers in my area moaning about the pay cut (public school teachers as well as university teachers). All in all, though I have to admit that you make a good point. Sorry if I sounded angry or sarcastic in my last post, it's just that a line in your first post got me going. It went something like "Oh wait, Kerry wants to raise taxes, so my vote goes to Bush." It just seemed like you were saying you don't care about anyone else as long as you don't have to pay more taxes. Sorry!
@Joeman- It doesn't really matter what percentage of the taxes the rich are paying, they still don't need a tax break. They've been paying taxes all this time and have still managed to stay rich. It's the poor and middle class who need tax breaks.
@Korplem- I agree. I never supported this war, but now that we're in there, we've gotta finish what we've started. It would be pretty pointless to pull out now.
@Roqua- We're talking about the U.S., not China. Their work ethic is a lot better. They also aren't as obsessed with how much money they're making as Americans are. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have equated education with intelligence. However, I am talking about the U.S. which runs completely on money.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:02 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by MageofFire
@Roqua- We're talking about the U.S., not China. Their work ethic is a lot better. They also aren't as obsessed with how much money they're making as Americans are. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have equated education with intelligence. However, I am talking about the U.S. which runs completely on money.
I think it is fine to equate education and intelligence, just not money and education. If China's and India's work ethic is churning out super intelligent workers we need to copy their work ethic. And money in education isn't the driving factor, or a driver. I also think every country is run completely on money, or else they wouldn't run long. Running on hot dogs and pancakes doesn't a long lasting government make, but I get your point.
edit due to my wife saw and abused me. And I guess I have no idea what I was talking about with the taxes. 1k is what the child credit is for, rest for being married.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter.
Last edited by Roqua on Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:45 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:38 am |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
quote:
Taxes do some good things and are needed to support society, but taxes should not force society to support people that don't or won't support themselves.
*takes on the avatars voice*
But Britian is the city of compassion! We should help those less fortunate than ourselves.
Roqua: Don't give me that claptrap! Compassion is another word for chumpery.
Me: What does Lord Bush think of sending the poor to mexico?
Roqua: Oh, I've heard Lord Bush doesn't approve of it but he stays out of our affairs.
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:57 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Republican
Alot. Saddam praised for the 9-11 attacks. Saddam's funds terrorists groups to attack Israel and the US.
No and no. No evidence of neither.
quote:
Hey we needed a place to put terrorists at. GITMO is the best choice. Since terrorists arnt POWs. They dont even serve a nation. If you read the international POW laws.
In order to be a POW:
A. Server a nation: al Queda is not serving for a nation.
B. Wear uniforms that shows what nation their serving. al Queda wears civilian clothing.
C. Must have prober identification.
Terrorists who are NOT really POWs, they are classfied as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS, an non-existant term made up by the US simply to walk all over the Human Rights. And, since it is convinietntly located at Cuba, they can circumvent their own constitution as well!
They are held without trial or evidence, even though they have other nationalities, the US keeps them simply because they can.
quote:
Originally posted by Joeman
The government should completely stay away from economics. Politicians are not economic experts. They can only make decisions based on lagging indicators. People who blame Bush for the economy are generally not too educated.
Uh, actually, the state needs very much to take care of the general economies of a country, it's kind of like the main thing. If they can help people who've had a rough start, then all the better.
quote:
Originally posted by Val
And then Iraq sinks back into a dictatorship that fuels terrorism. Or just becomes an anarchist state where it's people are exploited and the entire interior falls to ruins.
No thanks. We're already there and I vote we stay there until Iraq is well on it's way to joining the ranks of new democracies that are making it on their own and doing a good job of it. Reading parts of their new constitution brought a smile to my face. I'd like to see them keep it alive, if just for their sake.
Or, it becomes what Afghanistan is today! Which is basically a battlefield, where the Taliban have begun to take back parts of the country! Oh, yes, finish what you've started, right? 
quote:
Originally posted by xSamhainx
Kerry just has no solid positions on anything, he takes both sides on every issue. Well, he does have one rock-solid position I guess, and that is this: He hates Bush, and America is a miserable place to live. In fact, he hates Bush more than anyone else does. Everything Bush has done in office has been bad. Everything Bush says is bad. In fact, everything Bush has ever done in his entire life is bad! Bush is Satan incarnate! The American people are on the brink of revolt, in soup lines, working for pennies! Thus will be his downfall... you cannot run an election on hatred and negativity alone.That's all he has, he has no positive message whatsoever. He inspires nothing but hatred with the already-sold hateful Left. You see what happened to Howard Dean? No better recent example of someone letting sheer hatred and negativity alone guide him to his downfall. People all scratched their heads when Dean's real numbers hit and he was nowhere near the top, like they thought. The truth of the matter is, he was never at the top. Everyone who is guided merely by hatred and "who can replace that idiot" has a real big suprise coming in November. From people who seem to profess they hate noone, they sure do seem to hate Christian conservatives. The recent success of biblical-themed media is a snapshot of the real America they thought had shrunk to a small minority.
Really? Kerry seem to have a pretty focused view on the war, Bush's tax-cuts and such? HOW about SOME evidence that he's two-facing on every issue? No? Maybe the fact that he supported the war when Bush said that there was strong evidence of WMDs, then later (when US intelligence reported that they had never found any WMDs and had never believed that there were) he critisized Bush? That kind of two-facing? Or the kind Bush has on affirmative action? Please be specific.
quote:
This "JFKerry" ought to take a page from a previous JFK and run on "things are ok, but you know, we can do them better." This constant onslaught of nothing but sheer hatred and sniping and negativity is going to backfire on him, big-time.This does not attract the crucial "swing-vote"they need. This dismal portrayal of America as some Great Depression-era, miserable place to live where most children go to bed hungry every night, seniors are booted from their homes and starve to death, and blacks are on the run from roving bands of whites is just hilarious and untrue. And outdated, to say the least. For being supposedly "progressive", it's strange the Democrat platform has not changed in 50 years. Listening to this guy speak, you'd think we are all actually living in 1920's Alabama. Sorry Kerry, Im working class and so is my entire family. We are far from rich, like you. We are middle-class and we are doing just fine. In fact, I got a thousand bucks back on my taxes this year! I like tax cuts, and so do most people who pay taxes. Most people believe in rewarding achievement and hard work, not punishing or casting them as suspect. Most people want to keep more of what they earn. Most people, anyway.. except for people like Kerry who already have their millions.
Yeah... he sure seem to hate them gays much, as opposed to Bush, right? Or the fact that Bush bases his entire campaign on war? No that ain't hatred, OF COURSE not.
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Who employs the vast majority of the American people? Answer: Rich people in the private sector.
Do you know what happens when rich people have more money? Most of them don't just lock it up in a vault somehere. They invest it or spend it. What happens when the market gets flooded with investment capital and people willing to spend money? Growth. Growth in spending. Growth in consumer confidence. Growth in demand. What happens when there is increased demand? There must be an increase in supply to meet that demand. How do we get more supply? By employing more people and resources to create that supply. What happens when more people have jobs? They're happy. They have money too!
Thus ends out economic lesson for the day.
Sorry, the old class warfare argument doesn't work on someone who has actually studied economics.
Funny, is that why jobs have gone up so much in the U.S?
Or the fact that US are loosing jobs overseas?
But, I guess it's good to help companies like Halliburton, who are currently being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Comission, right?
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:13 am |
|
|
The Republican
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
No and no. No evidence of neither.
quote:
Hussein: 'Americans should feel the pain'
September 15, 2001 Posted: 12:42 PM EDT (1642 GMT)
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- In an open letter to Americans, other Westerners and their governments, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on Saturday condemned the United States and Arab leaders who "rushed to condemn the event" of Tuesday's terror attacks on New York and Washington.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/09/15/hussein.terror/index.html
quote:
Terrorists who are NOT really POWs, they are classfied as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS, an non-existant term made up by the US simply to walk all over the Human Rights. And, since it is convinietntly located at Cuba, they can circumvent their own constitution as well!
They are held without trial or evidence, even though they have other nationalities, the US keeps them simply because they can.
Hugs for thugs huh!
Those terrorists are animals and they should never have the same rights. hey lost those rights when they killed 3,000 Americans.
quote:
Or, it becomes what Afghanistan is today! Which is basically a battlefield, where the Taliban have begun to take back parts of the country! Oh, yes, finish what you've started, right?
Um the Taliban is still hiding in the mountains. They havent launch a massive counter attack for more than a year in a half. Next month were mowing them down.
quote:
Really? Kerry seem to have a pretty focused view on the war, Bush's tax-cuts and such? HOW about SOME evidence that he's two-facing on every issue? No? Maybe the fact that he supported the war when Bush said that there was strong evidence of WMDs, then later (when US intelligence reported that they had never found any WMDs and had never believed that there were) he critisized Bush? That kind of two-facing? Or the kind Bush has on affirmative action? Please be specific.
Not really:
Kerry:
I suppored the war! I suppored agaist the war!
I suppored Patriot Act. I hate the Patriot Act.
I support civil unions! I support gay marriage!
The Wall in Israel is agaist peace! They wall is for peace!
I servered Vietnam with honor! My vietnam years was bad and I did some war crimes.
quote:
Funny, is that why jobs have gone up so much in the U.S?
Or the fact that US are loosing jobs overseas?
But, I guess it's good to help companies like Halliburton, who are currently being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Comission, right?
Do you know why jobs are going overseas? Because you liberals want to make this nation into a non-buisness state. By making them pay rediculus taxes. If you treat compaines better. They will make jobs stay!
 |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:20 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
The reaction to the attacks in the Muslim world was mixed. While the great majority of Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks - virtually the only significant stand-out was Saddam Hussein, the then president of Iraq - the US media reported popular celebrations in some communities hostile to US policies in the Middle East.
Source: http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:-RMsUqI1PdMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11+September+11+2001+Saddam+supporting&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
NOWHERE in that link does it say that Saddam was positive towards the attacks, nor does it say that he funds terrorists. He did NOT condemn the attacks.
quote:
Hugs for thugs huh!
Those terrorists are animals and they should never have the same rights. hey lost those rights when they killed 3,000 Americans.
Really? You have evidence they are connected to the 9-11 attacks? Wow, that's just great, since the rest of the world have been looking for those evidence, or any shred of justification to hold the so-called "terrorists" at Gitmo.
quote:
Um the Taliban is still hiding in the mountains. They havent launch a massive counter attack for more than a year in a half. Next month were mowing them down.
Funny, this says different.
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040228/TALIBAN28/
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:53 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by The Republican
Hey we needed a place to put terrorists at. GITMO is the best choice. Since terrorists arnt POWs.
In my opinion the detention of alleged terrorists for an indefinite period, without even so much as laying charges, is shameful.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:45 am |
|
|
Sir Markus
Counselor of the King
Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 369
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA |
Bush. Kerry in office would be an unmitigated DISASTER. I don't want socialism in the US, and that's what we'll get with people like Kerry running the country. Kerry is a bigger liar/spinmaster than Gore and Clinton COMBINED. He thinks if he says something enough, people will eventually think it's true. The sooner the democrat party can get over Florida when they unsuccessfully tried to cheat their way into the White House, the better off their sad party will be. The democrats have NO leadership, NO alternatives to the Bush agenda (but they'll criticize it all day long), NO alternative plan to the war on terrorism (but they'll tell you Bush is doing it wrong). All they have is bitter, angry attacks on our president and commander-in-chief, and anger won't win the presidency. Leadership will, and that's why Bush will win. |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:29 pm |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
quote:
Originally posted by MageofFire
@Roqua- We're talking about the U.S., not China. Their work ethic is a lot better. They also aren't as obsessed with how much money they're making as Americans are. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have equated education with intelligence. However, I am talking about the U.S. which runs completely on money.
I think it is fine to equate education and intelligence, just not money and education. If China's and India's work ethic is churning out super intelligent workers we need to copy their work ethic. And money in education isn't the driving factor, or a driver. I also think every country is run completely on money, or else they wouldn't run long. Running on hot dogs and pancakes doesn't a long lasting government make, but I get your point.
edit due to my wife saw and abused me. And I guess I have no idea what I was talking about with the taxes. 1k is what the child credit is for, rest for being married.
I'd run my country on pancakes. Blueberry pancakes. Now that would be nice.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:13 pm |
|
|
The Republican
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
NOWHERE in that link does it say that Saddam was positive towards the attacks, nor does it say that he funds terrorists. He did NOT condemn the attacks.
JUST LOOK! Your purposly ignored my edit did you.
quote:
Hussein: 'Americans should feel the pain'
September 15, 2001 Posted: 12:42 PM EDT (1642 GMT)
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- In an open letter to Americans, other Westerners and their governments, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on Saturday condemned the United States and Arab leaders who "rushed to condemn the event" of Tuesday's terror attacks on New York and Washington.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/09/15/hussein.terror/index.html
|
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:55 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Hexy,
Why is business leaving America? Labor expense (part of cost of goods sold) and Overhead (selling, general, and administrative). Dell moved their CS to India, and had their CS take American English dialect classes so we think we are talking to Amercican workers. Just moving their CS had such a positive effect on their bottom line that they can sell for cheaper and overtook HP as the leader of PC sales in NA.
If you move production overseas you have besically non of the cost of business expenses you have here. No unions, no high wage workers, labor relations, EEOC, AA, EO, human resources, law suits, etc. This allows you to sell your good or service for a lot. If another company wants to be competetive they have to do the same thing or go under.
7 million middle management jobs have gone overseas, it is not just labor and tech. Once labor goes you loose the need for HR, so HR goes, you loose the need to manage labor, so management goes, etc.
I just heard IBM is going overseas and is actually making their employees train their replacements if they want a severance package.
All signs point to we're screwed. We humped law ontop of law, and expense ontop of expense, and made it so wages are so inflexible that a business would have to be retarded to want to incure the expenses that business in America costs. Its a nice country to sell your product, not make it. The jobs are going, and then the support jobs for those jobs disappear, then the capital eventually follows, then countries that are smarter and more deserving will be the economic super powers. And eventually we will be the ones willing to work for super cheap and business will come back here and the worlds gdp will equal out and we really will be globilized.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
