(08-08-2011 07:27 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:23 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what's getting ready to happen is what I originally expected in mid-2010. I'll explain the timing difference by saying that I expected cap-and-trade and card-check to pass in 2009. Without that, it has taken a bit longer to get here.
Two questions:
1. Assume I'm looking to spend $100 million to build a plant that will employ 10,000 workers to make a product for sale worldwide. Why should I put that plant in the US?
2. If you can't build a convincing case in response to number one, how do we get our economy going again?
Feel free to assume any additional facts you want or need. The product must be for sale worldwide. I can see why you'd build here if you were selling exclusively to the US market.

It is easy to get the economy going. I thought you were an econ professor? All you do is eliminate the minimum wage, lower corp tax rates to 0%, eliminate regulations, eliminate unions and eliminate child labor laws. THe Republican platform.

Thanks for playing. Sorry, from now on, serious replies only.

WTF? It was a serious reply. It would get the economy going again.

Btw, did you know there are at leat 2 LCD tv brands that are actually made in the US? It sounds weird but it is true. Not big names by any stretch of the imagination but hey, you have to start somewhere I guess.

Well...When you make it damn near impossible to make a profit due to government regulation and red tape...you go where you can make a profit.

Really? It is "damn near impossible to make a profit due to government regulation"? Thats why there are few businesses out there right now. huh?

Btw, it sure the hell sounds like you are endorsing the idea of eliminating child labor laws so corps can make a bigger profit. You are one sick bastard.

(08-08-2011 09:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 06:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:45 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  THere are a number of Republicans out there puhing for eliminating the child labor laws.

Name one.

Maine GOP Legislators Looking To Loosen Child Labor Laws
Amanda Terkel

aterkel@huffingtonpost.com


WASHINGTON -- Far from places like Ohio and Wisconsin, Maine has become a new battleground in the labor fight. Gov. Paul LePage ® recently sparked the anger of the union community by ordering a mural depicting workers throughout the state's history removed from the Department of Labor. Now, Republican members of the state legislature are attempting to loosen child labor laws that the community fought hard to put into place.

The minimum wage in Maine is $7.50 an hour, and there is no training or subminimum wage for students. But under a new piece of legislation introduced in the state's House of Representatives, employers would be able to pay anyone under the age of 20 as little as $5.25 an hour for their first 180 days on the job.

How about another one?

That's one hell of an intuitive leap from the coal mines.

Look up that Cunningham ***** from Missouri. Thank god the rational people in Missouri said "hell no" so the bill she was trying to pass failed. Like with most labor laws, there is/has been a gradual weakening. Companies don't even have to give breaks anymore by law(except under certain and limited cercumstances). Republicans aare also going after overtime rules and other labor laws. THis is just the start. If we get a Tea Bagger for President, ths country's labor laws will be shredded.

In NC...all you have to do is allow someone to go to the bathroom and 1 meal break per 8 hours. There has never been a "break time". That is only for workers under age 15. Most companies give breaks..but..it is not required by law.

(08-08-2011 09:20 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think it's so much an **** you to S&P as it is that this was already anticipated and factored in last week. Old news doesn't move markets.

Bond rates lowered drastically last week too. The ratings agencies are for people who dont know anything about the entity that they are investing in. People who trade in bonds know what the USA is and what they can pay. The rating factors about as much as their magic 8 ball factors into their decisions.

Not at all. I agree with Owl's statement, because we have seen time and time again that markets price in economic changes practically real time. Economists, big time investors and financiers can read the economic indicators and react while the rest of the country doesn't realize exactly when we hit a boom or recession in our economy until 6 months to a year after the fact.

Regarding why U.S. debt still looks attractive...that's easy. Because relative to other government debt, the U.S. still looks very attractive. It's not that the U.S. is risk free, it's that we are the best game in town when compared to others. To put it into simpler terms consider this example: You were kidnapped and dropped off at a place called Uglyville. You have no way to get home, and all the girls are butt ugly. However, you spied a few 5's and 6's (on a 10 pt scale) and became enamored with them. In a better place, you wouldn't give them a second look. However, in Uglyville, they are knockouts...

(08-08-2011 07:29 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 10:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:45 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  THere are a number of Republicans out there puhing for eliminating the child labor laws.

Name one.

Maine GOP Legislators Looking To Loosen Child Labor Laws
Amanda Terkel

aterkel@huffingtonpost.com


WASHINGTON -- Far from places like Ohio and Wisconsin, Maine has become a new battleground in the labor fight. Gov. Paul LePage ® recently sparked the anger of the union community by ordering a mural depicting workers throughout the state's history removed from the Department of Labor. Now, Republican members of the state legislature are attempting to loosen child labor laws that the community fought hard to put into place.

The minimum wage in Maine is $7.50 an hour, and there is no training or subminimum wage for students. But under a new piece of legislation introduced in the state's House of Representatives, employers would be able to pay anyone under the age of 20 as little as $5.25 an hour for their first 180 days on the job.

How about another one?

It is really sad that guys like Paul stick their heads in the sand and don't see what the Republican party is really all about. It is about cheap labor for corps. Why hire illegals when you can hire 14 year olds legally for the same or lower cost.

Idiot...No body is going to put 14 year old's into the workplace. Stop being silly.

Just keep sticking your head in the sand there 'Fo. It happens all around the world. It happens when the family needs extra income. You independently wealthy guys probably won't have to but people with low income's most likely would.

(08-08-2011 07:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 10:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  THere are a number of Republicans out there puhing for eliminating the child labor laws.

Name one.

Jane Cunningham a state senator from Missouri. Mike Lee of Utah(kind of-he is more of a "let the states decide if they want children working"). State Rep. Robin Vos, R- Rochester, and Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills of Wisconsin. Gov. Paul LePage of Maine.

This isn't a coincidence.

Define "children" first. Just what age are we talking about?

Well, depends on which person you are talikg about. Jane Cunningham was approving of 14 y/o's working as many hours as they wanted. I am going to guess you don't think a 14 y/o is a child based on your idiotic thought processes.

(08-08-2011 09:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:20 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think it's so much an **** you to S&P as it is that this was already anticipated and factored in last week. Old news doesn't move markets.

Bond rates lowered drastically last week too. The ratings agencies are for people who dont know anything about the entity that they are investing in. People who trade in bonds know what the USA is and what they can pay. The rating factors about as much as their magic 8 ball factors into their decisions.

Not at all. I agree with Owl's statement, because we have seen time and time again that markets price in economic changes practically real time. Economists, big time investors and financiers can read the economic indicators and react while the rest of the country doesn't realize exactly when we hit a boom or recession in our economy until 6 months to a year after the fact.

Regarding why U.S. debt still looks attractive...that's easy. Because relative to other government debt, the U.S. still looks very attractive. It's not that the U.S. is risk free, it's that we are the best game in town when compared to others. To put it into simpler terms consider this example: You were kidnapped and dropped off at a place called Uglyville. You have no way to get home, and all the girls are butt ugly. However, you spied a few 5's and 6's (on a 10 pt scale) and became enamored with them. In a better place, you wouldn't give them a second look. However, in Uglyville, they are knockouts...

But I was disputing his contention that the ratings downgrade was factored in last week trading which is just wrong. It had no effect on US bonds. None. Even the stock market was barely affected by the pending downgrade. The market moved on Eurozone issues and on energy prices exponentially more than any impending ratings downgrade.

To the extent you are talking about sophisticated investors, they do their own due diligence and rely on their analysis of the fundamentals, not S&P's. And in that market you have a lot of sophisticated institutional investors. We're borrowing from China and Japan, and I believe that even after the downgrade we're rated higher than they are.

(08-08-2011 09:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 06:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:45 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Name one.

Maine GOP Legislators Looking To Loosen Child Labor Laws
Amanda Terkel

aterkel@huffingtonpost.com


WASHINGTON -- Far from places like Ohio and Wisconsin, Maine has become a new battleground in the labor fight. Gov. Paul LePage ® recently sparked the anger of the union community by ordering a mural depicting workers throughout the state's history removed from the Department of Labor. Now, Republican members of the state legislature are attempting to loosen child labor laws that the community fought hard to put into place.

The minimum wage in Maine is $7.50 an hour, and there is no training or subminimum wage for students. But under a new piece of legislation introduced in the state's House of Representatives, employers would be able to pay anyone under the age of 20 as little as $5.25 an hour for their first 180 days on the job.

How about another one?

That's one hell of an intuitive leap from the coal mines.

Look up that Cunningham ***** from Missouri. Thank god the rational people in Missouri said "hell no" so the bill she was trying to pass failed. Like with most labor laws, there is/has been a gradual weakening. Companies don't even have to give breaks anymore by law(except under certain and limited cercumstances). Republicans aare also going after overtime rules and other labor laws. THis is just the start. If we get a Tea Bagger for President, ths country's labor laws will be shredded.

In NC...all you have to do is allow someone to go to the bathroom and 1 meal break per 8 hours. There has never been a "break time". That is only for workers under age 15. Most companies give breaks..but..it is not required by law.

I believe it used to be. That was the point.

(08-08-2011 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To the extent you are talking about sophisticated investors, they do their own due diligence and rely on their analysis of the fundamentals, not S&P's. And in that market you have a lot of sophisticated institutional investors. We're borrowing from China and Japan, and I believe that even after the downgrade we're rated higher than they are.

Yup. You don't tend to get a bunch of Joe Schmos on eTrade trading the bond market.

I think the fear, unfounded obviously, was that money would run towards those still at AAA with a positive or neutral outlook, however, that just hasnt happened to any significant extent.

(08-08-2011 09:40 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 07:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 10:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  THere are a number of Republicans out there puhing for eliminating the child labor laws.

Name one.

Jane Cunningham a state senator from Missouri. Mike Lee of Utah(kind of-he is more of a "let the states decide if they want children working"). State Rep. Robin Vos, R- Rochester, and Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills of Wisconsin. Gov. Paul LePage of Maine.

This isn't a coincidence.

Define "children" first. Just what age are we talking about?

Well, depends on which person you are talikg about. Jane Cunningham was approving of 14 y/o's working as many hours as they wanted. I am going to guess you don't think a 14 y/o is a child based on your idiotic thought processes.

And why should a 14 yo kid be able to work 24-30 hours during the summer... Little b@stards might learn to appreciate what their parents do year round *and* save for college at the same time.

Screw that, lets push adolescence even further into the 20's.

I got my first job, off the books, when I was 11. I worked 18 to 30 hours a week and made commission. Some weeks were great 500$+ and some weeks were awful (100$). On balance I was likely making about 10$ an hour by walking in 90 degree heat selling items at events.

When I got my first regular job I was working with people who complained about a 5 hour day in an air conditioned place.

(08-08-2011 09:59 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:40 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 07:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 10:26 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 09:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Name one.

Jane Cunningham a state senator from Missouri. Mike Lee of Utah(kind of-he is more of a "let the states decide if they want children working"). State Rep. Robin Vos, R- Rochester, and Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills of Wisconsin. Gov. Paul LePage of Maine.

This isn't a coincidence.

Define "children" first. Just what age are we talking about?

Well, depends on which person you are talikg about. Jane Cunningham was approving of 14 y/o's working as many hours as they wanted. I am going to guess you don't think a 14 y/o is a child based on your idiotic thought processes.

And why should a 14 yo kid be able to work 24-30 hours during the summer... Little b@stards might learn to appreciate what their parents do year round *and* save for college at the same time.

Screw that, lets push adolescence even further into the 20's.

I got my first job, off the books, when I was 11. I worked 18 to 30 hours a week and made commission. Some weeks were great 500$+ and some weeks were awful (100$). On balance I was likely making about 10$ an hour by walking in 90 degree heat selling items at events.

When I got my first regular job I was working with people who complained about a 5 hour day in an air conditioned place.

I can't believe your church would have you going around selling Bibles door to door.

(08-08-2011 10:04 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:59 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  And why should a 14 yo kid be able to work 24-30 hours during the summer... Little b@stards might learn to appreciate what their parents do year round *and* save for college at the same time.

Screw that, lets push adolescence even further into the 20's.

I got my first job, off the books, when I was 11. I worked 18 to 30 hours a week and made commission. Some weeks were great 500$+ and some weeks were awful (100$). On balance I was likely making about 10$ an hour by walking in 90 degree heat selling items at events.

When I got my first regular job I was working with people who complained about a 5 hour day in an air conditioned place.

I can't believe your church would have you going around selling Bibles door to door.

And Tweetle dumb strike again. I've never worked for a Church and I would never be a part of one that 'sold bibles' to non members as a revenue source.

Thanks for playing "How Much can RN ignore a post" where the only thing you do is insult someone.

(08-08-2011 09:22 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Look up that Cunningham ***** from Missouri.

So, you're a mysogynist as well as a racist.

Interesting.

(08-07-2011 08:52 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 08:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Enough with the child labor BS Robert. Nobody wants to hire children, no one would, no parent would let them, enough.

I am not going to stop it. THere are a number of Republicans out there puhing for eliminating the child labor laws. If you don't think parents would have their children go work, you are sorely mistaken. Once the min wage is eliminated and jobs pay you $4/hour you are not going to afford a place to live or put food on the table. These people would have their kids going to work. It happens all over the world and would happen here too. But keep living in that alternate universe, one day you may come face to face with reality.

Idiocy on stilts is Robert's view. As usual, he distort's the opposition's position. Not sure if it is his stupidity or just that he really doesn't understand rational thinking. It is HIS side that wants to continually RAISE the minimum wage in typical liberal unicorns and fairytale fashion, thinking it will have no effect on business. I have not heard of one from the right side of the aisle that calls for eliminating the minimum wage. They are just against raising it again, over and over.

In Rob's mind, not agreeing to raise the minimum wage = eliminate it. Rob believes that since he inhabits an alerternate universe (Bizarro world), that we must all go and join him. No thanks. I'd rather live in the world as it exists, not some fantasy world.

(08-08-2011 09:58 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To the extent you are talking about sophisticated investors, they do their own due diligence and rely on their analysis of the fundamentals, not S&P's. And in that market you have a lot of sophisticated institutional investors. We're borrowing from China and Japan, and I believe that even after the downgrade we're rated higher than they are.

Yup. You don't tend to get a bunch of Joe Schmos on eTrade trading the bond market.
I think the fear, unfounded obviously, was that money would run towards those still at AAA with a positive or neutral outlook, however, that just hasnt happened to any significant extent.

One factor might be that if the amount invested in US bonds is X, and the amount of bonds still at AAA is Y, then I believe X >>>>> Y.

(08-08-2011 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:58 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To the extent you are talking about sophisticated investors, they do their own due diligence and rely on their analysis of the fundamentals, not S&P's. And in that market you have a lot of sophisticated institutional investors. We're borrowing from China and Japan, and I believe that even after the downgrade we're rated higher than they are.

Yup. You don't tend to get a bunch of Joe Schmos on eTrade trading the bond market.
I think the fear, unfounded obviously, was that money would run towards those still at AAA with a positive or neutral outlook, however, that just hasnt happened to any significant extent.

One factor might be that if the amount invested in US bonds is X, and the amount of bonds still at AAA is Y, then I believe X >>>>> Y.

true, but my point is that while US T-bonds are having a good day as people run to safety the same isnt happening to, for example, Australian or Canadian debt and is actively leaving corporate bonds on average.