Posted on 12/31/2003 9:03:26 AM PST by xsysmgr
Early in our marriage, 40-some years ago, Mrs. Williams would return from shopping complaining about the unreasonable prices. Having aired her complaints, she'd then ask me to unload her car laden with purchases. After the unloading, I'd ask her: "I thought you said the prices were unreasonable. Why did you buy them? Are you unreasonable? Only an unreasonable person would pay unreasonable prices." The discussion always headed downhill after such an observation. But let's look at prices.I don't know about you, but I always try to get the lowest prices for what I buy and the highest prices for what I sell, and that includes my labor services. Is such a practice immoral? Nobody is forced to sell me anything at my preferred price, nor are they forced to buy from me at my preferred price. If we indeed transact, the only thing a third party could conclude is that we both saw ourselves as being better off than our next best alternative, or why would we have voluntarily transacted?
You say: "OK, Williams, you're right. But where are you going? How many times have we heard the accusation that a corporation moved overseas to take advantage of lower-priced labor or hired cheaper-priced Indians with HB-1 visas to replace higher-priced American high-tech workers? You'd think that a desire for lower prices is somehow immoral. Why should a preference for low prices be OK for you and me, and not so for CEOs?
Another thing I wonder about are those life insurance company advertisements where they offer reduced rates for nonsmokers. Here are the facts. According to an article in Social Science & Medicine in 1991 titled, "Life expectancies of cigarette smokers and non-smokers in the United States," the life expectancy difference between never-smokers and current smokers is about seven years at ages 25-29, and three years at age 75 and older. Thus, it makes actuarial sense for life insurance companies to charge smokers higher premiums.
According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals.
Here's my question: How come life insurance companies don't advertise lower life insurance premiums for heterosexuals? After all, life insurance companies do ask applicants about other forms of behavior that have an impact on life expectancy, such as: Are you a pilot? Do you abuse alcohol and drugs? And do you have DUI arrests? Why not also: Are you a homosexual? I think I know the answer. Life insurance companies would be charged with lifestyle discrimination. But isn't it also lifestyle discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically acceptable, while others aren't.
I also wonder about judges. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. Winnebago changed its manuals. I wonder why. Anyone so stupid as to leave the driver's seat is probably also too stupid to read a manual.
...tort reform
I used to think my job wasn't that bad-I did closings, wills, legitimate P.I work etc...Helping people in other words. The deeper I went down the rabbit hole the more disgusted I got. Sleazy divorce lawyers who act in tandem to drain a divorcing couples few remaining assets away when they are most vulnerable, bogus P.I lawyers, criminal defense lawyers and overworked and underpaid D.As striking deals to let vermin walk the street, etc...Then one day it hit me-insurance defense. I hold the line on B.S law suits. If I even smell fraud on the plaintiffs behalf I notify the bar and the insurance commission. Don't get me wrong, sometimes people are really injured and should be compensated. On the other hand, I take great joy in kicking the crud out of dime store plaintiff's lawyers.
If the newly installed entire window fell out, that's different. A screen? Their attorney should have advised againt the suit, but saw an opportunity to play "legal lotto". I doubt the attorney cost them that much -- he was probably working on a contingency.
Let me say this. I have two children of my own. When they were young and stood by a closed window looking out, I held them around the waist. I was afraid they might break the glass.
A screen? Two stories up? My stomach sinks just thinking about it.
Because they are displacing American workers by doing so. That is immoral and it is illegal. That's the diff...Walt.
Simple answer:
America First!
Any questions?
Williams is all wet on this one. If companies insist on outsourcing high-paying and education-intensive jobs, who will be able to afford to buy their products?
Not true. But it is kinda hard paying your bills when your job's been shipped to Bombay.
It's in the company's self-interest not to outsource. But that would require a longer term vision than the next quarter's profits.
We have two problems here. First, we have fewer and fewer graduates capable of doing the education-intensive jobs. I was just crabbing to my home-schooled son that, by the time he goes to college, the only courses he'll be able to take are Womyn's Studies and History of Sex.
Second, there's the problem of higher taxes paid by American companies. If they manufacture a product in America and sell it overseas, they're taxed by the foreign government AND the American government. If they make the product overseas and sell it overseas, they're only taxed by the foreign government.
If you leave your money in the foreign country, you're taxed by the foreign country. If you bring it home ("repatriation" of capital), you're taxed by both the foreign government AND the American government.
In many cases, it makes no sense for a company to bring the money, or the jobs, home.
When I was going to grad school, there were an awful lot of foreign-born engineering students.
They lived in (generally) worse conditions than most folks did, they didn't complain about spending 20 hour days in the lab, and they tended to be very cliquish.
Very smart people. The courses were also there to teach them.
MY point is that American companies are selling out by taking the short term profit taking of shipping highly technical jobs overseas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.