No, it is more a matter of what you are saying as being true. Not only have you blurred the lines on whether the guys your company hired were legal ("fresh off the boat"!!) or the fact that you were not providing any benefits or revealing that you were operating in one of the highest costs of living areas, but that you started from the premise that you could not attract US workers at a time of high demand/higher wages and so deemed them "lazy".
Meh...a weak mea culpa coming on the heels of lots of rhetoric. It wasn't a matter of offending, it was more a matter of integrity.
Of course it isn't. And yes the left has made poverty very comfortable. The poor have taxpayer-paid-for cell phones, air conditioning, color televisions, free health care, essentially free rent, food assistance...
In my opinion they are.
So you were discriminating based on their country of origin? All of them were as you described? Again....the integrity issue is in play.
I'm not going to eliminate that from the value and say it represents the market.
Hey, if that is the argument that you want to play now, fine....you DID NOT WANT TO ATTRACT US EMPLOYEES. Cool.
Dude, the only claim I made was that in the market where I live, there are lots of out of work carpenters willing to take the wage you were talking about. After that, it has been about getting you to reveal all of the facts surrounding your specious claim about "lazy US carpenters".
Do you find it difficult to address what I wrote? Is that the reason why you falsely quoted me? This is shameful on your part.
I went there. It is as I stated. the author has no clue about liberty and its relationship to private property. Nor do you. It was a waste of my time as it contained all the usual left-socialist arguments. No thanks.
Where do I begin? Are you one of those who believe that the wealth of this nation is based on what government provides? Are you so enamored of European socialism that you wish it upon us?
Nobody said you were apologizing for the "price (sic) themselves out". Again, they did not do that. You still can't come to terms with the concept of markets and wages.
Sigh, I didn't have to defend anything, all I did was to show you prevailing wages.
[B said:
Wow, talk about clueless OR you didn't really bother to read it. Tyler Cowen writes "We need to accept the principle that sometimes poor people will die just because they are poor. " and you think that is what American progressives believe. "Let them die" is what we hear on a daily basis from multiple righties, always with the excuse, "If you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it.
The wealth of the nation is based partially upon what the government provides, partially upon the free market and capitalism, partially upon the labour of millions and partially upon the natural resources that allowed this nation to grow and prosper thru the 19th C when the Europeans were stealing resources from their various colonies.
Obviously your education in political science is a bit lacking. Democratic socialism is working quite well in much of the industrialised world with democratic/republican type governance and in some cases more personal freedom than Americans have - most it is about the same. The "evil" you wish to "eradicate" exists only in your mind and in those of your ilk. An all powerful state can be and often is just as evil as a nation run on pure free-market capitalism. Communists are collectivists, not socialists. Those on the left, I would say, care far more about "the individual" than most of those professing modern American 'conservative' views.
Yeah right - "the government has had a monopoly on education" and that must be the reason why those states which have fought the hardest for local control of education, down to even refusing to listen to their own state governments, are the ones doing so well - :roll:
Once again, the integrity issue shows itself, this time in the form of an inconsistent argument. A skilled journeyman carpenter working in the US will know code, will know best practices, will be a qualified employee. You are not going to get that with someone who is "fresh off the boat" or is "working their way up". They are someone established, they have a work history in the US...in short an employee with references and integrity. You are not going to get that during a boom time through cut-rate means. You see, I have worked and managed and owned an auto repair business. You are only as good as your last repair, so you can't afford to have average employees, you need the best if you want to maintain a reputation. If you don't, the work comes back as warranty...or worse. You can take the chance on guys "fresh off the boat", but that is short sighted and doesn't allow your business or reputation to last. I suppose one can get away with cruddy work once the drywall is up and hope that nothing shifts since in most cases it isn't a life threatening situation, I guess I just have higher standards for myself and my customers.
Then you should not have used quote marks. You are dishonest. I reject your poor explanation. Moving on...
When you accept that this leftist speaks for conservatives this is the muddled outcome you get. That is what I expected and that is the reality. He is dishonest. Are you as well?
Governments do not create wealth. They consume it. As long as this concept is foreign to you you will consistently get the wrong answer. Socialists are particularly dangerous as they (you) actually believe this nonsense.
Really? Such as in France, Spain, Portugal, Greece? Great Britain? Is that your argument? Socialism works until you run out of everybody else's money?
I suppose if you like plunder, if stealing from your neighbors is an acceptable practice then it is quite simple to redefine freedom until it loses its meaning. Once you believe, as I believe you do, that all property belongs to the state to be disbursed by politicians, then freedom is gone.
Marxist, socialists, communists, statists. You are all collectivists. You may lie to yourself if you wish.
Are you foolishly disagreeing that the government has had a nearly complete monopoly over education in this nation for at least 60 years and a substantial role for even longer? Really? Is that your argument? Do you believe that centralizing control over the schools at higher and higher levels has been a positive thing? If so why? If it is all "peachy" then why would you raise the "Exxon" statement?
Do you know what ignorance is? Have you ever purchased anything from a for profit business? How did that work out? Did you get what you wanted at a price you were willing to pay? Why do you believe it would be any different for education? Why shouldn't there be a free market for education with people spending what they want on education tailored specifically to their wants, needs, and desires? Is it because the consumer would have far greater control than leftist union bosses?
I cannot speak to these two examples. Charter schools are government run public schools in many places. I am talking about a real shift away from government run schools, not a mere repackaging of government run schools.
I cannot help that you are so disinterested, or perhaps his tyrannical actions suit you. Do you believe the dictator should be able to grant amnesty without legislative action? I do not. And yet the tyrant did it.
