>From: "Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com>
>>"You claim tire installers are making 50K? how about some proof,
>>and by the way if it wasn't worth it the company wouldn't pay
>>it...."
>They dont, instead they close up shop and move south, where the
>same job can be performed just as well in a cheaper environment.
>Then, of course, everyone complains that these greedy corporations
>are stealing jobs from the US and giving them to mexico, of course
>these same people turn around and buy cheap imported clothed,
>electronics goods, and cars. Very few of them are willing to pay
>the extra money for a product required to pay the average american
>worker.
"Well, there are still some cars made here.
I still make a very concentrated effort to buy American simply
because It's important to me that my fellow citizens are gainfully
employed. "
I am just curious as to why you would prefer american citizens have jobs
more then mexican citizens, or chinese citizens. They are all people, and
they all have children and loved ones to support. Why do Americans deserve
this more then foriegners? Is it also important to you that we perpetuate
the economic imbalance between post industrialized nations and 3rd world
nations? (keep us rich and them poor) because that is what you are
essentially encouraging.
>>Lets try a modern day example. Suppose Microsoft was the only
>>software company in the world. Do you think anyone would be getting
>>stock options and bonuses or relocation allowances, or would
>>programmers be working for minimum wage."
>Do you think those people would continue working for microsoft?
>Or would they quit and start thier own software company? Do you
>think that other companies wouldnt then decide to enter the
>software market given the potential profit margins?
"For the point of discussion I was asking for the assumption that
there was only one company. My points are valid within that
assumption. I know this isn't a real world scenario, it was a
simplification."
>Pointing out why free markets wont work by imagining a world where
>only one producer is allowed isnt valid, as no such world would
>exist.
"I wasn't attempting any such thing, I was demonstrating the control
possible under a monopoly."
Under a impossible theorhetical monopoly. What difference does it really
make how a company that has a perfect monopoly would treat its employees
when in the real world no such thing can exist? Maybe I am just missing the
point you were trying to make. It seemed you were pointing out the if
Microsoft were the only company that made software that they wouldnt pay
thier programmaers squat or give them much for benefits, therefore
monopolies are bad for employees. Yet, such a situation can not possible
exist, and even if it did, employees in sufficiently bad working conditions
would probably learn another vocation where there is not an absolute
monopoly on the labor.
Michael D
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:22 MDT