Can JK beat GB?

[Nicole Marie]

Sounds like you would know.

And once again thanks for missing my point. You seem to fail to understand that people are doing this work because the company wants to save money, out source a job, load on extra work to another employee etc. The bottom line doesn't always count. As a manager, I project "people before profit". What you are saying is profit before people. Not very responsible in my view. People have kids to feed, bills to pay and lives to live. When a company cans you because they can save a buck and make a larger profit for a CEO or shar holder... well that's just bull shit.

[haggis]

FYI,
Here's a chart of unemployment rates from 1948 to today.
<img src="http://home1.gte.net/res0cuod/images/unemployment%20chart.gif" alt=" - " />

[haggis]

Back to the original subject.

According to a recent Gallup poll

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Overwhelmingly, Americans view international terrorism and the possible spread of weapons of mass destruction as the two most critical threats facing this country, according to a recent Gallup survey. Further down the list of threats to the country is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, followed by Islamic fundamentalism, possibly high levels of immigration, the conflict between North and South Korea, and economic competition from low-wage countries. Conflicts in Asia, as well as the military power of China and Russia, are viewed with less concern.

The poll, conducted Feb. 9-12, asked respondents to evaluate a list of possible threats to the vital interests of the United States over the next 10 years. Two-thirds or more of the respondents identified each threat as either "critical" or "important but not critical." Relatively few respondents said the threats were not important at all.

The results show 82% of Americans citing international terrorism as a critical threat, compared with 75% who make the same judgment about the spread of weapons of mass destruction to unfriendly powers.

Critical Threats Compared by Party Affiliation(differences of 10 points or more between Republicans and Democrats)
Reps Indies Dems % % %
International terrorism 92 79 77

The spread of weapons
of mass destruction
to unfriendly powers 83 74 69

Islamic fundamentalism 61 51 42

The conflict between
North Korea and
South Korea 58 45 42

Economic competition
from low-wage countries 40 48 50

Republicans are much more likely to cite international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, Islamic fundamentalism, and the conflict on the Korean peninsula as "critical" threats than are Democrats -- with independents falling into the middle. Democrats are more likely to cite economic competition from low-wage countries than are Republicans."

When I go to Kerry's Site , and look at the box on the upper-right of the page, listing big issues -- Economy & Jobs, Education, Health Care... -- defense isn't even listed.

Homeland Security is but that page gives you ideas about expanding Americorps and its role in Homeland Security but nothing about defense.
There's nothing about getting the bad guys.
If you look through foreign policy, you’ll find a speech with this:

”At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.
The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.”

That's hopeful but I need to hear more affirmative talk about how he’s going to defend the U.S. “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

I want to hear the guy say he will spare nothing to defend us. I want to see him talk defense.

But the talk is spare and hidden.
Yesterday, I looked for a statement from Kerry on the horror in Madrid. I finally found it but it was buried as if some staffer realized late Friday afternoon that maybe the senator should say something.

Kerry’s up against George Bush and he better come out tough on terrorism -- he'd better talk and act as if we are at war, because 82% of Americans believe we are.

[haggis]

Kerry on Castro :

"''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier."

These kinds of statements are going to continue to haunt Kerry and he really is making it too easy for the Republicans to point these conflicts out.

What was he thinking?

[dai bread]

Originally posted by operatenor:

Originally posted by dai bread:
[b]

Originally posted by operatenor:
[b] Hi DB,

Any room for imported tenors in NZ?

CHOIR?!! I am a soloist, sir! (That is, of course, unless it's a good-paying choir job.)

An awful lot of water has gone under the bridge since I last visited this thread.

I didn't mean to impugn your prowess, O.T., but I'm afraid openings for soloists here are in very short supply. We do have one national opera company, and a few local ones, particularly here in Auckland, and in Dunedin and Christchurch.

There are some places where you can get gelato though.

I'll get on to Haggis' post later. Suffice to say at present that socialised medicine is definitely worth it, and it costs us about 7% of GDP against about 17% I believe for the U.S. Most of our taxes go on various unemployment benefits, thanks to Rogernomics.

And some comes my way, since I am now officially an old-age pensioner.


<Ed: "There's goes that d@#% tenor ego again. But I notice you're not too proud when it comes to the almighty dollar!"> [/b]

[lliam]

Hi DB, Do you get a free bus now that your'e a senior citizen, @ what age do you retire in NZ? it's 65 in the UK.

[jmfryar]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
The bottom line doesn't always count.

Not the best way to run a business...but there's a difference between a corporate environment where people are important and one where they are ground down. It's been proven time and again that the happier a worker, the less turn over and the more productive they are.

But when you have a labor market where you can easily replace the current worker with 10 others, what do you care if they're happy or not? "If you don't like it, leave, I can bring in 8 more like you within two days."

When this is the prevailing attitude, then it is a sad state, but it's to be expected. When jobs are flush and workers have choices, all of a sudden companies become "worker friendly" in order to keep their labor force. Like everything else, it's cyclical.

Finding companies where people are very happy and refuse to leave is incrediably difficult. I'm glad to see that Nicole has the attitude of "people before profit." But she's a rare, rare find these days and a person cannot, in any way, shape of form, realistically expect to find a job with that sort of management attitude.

Heck, most people these days are happy to find a job.

And with regard to the unemployment statistics, these reflect who's on the roles, not a total of unemployment...so if someone's exhausted their benefits, they drop off the chart as if they were employed...this is one of the reasons I don't trust Labor Dept. statisitics.

With regard to worker productivity - automation and computers are primarily responsible. Newspapers used to require teams of layout people, but once they went automated, a couple of people could do it. As more and more jobs are either automated or auto-assisted, fewer and fewer workers are needed. Of the workers that remain, keep in mind that there is no fallback - so when it gets busy, it's easier to require them to work longer hours than it is to hire and train someone.

But there's always a line of people waiting to take the job if they don't like it...

and before Nicole crawls up my posterior with a microscope, I'm not endorsing this position...merely reporting it out of frustration...

[jmfryar]

Originally posted by Haggis:


These kinds of statements are going to continue to haunt Kerry and he really is making it too easy for the Republicans to point these conflicts out.

What was he thinking?

Not really...it's pretty much the "I was operating with the information I had at the time and now have better intelligence" argument that the Republicans are using for the Iraq conflict.

A mind that can change is a mature mind that alters opinions as more information comes available.

The people who are unwaivering in their views and beliefs are the ones who make me very, very nervous.

[Shapley]

Nicole,

I don't know why you always accuse me of missing the point every time I disagree with you.

The point is corporations are making do with less people in order to reduce costs and maintain profits. Profits are not evil, they are the reason the company exists in the first place. Nor are the stockholders all cigar-chomping fat cats in pinstripe suits. Every employee, from the guy that sweeps the floor to the guy in the head office, in this company is a stockholder in a variety of companies. Their retirement depends on the value of the stock purchased, and the value of the stock depends on the profitability of the companies whose stock is traded.

Is it more compassionate to maintain the company at a loss until all of its employees are jobless, or to "cut off an arm to save a life", and keep 80% of the employees fed? The cost of keeping and hiring labor dicatates that tough decisions be made, and all the compassion in the world won't alter that. It is simply a fact that companies can ill afford to maintain "more cats than can catch mice".

How does this miss the point? :confused:

V/R
Shapley

[Rudy2toot]

Haggis, visit the Kerry site today. There is text of a speech to firefighters which is mostly political propoganda but he does talk about the War on Terror.

[Nicole Marie]

Thanks JM.

Shapely I'm not a moron. I understand that a natural cycle of a business includes lay off's, hiring and firing. (Remember I do have a degree in Music Business. Note the business part of the degree.)

But lately we have seen all to often that many CEO's care more about their shareholders and bottom lines then the employees that have kept the business going. There are ways to run a business, make a profit, keep jobs in the US and take care of your employees. Ben and Jerry's is a great example.

And yes Shapley, you often miss my points. I feel you read into my statements what you want to see. But lets not go there and keep this about the economy.

[haggis]

Jmfryar,

"A mind that can change is a mature mind that alters opinions as more information comes available.'

I don't see what that has to do with the point of the article.

Kerry claimed he voted for the act, when in fact he voted against it. He later claimed that he had supported an earlier version of the act, but the bottom line is, he claimed to have voted favorably on an act that he clearly voted against.

”And with regard to the unemployment statistics, these reflect who's on the roles, not a total of unemployment...so if someone's exhausted their benefits, they drop off the chart as if they were employed...this is one of the reasons I don't trust Labor Dept. “statistics

The labor department keeps track of those who have dropped out of the labor market due to discouragement as well as due to loss of unemployment benefits.

[Nicole Marie]

Haggis

Becarful with polls. They are never a true indicator of what the public thinks. Read the Bell Curve, explains it all.

As for Kerry not stating his support on the (never thought I would use this stupid phrase) war against terrorism: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

[haggis]

Is outsourcing really that large of an issue?

Cover story in this week’s BusinessWeek

”Which comes back to the vexing issue of outsourcing. No one doubts that it is having an impact -- though exactly how strong is hard to say since good numbers are unavailable. While some put the number higher, Forrester Research Inc. estimates that of the 2.7 million jobs lost in the last three years, only 300,000 have been from outsourcing.

However, the same issue came up in the 1990s jobless recovery. "My gut reaction," says Princeton's Krueger, "is that the amount of outsourcing hasn't changed dramatically, but what has changed is the types of occupations that are affected." Now, white-collar jobs are increasingly being outsourced -- something that didn't happen during previous business cycles. The fear is that as the trend spreads, many more jobs will eventually be at risk. Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley recently estimated that some 11% of the U.S. workforce is vulnerable.”

The article also addresses the “productivity” issue that Nicole and Shapely have been bouncing back and forth.

Plus, the WSJ (paid subscription required) said today that:

” "Despite the political outcry over the outsourcing of white-collar jobs to such places as India and Ghana, the latest U.S. government data suggest that foreigners outsource far more office work to the U.S. than American companies send abroad.
The value of U.S. exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to $131.01 billion in 2003, up $8.42 billion from the previous year, the Commerce Department reported Friday..."

Finally, from today’s USA Today Editorial

” Many economists estimate that only about 1 in 100 layoffs are caused by outsourcing “

Comments?

[haggis]

Nicole,
Interesting, That's all shown up on Kerry's site since last Friday.

re: polls I agree, but those numbers are too large to ignore and that's exactly what the mainstream media did, they ignored them. I've had my shares of heartburn over poll numbers, but I've generally found that Gallup is accurate.

Meanwhile, the media's darling, Zogby (who comes into a lot of criticism lately for some of his skewed polls) is all over the papers and TV, go figure.

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Haggis-

Here's irony for ya, this jsut in at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/main/index.html

On those poll results you posted, once again I wouldn't put to much stock in them. The US population is very fickle. Opinion changes with the wind. I'd like to poll those folks in a month or two and I'm sure you'll see different numbers. I look for the end result not peering into a crystal ball, which is what most polls are. If anyone is into polls read the Bell Curve. Is show how easy it is to turn a poll result. The way it's worded, who is polling, etc. Everything that goes into a poll can be manipulated to turn the outcome.

[haggis]

Nicole,
If you read all 845 pages, your determination is admirable.

(Ed. “This from a guy who read every page of Beowulf, twice?”

Well, I had this thing about Grendel)

I agree, however, with your point that the way polls are conducted can skew or even subvert the results (ala: Zogby) But that’s why I like Gallup. As far as I know, it’s the only major poll that posts the questions used in the survey.

I have to wonder if the results of the Gallup poll had reflected 82% of Americans were more concerned about the economy (as Kerry maintains) than terrorism if the mainstream media would have ignored that?

But to be fair, the latest ABC poll shows Bush to be more popular among young teenagers, so maybe my suspicions are unfounded.

As for Kerry, I think you’re starting to see that he, or at least someone on his staff, DOES pay attention to poll results and realized he hadn’t address those concerns until this weekend or late last week.

I still want to see his plan for continuing the war of terror. Will he withdraw all American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Most of the new speeches and comments you mentioned are still little more than complaints that Bush has ignored or has poorly managed the Homeland Security initiatives. Fair enough, those are legitimate campaign issues.

But I haven't seen an outline of his vision of how a Kerry Administration would prosecutes the war, or, indeed, if he even believe we are in a war.

This is important to me because I believe we are in a war that can only have one winner and I don’t think cops are the answer; Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily:

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

I have to say that I am somewhat amazed at the seemingly amateurishness of some of his more recent statements; his claims that heads of states have privately told him they want him to win, or his claim that the Libya deal was deliberately delayed to maximize political gain for Bush.

Those statements were all fine and good when he was trying to “out liberal” Howard Dean during the primaries, but, in my opinion, they are not the kind of statements that will win the hearts and minds of the independents, and they are the ones who will decide this election.

As always, I thoroughly enjoy debating these issues in a civil and instructive manner with you or anyone else.

My only caveat is that since I can’t understand self proclaimed “Bush haters” (nor “Clinton haters” when he was in office) I generally won’t respond to them.

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Haggis-

I did read the entire book. Had to for a class on minority studies. It wasn't bad, many good points.

I do not nit-pick the issues so much. Not saying you do but I don't give a crap if a head of state somewhere said XY and Z. I care what Kerry's views are on the issues. I have to agree that the he said/he said crap between Kerry and Bush gets old real fast! I think as more people start asking tough questions to both of them then we might get some real answers. I also do NOT watch the media as much as possible when it comes to elections. They focus so much on that one sound bite that you never get a true picture of the issue.

[dai bread]

Originally posted by Haggis:
Dai Bread,
39% on $60K NZ?!?! That’s like...(multiply by current exchange rate, carry the one drop.... darn! I always screw up multiplication in my head, time for the calculator) $40,500 US.

So if you make $60K NZ you pay $23.4K NZ in taxes?

Four out of every 10 dollars goes to the taxman?

AND a 12.5% sales tax??

Do you also have payroll taxes?

Ouch, I hope that socialized medicine is really, REALLY good. Ya wanna rethink the immigration angle again Piq??

[b]” I don't know what U.S. rates are, or U.K. ones either. Suffice to say that no matter what they are, I'm still surprised the U.S. rich pay them.”

Maybe some don’t, but the top 0.1% of American taxpayers account for 19% of the total tax revenues, that’s pretty incredible.

The minimum Adjusted Gross Income required to be included in the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers was almost $1.6 million for 2000. These taxpayers reported 10.6 percent and 19.0 percent of the total for adjusted gross income and total income tax, respectively.

In 2000, before the latest Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of taxpayers (with an adjusted gross income of $269,496) paid 34.8% of federal income tax revenue and the top 5% (with an AGI of $114,729) paid 54%; that is, 5% of all tax paying Americans paid over half of all income tax revenues. Put another way, the bottom 50%--fully half of taxpayers--paid only 4.2% of the tax take while the top half accounted for 95.8%.

Taxes on a typical middle-income family have fallen to their lowest level in more than 20 years. So, without a reduction of the payroll taxes, it would be impossible to reduce taxes more for poorer people, many who aren’t paying any income tax to start with!

If the U.S. Congress were really serious about helping the poor, they would reduce the payroll tax. The payroll tax is horrible, especially to the poor who pay a disproportionate share of their income to the federal government long before income tax time rolls around. No president since Ronald Reagan has even suggested cutting the payroll tax and I think that’s shameful. [/b]

No, we don't have a payroll tax. We did have, once, but it was dropped pretty quickly for the reasons you cite.

I don't think a straight currency conversion is valid when discussing relative incomes & taxes. I prefer the Big Mac Index, which measures purchasing power along with correct currency valuations. Here is a page you might find interesting.

I do like the thought that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay hardly any tax. We need to move in that direction rather than inventing ever more benefits which are allegedly targeted but generally miss the mark.

NZD 60k is a reasonable income here. Not fancy, but you can live on it quite comfortably.

Presumably Adjusted Gross Income is after allowable deductions?

Our 12.5% GST sales tax is the same tax that Europe has had for decades. The British call it VAT, and made the mistake of having exemptions & differential rates. The Aussies did the same when they introduced their GST a couple of years ago. Result: difficulties for the taxpayer in record-keeping and calculation, and an army of tax inspectors. Ours is a flat rate on almost everything. Result: sales / nine minus purchases / nine = tax to pay. Easy. This isn't the place to deal with exemptions, but most of them are related to exports.

I might add that when I was a whole lot younger, and income tax was almost the only method of raising Govt. revenue, we the people cried out for a tax on consumption. In GST we have it, and those of us who remember the pre-GST days wouldn't have it any other way. When the tax was introduced, we got a hefty cut in income tax to compensate. 16% if memory serves.

[dai bread]

Originally posted by jmfryar:

I've been looking for a new job for 6-months - don't want to get into the length of time friends of mine have been looking. It's not good when I'm actually thinking of leaving the country in order to get employment in a position that used to be down the street.

Lofty thoughts are all well and good when you're employed, paying your bills, and comfortable. Too many Americans are not in that situation.

My youngest went to Australia for that reason. He took his BA, LlB and Bar Exams and went into credit analysis in Sydney. For an American company, as it happens.

And I'm sorry to hear about others in that situation. Believe me, I've been on the receiving end and know exactly what it's like.