Wake up: the American Dream is over

The rest of the world buys up American Fortune 500 companies for pennies?

Seriously, the multinationals register their interests in other countries through creating other wholley seperate Companies. Even if they have the same name.

If McDonalds went tits up in the US, McDonalds in Europe would still be trading.

Yes, our Stocks and Shares would plummit as the Markets adjusted, then would probably go into overdrive as the rest of the world tried to take advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime.

You are a net Importer... look at your balance of payments.. something anyone that is not American loves to see.

The stuff you export... nothing there that other countries cant supply (with the exception of certain weapons systems).

The Euro-Zone is a much bigger market than the US (450,000,000 v 300,000,000), they are our main Trading Partners and as such the economy there has a much greater effect on the UKs. We may even join it at some point (as if..)

If the Dollar crashes and people are buying Oil in Euro's... well, you do the math.. that alone would more than compensate this side of the Pond for the US's economic collapse.

Its something that Europe wouldnt complain about, apart from a few weeks of inconveniance.


You forget... the US companies would mostly still be trading, its the little guy in the US that gets hit hard, the Rich Ones would still be rich (mostly).



And now i said all that, i'll point out that it wouldnt be for that long before Europe Joined you in collapse (maybe a decade?)... we've already passed the peak oil point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Picture this:

I have jobs to fill.

I interview candidates in order to determine to my satisfaction (1) Who has the skills to do the job; (2) Who I can trust to do the job to my specification, and, (3) Who will do the job at the least cost to me.

I bid for my contract; they can bid for their job!

What could possibly be wrong with that? :)

---

Bollicks.

If someone cant feed/clothe/look after their family with their wage, they will go out and steal what is needed, and maybe a little more. They are also more likely to fall victim of Substance Abuse or Mental Disorders.

So, then.

Every wage must be a "living wage"?

What are we to pay a teenager living with Mom and Dad?

Students?

People who are working a second job to make a little extra?

Not everyone has a family, Rat.

Does someone supporting only him or herself merit a wage fit to house/clothe/feed a family of four?

As to falling back on theft, I don't know where you get that idea-if one is inclined to steal, it is not automatically due to having a minimum wage job, and I would submit to you the vast number of minimum wage earners are not thieves.

Mental illness and drug abuse are not symptomatic of minimum wage jobs, either; the likelihood is the low-paying job follows those symptoms rather than the other way around-in any case, treatment programs for drug abuse and mental health issues are handily available for any who choose to partake, although, given those problems are most often chronic/endemic, success is not guaranteed, as well you know.

The policy of not increasing the Minimum Wage in line with inflation is self defeating due to the added social/criminal costs that are then footed by the Taxpayer.

The taxpayer pays those costs in any case, and inflation will rise along with the minimum wage.

It should be noted here that a capitalist system reacts negatively to any and every attempt to regulate anything having to do with the value of services or goods.

If your on Minimum Wage, you also likely to have no pride in where you work and are unlikely to go the extra mile for your company.

As an employer, I am not the least interested in hiring anyone whose chief source of pride is the size of his/her paycheck.

I want someone who takes pride in his/her own work and the ethic which compels them.

Tell me, how far does $3 an hour go these days in the USA?

I don't know anyone working for $3 an hour, but if there were jobs that paid $3/hr, someone would fill them.

Let's say someone with a large family wishes to employ someone for an hour a day to fold wash.

What's it worth?

Remember that the guy has rent to pay, bills to pay, food to buy...

Actually, this is not often the case, although the media and liberal movement must have you think otherwise in order to make their case.

Besides, if the public have no money, they cant spend any money either...

---

They seem to live rather well, all things considered; I have a friend who works at social services who told me she recently had to process a young mother who couldn't be bothered to turn off her IPod to answer questions.

BTW-those who "have no money" shop at Wal-Mart; it works rather well, and you'll find me there on occasion, too.

When the UK Minimum Wage was introduced, we heard all these arguments coming from the employers beforehand.

Employment went UP, very few companies went under and the "new" money getting circulated into the economy stopped us going into the recession the rest of the world is now coming out of.

The Minimum Wage(s) in the UK are:

£5.05 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older

A development rate of £4.25 per hour for
workers aged 18 - 21 years inclusive
workers aged 22 years and above, starting a new job with a new employer and doing accredited training*

£3.00 per hour which applies to all workers under the age of 18 who are no longer of compulsory school age.


It therefore takes into account that they are more likely to have a family when they're older and live with their family whilst younger.

There's also a very likely increase in the Minimum Wage in the South East to £7.00+ on the cards, and this is being led by the employers to a large extent, not the Government. They actually want the legislation so that they'd all be on the same bases, rather than go into a wages war in the service/retail sectors.

I think the Exchange rate is about 1.85 at this moment in time..

Therefore in your money the minimum wage(s) are $9.29, $7.86 & $5.55 respectively, with a proposed $12.95 in the South East.


Surely if our puny economy can afford that, so can your huge one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

The rest of the world buys up American Fortune 500 companies for pennies?

Seriously, the multinationals register their interests in other countries through creating other wholley seperate Companies. Even if they have the same name.

If McDonalds went tits up in the US, McDonalds in Europe would still be trading.

Yes, our Stocks and Shares would plummit as the Markets adjusted, then would probably go into overdrive as the rest of the world tried to take advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime.

You are a net Importer... look at your balance of payments.. something anyone that is not American loves to see.

The stuff you export... nothing there that other countries cant supply (with the exception of certain weapons systems).

The Euro-Zone is a much bigger market than the US (450,000,000 v 300,000,000), they are our main Trading Partners and as such the economy there has a much greater effect on the UKs. We may even join it at some point (as if..)

If the Dollar crashes and people are buying Oil in Euro's... well, you do the math.. that alone would more than compensate this side of the Pond for the US's economic collapse.

Its something that Europe wouldnt complain about, apart from a few weeks of inconveniance.


You forget... the US companies would mostly still be trading, its the little guy in the US that gets hit hard, the Rich Ones would still be rich (mostly).



And now i said all that, i'll point out that it wouldnt be for that long before Europe Joined you in collapse (maybe a decade?)... we've already passed the peak oil point.

---

Hmmmm... you give this country credit for absolutely nothing. our economy crashes and there will barely be a ripple. The largest importer of goods no longer buying from the world market is going ot essentially do nothing. A month of inconvience and everything goes back to normal...LOL The largest exporter of goods goes down and no ripple. We develop nothing.. Well except for Tecnology, I mean we only ;lead the world in Industrial R&D. I am sure that has no effect on anything.

The United States has long led the industrialized world in the performance of industrial R&D. Over the past 2 decades, however, U.S. dominance has been challenged. The U.S. share of total industrial R&D performed by the OECD countries fell between 1973 and 1992. (See figure 6-9.) Despite this decline, the United States remains the leading performer of industrial R&D by a wide margin, even surpassing the combined R&D of the 12-nation European Community. True to its belief in the economic benefits of investments in R&D, Japan followed a high R&D growth path during the 1970s and 1980s that led to a near doubling of its share of total OECD R&D over the 20-year period

The US dominates the global fortune 500, 3 of the top 4 most profitable companies are american and american based, Britain has one in the top 10 I believe then dissapears till 35.

I guess i just find it amazing that the leader in development of new technoloy, R&D and drug research collapses and there would be little effect. That trillions of spending dollars get taken off the market and it causes little if any problems other then a few months of turbulence. Per most europeans, I think you underestimate this country. Which is okay actualy...... But since in the end I am not an economist I guess you could be right. But IMO you , your kids or your kids kids will not see this countries downfall.

Now go and look at the people doing the R&D... most are not American.

US pays more, and this causes a brain drain from the rest of the world. Those R&D scientists would just go home.

Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe... not now.

No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

When the UK Minimum Wage was introduced, we heard all these arguments coming from the employers beforehand.

Employment went UP, very few companies went under and the "new" money getting circulated into the economy stopped us going into the recession the rest of the world is now coming out of.

The Minimum Wage(s) in the UK are:

£5.05 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older

A development rate of £4.25 per hour for
workers aged 18 - 21 years inclusive
workers aged 22 years and above, starting a new job with a new employer and doing accredited training*

£3.00 per hour which applies to all workers under the age of 18 who are no longer of compulsory school age.


It therefore takes into account that they are more likely to have a family when they're older and live with their family whilst younger.

There's also a very likely increase in the Minimum Wage in the South East to £7.00+ on the cards, and this is being led by the employers to a large extent, not the Government. They actually want the legislation so that they'd all be on the same bases, rather than go into a wages war in the service/retail sectors.

I think the Exchange rate is about 1.85 at this moment in time..

Therefore in your money the minimum wage(s) are $9.29, $7.86 & $5.55 respectively, with a proposed $12.95 in the South East.


Surely if our puny economy can afford that, so can your huge one?

---

You have Socialist economy, too.

Different bird, I think you'll find.

To the extent your "employers" practice a true (and barely functional) communism in order to perpetuate themselves, our employers would run in the opposite direction, because we are a competitive economy, as compared to yours.

We have a different system, with a bigger potential payoff (we think), and, while each has it's efficiencies, they are not co-equal, you see.

Ours is bigger (God help me, I love saying that). :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Now go and look at the people doing the R&D... most are not American.

---

I will assume this to be completely false unless you have something to back it up. ANYTHING to back this up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

US pays more, and this causes a brain drain from the rest of the world. Those R&D scientists would just go home.

---

They are home in america.. This is there country making them americans. I would be willing to bet the majority of these people are US born and bred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe... not now.

---

Ya theres so little difference between a rocket that goes 80 miles and landing on the moon.... Luckily for us that we are not living in the past anymore.... The breakthoughs and advances you are seeing are from America, it innovation and development. You take that technology and build on it a little. But lets rememebr where the source comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

---

It would cause a world colapse without a doubt. NO .. I don't think your capable of filling any void left in the market place if the US bowed out. Not in quantity or quality. Asia would collapse for sure and you would follow right behind them. The technology would remain essentially stagnant, and the same goes for development. With the decrease in production and technology the Inflation would drive the rest into the ground

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

---

Which they wouldn't be able. Refer to above post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

---

It would cause your collapse and the world reccesion. All in all a moot point since your not going to be seeing this happen.

The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage

J2 I seem to remember you suggesting that what happens in one state would be mirrored in another ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

I will assume this to be completely false unless you have something to back it up. ANYTHING to back this up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

US pays more, and this causes a brain drain from the rest of the world. Those R&D scientists would just go home.

---

They are home in america.. This is there country making them americans. I would be willing to bet the majority of these people are US born and bred.

Ok... 17% of everyone employed in US Information Technology, as an example, are foreign nationals (as at 1998, source www.cpst.org) hired as skilled workers, under your highly skilled migrant visa program.

Usually, depending upon the company hierarchy and size, around 60-70% of a companies staff is involved as "Support Staff" (reception, sales, HR, admin etc etc), plus a percentage for management (Im sure J2 can give us closer estimates as to the usual ratio's in a large/medium US Company).

IF all Companies in IT were therefor doing the skilled research or programming; 17 + 60 = 77 + % for management (say 10?) = 13% left that could actually be US citizenes doing that "skilled" work.

However... not every company in Information Technology will be doing the skilled stuff which the foreign nationals have been hired to do. Some (most even) companies will just be "Selling Computers" or "Data Input", these dont qualify for the highly skilled migrant program. Therefor that 17% takes on a more significant meaning.. it must be MORE than 17% in the companies actually doing the skilled programming, system analyses and hardware research.

Hell, your Government itself is acknowledging that for the last 5 years or so they've been worried about a "Reverse Brain Drain", something thats never happened before, because your own companies are starting to outsource abroad and are offshoring.

Heres a snippet from your own press about that:

Quote:

---

Until recently, if Americans heard the words "brain drain," they knew clearly what that meant: Bright, talented scientists, engineers and other techies from all over the world were migrating to the United States. They were drawn here by the world's best universities, the most dynamic companies, the freest economic and social environment and the highest standard of living.

Today, while many of these conditions still apply, Americans are starting to hear a new term: "reverse brain drain." What it suggests is the United States is pursuing government and private-sector policies that, over the long run, could lead to a significant shift in the world's balance of brainpower

---

Source

By the way... most of them will be from Europe or Asia. Western Europeans dont generally want to be Americans. They are there for work, and only because of the work. Cant see many Japanese going out oftheir way to become Americans either...

Stop assuming everyone wants to be an American, its a false assumption based upon a lot of illegal immigration from certain countries. We either all hate you or we all want to be you... make your mind up please. (Its actually neither... USA is a lovely place to visit with fantastic people, I intend to return as often as possible, but i'd hate to live there.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe...

---

Ya theres so little difference between a rocket that goes 80 miles and landing on the moon.... Luckily for us that we are not living in the past anymore.... The breakthoughs and advances you are seeing are from America, it innovation and development. You take that technology and build on it a little. But lets rememebr where the source comes from.

Then why is there such a hoo hah about NASA wanting to buy Russian Technology? Could it be, perhaps, its better than your own in parts?

Old Technology at that...

The CIA rates the USA as "amongst the forefront" in most research categories..."amongst"... see, Research is usually an International Effort, unless its for a specific Commercial purpose. A lot of it is done by Universities for example, and they tend to share the stuff between themselves, so its very hard to say, i'd say virtually impossiible to say, "This was 100% developed here by only our citizens".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

---

It would cause a world colapse without a doubt. NO .. I don't think your capable of filling any void left in the market place if the US bowed out. Not in quantity or quality. Asia would collapse for sure and you would follow right behind them. The technology would remain essentially stagnant, and the same goes for development. With the decrease in production and technology the Inflation would drive the rest into the ground

You assume that the US exports loads to Europe... its not much actually (maybe to Eastern Europe or others outside the EU). The Quality of the stuff sucks and its too expensive so we wont buy it, at least if its from Asia we trust the quality and its cheap. Even the F150 pick up wont sell here, its crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

---

Which they wouldn't be able. Refer to above post.

They'd fill the gap from the USA easily..there wouldnt BE much of a gap. See above post.

As I said, if the Asian Economy totally collapsed, then you'd have a point. However, as i said earlier, this isnt necessarily so... ours is a larger market for Asia than the US is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

---

It would cause your collapse and the world reccesion. All in all a moot point since your not going to be seeing this happen.

---

Could EASILY see it happen.

Your own Experts say its a matter of time (including Alan Greenspan), and they expect it to be within this decade... some say as little as 5 years away in fact.

Iran was, the last I heard, setting up an Oil Exchange in Euro's and Putin was certainly talking about selling Russian Oil in Euro's (as most that Russia sells goes to Europe).

Venesualla is also talking about Euros to sell its oil (mind, its also doing something similar to bartering with Cuba last I heard, so who knows what they'll be doing?...).

Did you note, by the way, that one of the first things that the USA did in Iraq was ensure that the Oil was once again sold in Dollars? Despite the cost to a bankrupt "provisional Government"....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage

J2 I seem to remember you suggesting that what happens in one state would be mirrored in another ;)

---

Impossible..

J2 assured me that this could only happen in our "socialist" system..

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The terrible effect of raising the minimum wage

J2 I seem to remember you suggesting that what happens in one state would be mirrored in another ;)

---

Impossible..

J2 assured me that this could only happen in our "socialist" system..

:rolleyes:

---

He assured you that above average job growth and higher wages could only happen in a socialist system :unsure: Doesn't sound like him

No, I assure you he did.

I received the impression that he would welcome a return to the Cotton Industry a couple of hundred years ago, as this is the ultimate in paying Low Wages.

He may have a point in that there was 100% employment for people with a slightly dark complexion at the time, as I recall from school.

Obviously paying them anything, reduced this 100% ergo:

Wages = Unemployment

The higher the wages, the higher the unemployment.


J2 is not one to change his mind as you well know..

Its obvious therefore that those States have been infiltrated by some Pinko's from overseas, or they have just decided that they dont want to compete.

Bloody anti-american they are...:angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

I will assume this to be completely false unless you have something to back it up. ANYTHING to back this up.


They are home in america.. This is there country making them americans. I would be willing to bet the majority of these people are US born and bred.

Ok... 17% of everyone employed in US Information Technology, as an example, are foreign nationals (as at 1998, source www.cpst.org) hired as skilled workers, under your highly skilled migrant visa program.

Usually, depending upon the company hierarchy and size, around 60-70% of a companies staff is involved as "Support Staff" (reception, sales, HR, admin etc etc), plus a percentage for management (Im sure J2 can give us closer estimates as to the usual ratio's in a large/medium US Company).

IF all Companies in IT were therefor doing the skilled research or programming; 17 + 60 = 77 + % for management (say 10?) = 13% left that could actually be US citizenes doing that "skilled" work.

However... not every company in Information Technology will be doing the skilled stuff which the foreign nationals have been hired to do. Some (most even) companies will just be "Selling Computers" or "Data Input", these dont qualify for the highly skilled migrant program. Therefor that 17% takes on a more significant meaning.. it must be MORE than 17% in the companies actually doing the skilled programming, system analyses and hardware research.

Hell, your Government itself is acknowledging that for the last 5 years or so they've been worried about a "Reverse Brain Drain", something thats never happened before, because your own companies are starting to outsource abroad and are offshoring.

Heres a snippet from your own press about that:

Quote:

---

Until recently, if Americans heard the words "brain drain," they knew clearly what that meant: Bright, talented scientists, engineers and other techies from all over the world were migrating to the United States. They were drawn here by the world's best universities, the most dynamic companies, the freest economic and social environment and the highest standard of living.

Today, while many of these conditions still apply, Americans are starting to hear a new term: "reverse brain drain." What it suggests is the United States is pursuing government and private-sector policies that, over the long run, could lead to a significant shift in the world's balance of brainpower

---

Source

By the way... most of them will be from Europe or Asia. Western Europeans dont generally want to be Americans. They are there for work, and only because of the work. Cant see many Japanese going out oftheir way to become Americans either...

Stop assuming everyone wants to be an American, its a false assumption based upon a lot of illegal immigration from certain countries. We either all hate you or we all want to be you... make your mind up please. (Its actually neither... USA is a lovely place to visit with fantastic people, I intend to return as often as possible, but i'd hate to live there.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Technology? Wasnt so long ago when you could send rockets up there, but didnt have the technology to build the actual satelites, you got those from Europe...

---

Ya theres so little difference between a rocket that goes 80 miles and landing on the moon.... Luckily for us that we are not living in the past anymore.... The breakthoughs and advances you are seeing are from America, it innovation and development. You take that technology and build on it a little. But lets rememebr where the source comes from.

Then why is there such a hoo hah about NASA wanting to buy Russian Technology? Could it be, perhaps, its better than your own in parts?

Old Technology at that...

The CIA rates the USA as "amongst the forefront" in most research categories..."amongst"... see, Research is usually an International Effort, unless its for a specific Commercial purpose. A lot of it is done by Universities for example, and they tend to share the stuff between themselves, so its very hard to say, i'd say virtually impossiible to say, "This was 100% developed here by only our citizens".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

No, there would certainly be huge consequences of an American Collapse. It would cause a collapse in Asia too.

---

It would cause a world colapse without a doubt. NO .. I don't think your capable of filling any void left in the market place if the US bowed out. Not in quantity or quality. Asia would collapse for sure and you would follow right behind them. The technology would remain essentially stagnant, and the same goes for development. With the decrease in production and technology the Inflation would drive the rest into the ground

You assume that the US exports loads to Europe... its not much actually (maybe to Eastern Europe or others outside the EU). The Quality of the stuff sucks and its too expensive so we wont buy it, at least if its from Asia we trust the quality and its cheap. Even the F150 pick up wont sell here, its crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As Asia accounts for most of OUR imports, then our own companies would have a field day trying to fill the gap.

---

Which they wouldn't be able. Refer to above post.

They'd fill the gap from the USA easily..there wouldnt BE much of a gap. See above post.

As I said, if the Asian Economy totally collapsed, then you'd have a point. However, as i said earlier, this isnt necessarily so... ours is a larger market for Asia than the US is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

It would cause inflation on a massive scale for a short period OR a price war, depending upon the scale of the ASIAN collapse.

---

It would cause your collapse and the world reccesion. All in all a moot point since your not going to be seeing this happen.

---

Could EASILY see it happen.

Your own Experts say its a matter of time (including Alan Greenspan), and they expect it to be within this decade... some say as little as 5 years away in fact.

Iran was, the last I heard, setting up an Oil Exchange in Euro's and Putin was certainly talking about selling Russian Oil in Euro's (as most that Russia sells goes to Europe).

Venesualla is also talking about Euros to sell its oil (mind, its also doing something similar to bartering with Cuba last I heard, so who knows what they'll be doing?...).

Did you note, by the way, that one of the first things that the USA did in Iraq was ensure that the Oil was once again sold in Dollars? Despite the cost to a bankrupt "provisional Government"....

---

First off I gotta tell you, i don't get your math. If 17% are foriegn nationals then 83% are not. Some how you equated 17% to 83%. Your logic at best makes HUGE assumptions to fit your arguement.

I have no false assumption. You have a definet elitist attitude when it comes to the US. One that is truly not deserved. Your talk of immigration is crap to start with. Of LEGAL immigrants we NATURALIZED over 600,000 last year. From almost every country in the world. Not just mexico. 97,000 came from the European Region.

The total long-term immigrants for 2004 for each country are 946,100 for the U.S., 266,500 for the UK, and 156,400 for Italy. The British government estimates are for 494,000 in 2004.

Oddly enough seems a lot less people want to belong to the EU, even with it's open door policy. There must be a reason these people are still flocking to this country................... I ya thats right to sell drugs and AMWAY.. Whatever the fuck AMWAY is.

If it's developed in this countries universities it was developed here. As for the Russian space technology.... Exactly what Hoo haa. We wanted to by soyaz rockets back in 05 while the shuttle was grounded. Was there some other hoo haa your talking about. This had to be done because russia wanted to be paid after its initial launches to the space station. I wonder what countries are paying the US for all there flights to the space station. We have a multiple re-entry craft, the first and only in the world but ya russian technology is obviously were we want to go. ..... Other then very recently has there been a lot of help with "international" effort other then russia.. Not counting the actual astrounauts themselves.

As for the vehicles, Oddly enough grew in the EU last year. The reason for the prices is not the US fault but the High tariffs imposed by the EU to stem these vehicles from coming over.

Across all sectors, Michigan's No. 1 source of foreign investment is the 25 countries of the European Union. This investment of $29 billion is three times as much as Michigan received from the rest of the world and supports more than 136,000 in-state jobs. The EU is also Michigan's second-largest export market, consuming more than $4.5 billion in Michigan goods and services and accounting for an additional 91,000 local jobs

Maybe your the one that doesn't like the product out of the US. But it seems as if the EU itself isn't completely flat on the idea

As for the economy.... Still don't think your going to be able to fill the gap. Agricultural, technological....... both are going to suffer. exporting - 6 of the top 15 are Asian countries. Importing - 5 are asian countries. Seems we have a nice little market witht that part of the world. I have no doubt that when we stop importing after our economy crashes that 150 trillion dollars won't do much the asian economy

You dont get on the "Highly Skilled Immigrant" visa program to answer telephones.

Thats where the 17% v the 83% comes from.

All the support staff... ie: Most of the organisation (if its one of the ones that are doing highly skilled and arent just data processing, which i pointed out) is not counted as within those 17%.

They will be Americans, or immigrants on visas other than the Highly Skilled Visa program.

I tried to get figures (and also said outright that J2 would have a better idea of the percentages of "overhead" in those types of organisations in your country) in the ballpark.

How many companies in this sector are doing "Highly Skilled" ie: R&D, Programming and Analysis? I'd suggest quite a lot are just doing Data Entry or PC Sales.

You have to include all the staff in the companies that arent involved in this "Highly Skilled" stuff as part of the 83%... i'd suggest that would be a fair chunk of them.

Re:
Immigration.. You have 6 times population of UK, god knows how much bigger an economy and only took in 3 times as many migrants, not saying much positive are you?.... "managed migration" its called.

Also "The European Region" is not just the EU (and there are still countries within the EU that make the USA look like a paradise)... you also count Eastern Europe, including Russia as "European Region".

I'm talking about "Western Europe"... find those figures. And figures about taking "citizenship" not migration, thats what the argument is about. We know theres a brain drain to the US (well, YOU denied it, then gave us the evidence to support it)... YOU are stating that we want to be Americans, i deny that.

Plenty of people going to the USA, but not to become citizens of there (at least from Western Europe)...


The reason we dont buy American is because its crap quality v price (in the UK).

Its often cheaper than British Goods, more expensive than Asian. Both of the others are better quality. Hell you only just learned how to build a car that can go around corners properly... nice car, if i could find the £60,000 needed against the £20,000 Japanese equivalent...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

You dont get on the "Highly Skilled Immigrant" visa program to answer telephones.

Thats where the 17% v the 83% comes from.

All the support staff... ie: Most of the organisation (if its one of the ones that are doing highly skilled and arent just data processing, which i pointed out) is not counted as within those 17%.

They will be Americans, or immigrants on visas other than the Highly Skilled Visa program.

I tried to get figures (and also said outright that J2 would have a better idea of the percentages of "overhead" in those types of organisations in your country) in the ballpark.

How many companies in this sector are doing "Highly Skilled" ie: R&D, Programming and Analysis? I'd suggest quite a lot are just doing Data Entry or PC Sales.

You have to include all the staff in the companies that arent involved in this "Highly Skilled" stuff as part of the 83%... i'd suggest that would be a fair chunk of them.

Re:
Immigration.. You have 6 times population of UK, god knows how much bigger an economy and only took in 3 times as many migrants, not saying much positive are you?.... "managed migration" its called.

Also "The European Region" is not just the EU (and there are still countries within the EU that make the USA look like a paradise)... you also count Eastern Europe, including Russia as "European Region".

I'm talking about "Western Europe"... find those figures. And figures about taking "citizenship" not migration, thats what the argument is about. We know theres a brain drain to the US (well, YOU denied it, then gave us the evidence to support it)... YOU are stating that we want to be Americans, i deny that.

Plenty of people going to the USA, but not to become citizens of there (at least from Western Europe)...


The reason we dont buy American is because its crap quality v price (in the UK).

Its often cheaper than British Goods, more expensive than Asian. Both of the others are better quality. Hell you only just learned how to build a car that can go around corners properly... nice car, if i could find the £60,000 needed against the £20,000 Japanese equivalent...

---

I am not going to argue percentages with you since you don't have hard numbers. Assumptions do great if your guessing.

Who the hell said you wanted to be Americans... I know I don't. And I can't really think of a lot of if any Americans that want you to become citizens either. Stay over the pond, we do not desire your citezenship nor are we asking you to come by. I just presented you with the number that say your wrong. That our immigration is a lot more then the drug dealers and AMWAYS salesmen.

I have never had a car that had a problem going around corners. You don't like em don't buy them. But the simple fact is the EU is buying them, hence the growth. Your elitist opinion aside the exports to EU countries is significant. Not huge because we also have to deal with the tariffs set into place to make our products cost more. This is so our products don't bump the homegrowns out of the market place. Cars being the prime example.

And maybe the reason there coming here to work is the staggering unemployment and dismal growth rate in the EU. 15% of your imports come from the US. And your total import dollar is only slightly higher then ours. Which would lead me to think you import virtually everything you need to survive. With your industrial production growth rate hanging around 1% there doesn't seem to be a lot moving in the EU. You export a 1/4 of your goods to the US. I have no doubt thet your economy as bad as it is will have no problem eating that HUGE loss in revenue.

If your going to be an elitist. You should first have something to be elite about. The global market falls without us. And you will be one of the first to come with us. Theres no way your going to survive losing one of your largest exporting countries........

The 17% "highly Skilled Visa" program figure in an entire industry was a hard figure.

Tariffs:

Maybe you should do some research here... the only reason there are any Tarrifs between the EU and USA is because in March 2002 the US government imposed 30% tariffs on a range of imported steel products, the EU retaliated. The WTO declared those steel tariffs illegal, and i think they've now been removed, however the knock on effects are still being felt on both sides of the Pond...

Quote:

---

Earlier in 2006, the repeal of the Byrd amendment by the US Congress was welcomed by the Commission, with EU sanctions now being reduced in tandem with remaining Byrd payments. Nevertheless, US failure to comply with a number of WTO dispute settlement findings still continues to be a major EU concern. For instance, the repeal of the US FSC/ETI export-contingent tax scheme includes transitional and grandfathering provisions which have been repeatedly ruled WTO-incompatible. The EU will continue to raise compliance concerns with the US authorities. In addition, unfair anti-dumping measures taken by the United States against the EU continue to be a major trade irritant. In over 50 anti-dumping cases and reviews since 1995, US duties have been inflated using the zeroing methodology which has already been found WTO-incompatible and is currently subject to further litigation.

---

Seems you want to trade free, but make everyone else pay to trade there.. aint gonna happen.

The Unemployment Rate in the UK is currently 5.3% up from 4.7% last year, this compares very favourably with your own on the surface.

However whereas ours counts everyone thats registered as unemployed, yours only counts those that are getting assistance .. ie: It misses out those that dont claim, cant claim or have been unemployed long enough that they dont get assistance any more.

The most accurate ways of looking at this subject is the Employment/Population Ratio or Labourforce Participation Rate, as these are the only way that we can find out the truth, and are measured the same everywhere in the world... so lets look:

USA = 63% Employment/Population Ratio, 66% Labourforce Participation (Source US Department of Labor)
UK = 71% Employment/Population Ratio, 77% Labourforce Participation (Source EU Statistics)

So, seems your a little quick with the "staggering unemployment" huh? Seems a lot more of our population have jobs than your own... and we pay 'em enough to survive on too, with our minimum wage nearly double your own.


Lets look at Economic Growth then huh?

If what your saying is correct, we'd all be going to China, which accounted for 40% of ALL Economic Growth in the world last year...

Fact is that the UK has had Economic Growth for the last 9 continuous years (nearly 25% 2000-2005), verses US having last 3. The average Economic Growth for both countries since 1992 has been in the region of 3% per annum.. so what the hell are you talking about?

How about other economic factors?

Current Account:

US Deficit of $208.7 Billion (Projected as $477 Billion for the year)

UK Record Annual Deficit of $7.5 Billion recorded in April (£4.0Billion)..

That means we're both in the Red, but our current account deficit is something like 2% of your own. You accumulate the equivalent of our entire annual deficit every 6 days.

Overall Debt:

USA: Thats currently 60% GDP, predicted to rise to 70% GDP by 2010

UK: Currently 42% GDP, and unable to rise much above that because the Government is limited on how much it can borrow each year.


I think, personally, if i was trying to survive on my Overdraft i'd much rather have a 45% Mortgage than a 70% Mortgage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

The 17% "highly Skilled Visa" program figure in an entire industry was a hard figure.

Tariffs:

Maybe you should do some research here... the only reason there are any Tarrifs between the EU and USA is because in March 2002 the US government imposed 30% tariffs on a range of imported steel products, the EU retaliated. The WTO declared those steel tariffs illegal, and i think they've now been removed, however the knock on effects are still being felt on both sides of the Pond...

Quote:

---

Earlier in 2006, the repeal of the Byrd amendment by the US Congress was welcomed by the Commission, with EU sanctions now being reduced in tandem with remaining Byrd payments. Nevertheless, US failure to comply with a number of WTO dispute settlement findings still continues to be a major EU concern. For instance, the repeal of the US FSC/ETI export-contingent tax scheme includes transitional and grandfathering provisions which have been repeatedly ruled WTO-incompatible. The EU will continue to raise compliance concerns with the US authorities. In addition, unfair anti-dumping measures taken by the United States against the EU continue to be a major trade irritant. In over 50 anti-dumping cases and reviews since 1995, US duties have been inflated using the zeroing methodology which has already been found WTO-incompatible and is currently subject to further litigation.

---

Seems you want to trade free, but make everyone else pay to trade there.. aint gonna happen.

The Unemployment Rate in the UK is currently 5.3% up from 4.7% last year, this compares very favourably with your own on the surface.

However whereas ours counts everyone thats registered as unemployed, yours only counts those that are getting assistance .. ie: It misses out those that dont claim, cant claim or have been unemployed long enough that they dont get assistance any more.

The most accurate ways of looking at this subject is the Employment/Population Ratio or Labourforce Participation Rate, as these are the only way that we can find out the truth, and are measured the same everywhere in the world... so lets look:

USA = 63% Employment/Population Ratio, 66% Labourforce Participation (Source US Department of Labor)
UK = 71% Employment/Population Ratio, 77% Labourforce Participation (Source EU Statistics)

So, seems your a little quick with the "staggering unemployment" huh? Seems a lot more of our population have jobs than your own... and we pay 'em enough to survive on too, with our minimum wage nearly double your own.


Lets look at Economic Growth then huh?

If what your saying is correct, we'd all be going to China, which accounted for 40% of ALL Economic Growth in the world last year...

Fact is that the UK has had Economic Growth for the last 9 continuous years (nearly 25% 2000-2005), verses US having last 3. The average Economic Growth for both countries since 1992 has been in the region of 3% per annum.. so what the hell are you talking about?

How about other economic factors?

Current Account:

US Deficit of $208.7 Billion (Projected as $477 Billion for the year)

UK Record Annual Deficit of $7.5 Billion recorded in April (£4.0Billion)..

That means we're both in the Red, but our current account deficit is something like 2% of your own. You accumulate the equivalent of our entire annual deficit every 6 days.

Overall Debt:

USA: Thats currently 60% GDP, predicted to rise to 70% GDP by 2010

UK: Currently 42% GDP, and unable to rise much above that because the Government is limited on how much it can borrow each year.


I think, personally, if i was trying to survive on my Overdraft i'd much rather have a 45% Mortgage than a 70% Mortgage.

---

First off I never mentioned the UK....So virtually everything you said has absolutely no baring on anything. I was speaking about the EU since you have brought up the Euro. So the staggering unemployment and little growth rate is not going to help you if a miracle happens and our economy crashes. I seem to here all this talk about the EU but when you bring a negative up people seem to fall back to "Well in france" or "in the UK". If your going to stand as a union then your going to fall as one. You mention all the problems within this country and I am not about to say .. ya but the state of Pennsylvania is doing great........ Although I do believe you have a higher percentage living below the poverty line in the beautiful UK.

You seem to have little grasp here.

The UK is part of the EU.

The UK is not in the Eurozone.

Pennsylvania isn't a sovereign nation, its part of the USA. I didnt pick one part of the UK, say England or Scotland, i used the whole UK.

I cannot say "EU" and talk about every single sovereign nation within it. The Western European countries have the capacity and capability to increase production easily and quickly, the Eastern Europeans havent and arent fussy (maybe thats where all your American Exports are going :P)

Pennsylvania is very limited in what it can do, its limited by the fact its only part of a larger country and the currency and interest rates are not controlled by Pennsylvania.

The UK controls its own Interest Rates and currency (well as much as any country can control its currency).... It does not control the Currency or Interest Rates of Cyprus or Greece. How can i therefore even pretend to speak for them?

I dont know much about the Eurozone economy except that its basically controlled by Germany and France. I do know that Interest Rates there are lower than either the UK or the USA, which indicates only that they have low inflation on the mainland....and gives me a wish that I could convert my Mortgage to Euros...(but Japanese Yen would be even better ;) )


Yet again, you talk about something you know little of re: Poverty Line.

That is measured differently in the States to the UK/EU.

If your going to use the term then define it.

Quote:

---

The number of Americans living in poverty has grown significantly in in recent years, swelling to 37 million people in 2005 - nearly one out of every eight people in the United States. Poverty's rise to 12.7% of the total population represented an additional 7 million people falling into poverty since 2000.

13 million children lived in poverty in 2004. The rate of poverty among children was 17.8%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

---

Source

That quote above means nothing to me, its a different measure of Poverty than that used this side of the Pond.

As of 1999, the threshold for poverty for a family of four was an annual income of $17,029 in the USA. The poverty threshold varied by size and "number of related children" from $8,501 for one person to $34,417 for a family of 9 or more...what is it in 2006?

I can tell you what the UK/EUs definition is... 60% of median disposable income (usually summarised as 2/3 average income, which isnt strictly true)...

If this was the definition used in the USA, that $8,501 figure would rise to $24,000 (Average Income of a US Male in 1999 was $40,000)...how many extra would be caught up in that? People 3 times richer would be in "poverty".

Add to this that its "disposable income" and we live in a wellfare state unlike yourself... ie: In this country they arent free to starve or die of hypothermia as they are in your own. They get free Healthcare without jumping through hoops for weeks or going to a loan shark etc etc

As the 2 definitions of "Poverty" used are completely different, then they cant really be compared, however its pretty clear that you need to be a lot poorer in the US before your actually recognised as being in Poverty.

If your poverty talk is regarding the whole of the EU, your probably correct. The EU grew recently by bringing a lot of the poorer European Country's into the Union.. this would have greatly increased the percentage of people in the EU being "in poverty", as they werent in the EU beforehand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

You seem to have little grasp here.

The UK is part of the EU.

The UK is not in the Eurozone.

Pennsylvania isn't a sovereign nation, its part of the USA. I didnt pick one part of the UK, say England or Scotland, i used the whole UK.

I cannot say "EU" and talk about every single sovereign nation within it. The Western European countries have the capacity and capability to increase production easily and quickly, the Eastern Europeans havent and arent fussy (maybe thats where all your American Exports are going :P)

Pennsylvania is very limited in what it can do, its limited by the fact its only part of a larger country and the currency and interest rates are not controlled by Pennsylvania.

The UK controls its own Interest Rates and currency (well as much as any country can control its currency).... It does not control the Currency or Interest Rates of Cyprus or Greece. How can i therefore even pretend to speak for them?

I dont know much about the Eurozone economy except that its basically controlled by Germany and France. I do know that Interest Rates there are lower than either the UK or the USA, which indicates only that they have low inflation on the mainland....and gives me a wish that I could convert my Mortgage to Euros...(but Japanese Yen would be even better ;) )


Yet again, you talk about something you know little of re: Poverty Line.

That is measured differently in the States to the UK/EU.

If your going to use the term then define it.

Quote:

---

The number of Americans living in poverty has grown significantly in in recent years, swelling to 37 million people in 2005 - nearly one out of every eight people in the United States. Poverty's rise to 12.7% of the total population represented an additional 7 million people falling into poverty since 2000.

13 million children lived in poverty in 2004. The rate of poverty among children was 17.8%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

---

Source

That quote above means nothing to me, its a different measure of Poverty than that used this side of the Pond.

As of 1999, the threshold for poverty for a family of four was an annual income of $17,029 in the USA. The poverty threshold varied by size and "number of related children" from $8,501 for one person to $34,417 for a family of 9 or more...what is it in 2006?

I can tell you what the UK/EUs definition is... 60% of median disposable income (usually summarised as 2/3 average income, which isnt strictly true)...

If this was the definition used in the USA, that $8,501 figure would rise to $24,000 (Average Income of a US Male in 1999 was $40,000)...how many extra would be caught up in that? People 3 times richer would be in "poverty".

Add to this that its "disposable income" and we live in a wellfare state unlike yourself... ie: In this country they arent free to starve or die of hypothermia as they are in your own. They get free Healthcare without jumping through hoops for weeks or going to a loan shark etc etc

As the 2 definitions of "Poverty" used are completely different, then they cant really be compared, however its pretty clear that you need to be a lot poorer in the US before your actually recognised as being in Poverty.

If your poverty talk is regarding the whole of the EU, your probably correct. The EU grew recently by bringing a lot of the poorer European Country's into the Union.. this would have greatly increased the percentage of people in the EU being "in poverty", as they werent in the EU beforehand.

---

Maybe thats the problem here. I am talking of the EU (except for that last post which was UK specific) since it as a whole most closely matches the US. It's tough to compare a country that has a 5th of our population, is quarter of our size. The poverty level is the poverty level. You take my numbers and say there wrong and substitute your own. And I am supposed to say ooo okay yours are right.. The Poverty guidleines for a family of 4 is $20,000.

You talk of speaking about things you know nothing about. There are a multitude of programs for health and well being within this country for anyone that qualifies for them. Due to health age economic status etc etc....

IF Median in the UK is about 40k USD your poverty line is 60% after housing costs (17.5 Average of disposable income) which gets you to 33,000. 60% of that takes you to 19,800..... Assuming family of four is living of that. The US equivalant is 20,000............ They seem Very very close to me. If your substantialy less median then your poverty will be less since you make substantialy less.

No, you misunderstand..

I used US figures for 1999 here, and then converted them to what it would mean if you used the same definition of Poverty.

US median wage for a single male in 1999 was $40,000

Our definition (UK/EU) would put anyone earning less than $24,000 in the USA as below the poverty line in 1999.

The US definition put anyone earning less than $8,501 as below the poverty line in the USA in 1999. Hell, a family of four needed $17,029 before the State counted them as in "Poverty" in 1999, thats $8,000 less than we would have counted a single person.

I was trying to explain that looking at something that says "so many % in such and such a country live in Poverty" doesnt work... as the report from the country concerned (in this case the UK or indeed whatever EU country you were looking at as we all use the same formula) has a different definition for the word to that your used to.

If the same definition was used, as an example ours, then there would be a huge increase in "Poverty" in the USA.

Likewise if we used the US definition, there would be a huge drop in the UK/EU numbers.

I'm not suggesting one way of calculating is better than the other (although obviously i prefer ours, it helps in our pay negotiations ;) ) ... however it does stop us trying to make a direct comparison.

As to your Health... you said it yourself.

"For anyone that qualifies for them".

Many of the ones that really need it, havent got access for various reasons, whether it be because they have no permanent address (as they cant afford rent), or they cant wait for the (depending upon where you are) weeks of processing to try and qualify. This gives an illusion.. the ones that can just about manage (quite poor) can get stuff, but the ones that have nothing (poor), get nothing... again, this depends upon where you live.

I've said it before and i'll say it again... it's Ironic.

The US Government spends between 1.5X - 2X the GDP of any of the European Countries on Health Care. Thats GDP, not $ per head. As you said, your economy is MORE than 6x our own. In addition to this money, Americans and their employers pay $Billions in Health Insurance.

Yet it will not provide a Universal Health System "Free at the point of use"...

ie: You dont pay $100 to visit a GP or pay Hospital Fees.

The only arguments I've heard against one appear to be based on Geography.. the US population is more widely dispersed.

Yet both Canada and Australia have them, and you cant get much more "widely dispersed" than the Australian Outback I would have thought.

The only reason that i can think of; is that the Health Services, Pharmacutical Companies and Insurance Services like the billions they are conning out of the American People... and the politicians dont want to upset them.

Its pretty sad when you see small countries like Cuba can provide them though....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

No, you misunderstand..

I used US figures for 1999 here, and then converted them to what it would mean if you used the same definition of Poverty.

US median wage for a single male in 1999 was $40,000

Our definition (UK/EU) would put anyone earning less than $24,000 in the USA as below the poverty line in 1999.

The US definition put anyone earning less than $8,501 as below the poverty line in the USA in 1999. Hell, a family of four needed $17,029 before the State counted them as in "Poverty" in 1999, thats $8,000 less than we would have counted a single person.

I was trying to explain that looking at something that says "so many % in such and such a country live in Poverty" doesnt work... as the report from the country concerned (in this case the UK or indeed whatever EU country you were looking at as we all use the same formula) has a different definition for the word to that your used to.

If the same definition was used, as an example ours, then there would be a huge increase in "Poverty" in the USA.

Likewise if we used the US definition, there would be a huge drop in the UK/EU numbers.

I'm not suggesting one way of calculating is better than the other (although obviously i prefer ours, it helps in our pay negotiations ;) ) ... however it does stop us trying to make a direct comparison.

As to your Health... you said it yourself.

"For anyone that qualifies for them".

Many of the ones that really need it, havent got access for various reasons, whether it be because they have no permanent address (as they cant afford rent), or they cant wait for the (depending upon where you are) weeks of processing to try and qualify. This gives an illusion.. the ones that can just about manage (quite poor) can get stuff, but the ones that have nothing (poor), get nothing... again, this depends upon where you live.

I've said it before and i'll say it again... it's Ironic.

The US Government spends between 1.5X - 2X the GDP of any of the European Countries on Health Care. Thats GDP, not $ per head. As you said, your economy is MORE than 6x our own. In addition to this money, Americans and their employers pay $Billions in Health Insurance.

Yet it will not provide a Universal Health System "Free at the point of use"...

ie: You dont pay $100 to visit a GP or pay Hospital Fees.

The only arguments I've heard against one appear to be based on Geography.. the US population is more widely dispersed.

Yet both Canada and Australia have them, and you cant get much more "widely dispersed" than the Australian Outback I would have thought.

The only reason that i can think of; is that the Health Services, Pharmacutical Companies and Insurance Services like the billions they are conning out of the American People... and the politicians dont want to upset them.

Its pretty sad when you see small countries like Cuba can provide them though....

---

We'll drop the poverty line then ...LOL

As far as the care. There are walk in clinics were no permenant address is needed. Emergency care can be gotten at any hospital at anytime regaurdless. Regular preventitive (I stubbed my toe) care you can use medicade, medicare etc etc etc. The programs are there. They can be accessed, and they can and are utilized. People are not dying in the streets unless they want to.

UHC.... Not a fan of it tell you the truth. Canada has it and like it or not they have problems. One of the biggest is the immense wait times that can be had for an appointment. It is not uncommon for people coming to the US for care instead of waiting possibly months for an appt. They are from my understanding having a doctors shortage. This is mainly because of the pay. An auto worker with a little OT can make as much as a doctor does. Research. I think you limit Medical R&D with NHC. Why is a drug company or a research lab going to dump 500 million into the development of a new drug if they are'nt going to be able to get there money recouped.

Governments foot most R&D costs through a variety of means.

Just about all BASIC research is funded by Government for example, with companies privately funding applied research. This is because with Basic Research, you dont really know where your going, its an increase in knowledge that is not profitable.

An example of this is the Pharmacutical Companies...

In the USA in 1999, the Pharmacutical Industry "Invested $24 Billion" in research.

Is this a true figure?

It comes through their books, so legally, yes they did..

However, when you consider the lobbying that they did when Congress brought in the Rule re: All Research that was funded by Federal Grants or through other Federal Money should be covered by Freedom of Information, then you must look closer as to how much of this was their own money...

The reason they were kicking up a stink was that all the BASIC research was funded, one way or another, by the taxpayer. They received the money through Grants and then "Invested" it (They also take University Research and extend it, but University Research is generally already Public Domain).

If all this basic research (funded by the taxpayer or through charitable donations) was in the public domain, which is what Congress was demanding, then other compabies could then do applied research on it and find other drugs.. ie: They lose their monopoly.

Im not saying that they dont invest much of their own money, far from it... but it is no where near the $24Billion that the spin suggests.

Basic Research is generally more expensive than "Applied Research", because you dont start the applied research until you're already on the track of something.

To use a very bad example.....

If you're looking for a green die, then Basic Research is throwing everything into a pot to see what colour comes out. When you find "Green", then you start applied research to get just the right shade of green you want.

They dont invest their own money until this point.

All the money they spent however has gone through the books as the money paid by the taxpayer was "received" and "spent" by them... so its included in their "Investment" figures.

The Pharmacutical Industry was upset and was lobbying because Congress was saying: As the taxpayer funded the Research to find "Green", this information should be in the Public Domain. (Not the information on how to get that particular shade of green).



Universal Health: No one is saying that you cant have Private Health Care (I dont know the Canadian System, but that appears to be the case there in practice.. which would be crazy, in my opinion)

For example, both are alive and well in the UK..

If you have no money, then use the NHS... if you dont want to wait, go Private.

The knock on effect is this.... If you're private, then the Insurance Premiums are much lower in the UK than they are in the USA... because the main competition is free. This is merely the Market in practice, thought you approved of that?

John Hopkins University did some research into how well the US Health System works, the results are interesting reading:

Quote:

---

Professor Anderson compared cost versus quality of health care as well as outcomes and satisfaction provided by the health care systems in each country. Dr. Anderson found that the U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world and often lags far behind the rest of the industrialized nations.

The United States spends considerable more on health care that any other industrialized country.

The United States also spends the highest proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - on health care.

Health insurance premiums in the United States have had double-digit rate increases for four consecutive years, five times greater than both inflation and wage increases.

The U.S. ranked 37th out 191 member states in terms of “overall health system performance” in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2000 World Health Report.

The U.S. has the 7th highest infant mortality rate of the 30 most industrialized countries; only Hungary, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, and the Slovak Republic perform worse than the U.S.

Both U.S. patients and physicians have substantial levels of dissatisfaction with the quality of the health system.

---

Source


You'll find that the walk in clinics, as an example, are not placed all over so its a lottery as to whether you can get treatment or not. It depends upon where you live. I would expect, as an example, there would be no problem in New York City... but if your in the upstate area, then it would be a little harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calm2chaos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

WTF?

What you propose is to manufacture inflation, then.

Do you also intend to control prices?

We all know how well that works.

Methinks you have supped too sumptuously on Democrat bullshit (to borrow your own phrase).

Do you also propose that, beneath the "minimum" wage, we also create a "sub-minimum" wage?

Has the word "minimum" been redefined?

Perhaps you prefer a wage structure with a false-bottom?

Fact is, if I were forced to raise my bid the 25% it would require to merely accomodate a new minimum wage (never mind any amount I would like in order to hedge inflation, give normal raises, or just stick in my pocket), corporate would decide to forego the services I provide, as they are purchased on an elective basis.

My presence in their "house" is not mandated by any authority; they employ me because they perceive value in excess of the money they pay me to do what I do.

If for whatever reason they feel the cost outstrips the value, I and all my guys are UNEMPLOYED, and that is not "Republican bullshit", it is pure-D fact.

---

I don't understand this idea that people have considering minimum wage. How can raising minimum wage not effect businesses. If I have 15 employees, and I have to raise the pay a buck fifty, 2 bucks. How do you not think this is going to cause less jobs? If I am a business owner I have to either raise my cost to my customer or reduce my operating expense I.E. Layoffs. If I raise my costs I lose business and am forced to lay off anyway. Is there some special money tree small business are pick from to cover the extra costs?

See here's the thing, in ten frigging years the business has already raised the costs to the consumer. Of course the minimum wage affects business.

It should.

Secondly minimum wage jobs are not careers. They are what they are, and you shouldn't be expected to raise a family or live comfortably from it. It is a bare minimum you can't earn doing something. This is a job or payscale you should have for a minimum amount of time before you move on or move up. If your trying to maintain your family on minimum wage then your problems are not the pay, it's you

---

Aww fuck. So workers' pay at McDonald's should have stayed frozen at 20 year-ago rates?

....and Congress vote themselves yet another raise.

The fact is business are able to get their workers on the cheap and as time goes on, on the same same cheap. The same argument you raise about having to lay off workers is the same one made by Repubs irregardless to raising/cutting taxes. They tend to leave out the hoarding factor.

As cost of living rises, so should wages. No one is saying they should be in perfect step but again...at about the decade mark it should fucking change by at least a fucking quarter. :dry:

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.

---

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The very idea of a minimum wage sucks donkey balls.

Fact.

Period.

---

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

---

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

It does seem that the reality of the data doesn't back the theory.

We all have dreams
the logo of the american dream is a fine logo
whomever manages to makes their dream come true
bravo to them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

---

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

---

And yet the evidence from the UK and from the Link that vidcc supplied, appear to be at odds with your interpretation of Economic Theory.

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

Eliminating the minimum wage would make all Mexican immigrant worker's pay perfectly legal.

Many would just love that.

Also imagine the pay at Wal Mart.:lol: :lol:

The cost of doing business is the cost of doing business. I can imagine a roll back of wages for fast food chains. I can also imagine more drug dealers.:dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Yet it exists and has existed for some time.

---

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

---

Mmk. That would mean that let say uhh..$5.90 an hour is too high and some fuckschmuck businessman will have to lay off workers.

Or at least that's the excuse he'll have.:rolleyes:

[sarcasm]The rate hike will throw off the economy.[/sarcasm] Forget the fact that said fuckschmuck businessman hasn't had to deal with doling such high pay for 10 years.

If it fucks with the stock market, so be it. Worse has fucked with the stock market like the unnecessary sacrificing of American soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

As do all the ill-effects arising from that unfortunate fact.

Fact.

---

And yet the evidence from the UK and from the Link that vidcc supplied, appear to be at odds with your interpretation of Economic Theory.

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

---

Your economy and ours are different, as is your version of economic theory.

In addition to all that I've previously mentioned, there is (I stress, yet again) the inflationary aspect, which, in order to avoid, would require another government order of control.

Such controls create their own problems, compounding the complexity of the problem.

There is much too much of that already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

I "may" be a good employer?

Inversely, if I paid the minimum wage, might I still be a good employer?

Probably not, huh?

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

Let's try this, then:

I pay a few dollars more than minimum wage.

Down the street is a steam laundry where people are paid minimum wage to fold towels.

The minimum wage hike is passed, and all of my people decide that working for me is too stressful, and they decide to go down the street and fold towels for minimum wage; the operator of the laundry hires my guys, 'cuz they are better workers than those he's currently employing, so those people are out of work.

In order to attract qualified people with a good work ethic, I find I must charge more so I can pay more...my employer informs me my services are too expensive, and now I am out of work, too.

And to think-a few paragraphs ago, I may have been a "good" employer.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The American Dream still exists, although it is at risk, but not for the reasons you imagine.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

Nah.

Doesn't work that way here.

Inflation would, in turn, rise to "accomodate" the increased minimum.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

---

And that is, we find, the problem with such inanity-the "Feel Good" factor is indeed experienced, but only by those who are responsible for the implementation of such idiocy.

There is no denying the importance of maintaining the mental and emotional well-being of the do-gooding anointed. :dry:

That garbage doesn't have the slightest positive effect, those at the bottom are still at the bottom, and nothing in the world is going to make them "Feel Good" about that, Rat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

You yourself have stated that you don't pay Minimum Wage, and therefore we can make an assumption that you may be a good employer.

I "may" be a good employer?

Inversely, if I paid the minimum wage, might I still be a good employer?

Probably not, huh?

However for every good employer there are bad employers... when people need Jobs they must take what they can get. These bad employers are the ones that are making the Gap between Rich and Poor wider and pressurising the Good Employers to pay as little as possible so they can still compete.

Let's try this, then:

I pay a few dollars more than minimum wage.

Down the street is a steam laundry where people are paid minimum wage to fold towels.

The minimum wage hike is passed, and all of my people decide that working for me is too stressful, and they decide to go down the street and fold towels for minimum wage; the operator of the laundry hires my guys, 'cuz they are better workers than those he's currently employing, so those people are out of work.

In order to attract qualified people with a good work ethic, I find I must charge more so I can pay more...my employer informs me my services are too expensive, and now I am out of work, too.

And to think-a few paragraphs ago, I may have been a "good" employer.

They are therefore the ones that are slowly destroying the American Dream that you cherish.

The American Dream still exists, although it is at risk, but not for the reasons you imagine.

The way around this is to increase the minimum wage, in line with inflation. That way, the competition faces exactly the same rise in costs as yourself. More money is also being spent in the economy, instead of being hoarded by a small number of people, increasing the actual trade.

Nah.

Doesn't work that way here.

Inflation would, in turn, rise to "accomodate" the increased minimum.

People can afford small treats, such as going to a Restaurant occasionally or buying little luxuries now and again.

It increases the "Feel Good" factor, increases consumer confidence, so they are more willing to risk borrowing and splashing out.

---

And that is, we find, the problem with such inanity-the "Feel Good" factor is indeed experienced, but only by those who are responsible for the implementation of such idiocy.

There is no denying the importance of maintaining the mental and emotional well-being of the do-gooding anointed. :dry:

That garbage doesn't have the slightest positive effect, those at the bottom are still at the bottom, and nothing in the world is going to make them "Feel Good" about that, Rat.

---

Uh yeah. I remember when gas was $1.75 a gallon.

Feel me?

Bottom wages should not stay at the same bottom forever.

I get where you are coming from even though you haven't said it. "Let the market decide what wages are to be paid."

It doesn't work due to the hoarding factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Uh yeah. I remember when gas was $1.75 a gallon.

So do I.

Your point would be?

Feel me?

No, thanks.

Feel yourself.

Bottom wages should not stay at the same bottom forever.

An inane statement which serves the debatable purpose of crystalizing the inanity of the entire argument.

I thank you for making it, nonetheless.

I get where you are coming from even though you haven't said it. "Let the market decide what wages are to be paid."

Exactly and precisely correct.

If that were allowed, you will see an expansion of the economy (especially at it's lower-end, which seems to be the current topic here) the effect of which would also aid in addressing our immigration problems.

It doesn't work due to the hoarding factor.

---

The "hoarding factor" is largely a fiction, and mainly a rhetorical device designed by liberals for the expression of liberal...hmmmm...I hesitate to call them "thoughts" or "ideas"...how about, "schemes"?

Logic would dictate that there should be maximum pay then if inflation is such a concern. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Uh yeah. I remember when gas was $1.75 a gallon.

So do I.

Your point would be?

Feel me?

No, thanks.

Feel yourself.

Bottom wages should not stay at the same bottom forever.

An inane statement which serves the debatable purpose of crystalizing the inanity of the entire argument.

I thank you for making it, nonetheless.

I get where you are coming from even though you haven't said it. "Let the market decide what wages are to be paid."

Exactly and precisely correct.

If that were allowed, you will see an expansion of the economy (especially at it's lower-end, which seems to be the current topic here) the effect of which would also aid in addressing our immigration problems.

It doesn't work due to the hoarding factor.

---

The "hoarding factor" is largely a fiction, and mainly a rhetorical device designed by liberals for the expression of liberal...hmmmm...I hesitate to call them "thoughts" or "ideas"...how about, "schemes"?

---

Hmmm, I never heard that from liberals. I don't read emails and propaganda from some "group" like you do. The hoarding factor is something I thought as common sense.

The hoarding factor is easy is to assume. You have this silly idea that all people with a bit of money wanna do is create jobs...that as soon as their is a tax cut or a slash in wages that BOOM 500 more jobs.

You are quite silly.

Oh and also without getting my thoughts from some "group", I figured this would factor into immigration. Again, it would make it nice and legal to pay whateverthefuck for services to them.

[sarcasm]This would help the whole economy out.[/sarcasm]
:stars:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Logic would dictate that there should be maximum pay then if inflation is such a concern. :rolleyes:

---

:lol: :lol:

Eggzacklee.

If wages are currently like this (just a scale)

bottom 20 l-------------------l 5500 top

j2 wants it like this

bottom 1 l-----------------------------------------------------------l 7000

Yet cost of goods and services has risen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Logic would dictate that there should be maximum pay then if inflation is such a concern. :rolleyes:

---

:lol: :lol:

Eggzacklee.

If wages are currently like this (just a scale)

bottom 20 l-------------------l 5500 top

j2 wants it like this

bottom 1 l-----------------------------------------------------------l 7000

Yet cost of goods and services has risen

---

In the example you've illustrated so well, what have your numbers "20" and "1" got in common?

They are both situated in direct and correct proximity to the word "bottom".

Case closed.

Vid-

In Busyman's post he typed the phrase, "You are quite silly"-I think he was speaking to you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

In the example you've illustrated so well, what have your numbers "20" and "1" got in common?

They are both situated in direct and correct proximity to the word "bottom".

Case closed.

---

So your argument is that paying a living wage is silly as they will still be payed less than those at the top :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Vid-

In Busyman's post he typed the phrase, "You are quite silly"-I think he was speaking to you. ;)

---

Explain how having a maximum wage would not have an effect on inflation. Yes it is silly, but given the context of your argument against paying a living wage, justify one against the other.