LET'S TALK ABOUT "YOUR" JOBS

Nealz Nuze ^ | Wednesday, February 18, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[beaureguard]

Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.

First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, of if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for you. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.

Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?

Ditto for manufacturing. I've already told you the story about the California company that makes computer mouses. (computer mice?) This company ships the components to China. The mouse is assembled in China and shipped back, then sold for around $40. Why? Because the assembly is cheaper in China than it would be in the US. So, you say you want the president to force this company to have that mouse assembled in the US? Fine .. then the price for the mouse goes up to about $70 a pop and sales drop. As the sales drop the jobs of the people in this country who manufacture the components for that mouse go away. Then the 100 marketing jobs this company supports in California also go away. You see, perhaps you can succeed in forcing this company to assemble these mouses in the US, but there just isn't any way you can force the American consumer to pay 80% more for the "made in America" version.

As Bruce Bartlett says in an article listed in my reading assignments, "No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad."

What we are seeing here is a demonstration of the "government owes me" mentality of far too many Americans. Every time you arrive at a speed bump in your life's journey you start screaming to the government for help. Sure, the speed bump is going to slow you down a bit ... but just keep moving forward and things inevitably pick up speed again. Americans are becoming helpless whiners. The more helpless you are, and the more you whine, the more likely it is you're going to vote for a Democrat. Democrats specialize in stroking the malcontent.

Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America if fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a freaking law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.

[beaureguard]

Boortz hits a homer again!

[TheGeezer]

Amen.

[Republican Red]

I agree with this article but Boortz makes it well known that he is a libertarian and will vote for the libertarian candidate.

[MEG33]

FYI

[smith288]

The jobs belong to the employers .. not the voters!

[beaureguard]

Not this year - he is supporting and voting for President Bush.

[FITZ]

You think this article is helpful? You think someone who is unemployed and about to lose his home to foreclosure will become convinced by something like this to vote Republican?

[StatesEnemy]

The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you!

And the COUNTRY belongs to US, not the Hyper-Capitalists.

[FITZ]

Most of these big corporations are made up of all employees --- the CEO is an employee --- not the owner. If an employee has any stock in a company then he is part owner.

[FITZ]

It's no longer "government by the people or for the people", it's become "government by the corporations and for the corporations". There is also something in the Constitution about the government promoting the general welfare --- but that doesn't mean putting Americans on welfare, it's supposed to promote our well-being.

[gonewt]

Fair enough.

But that also doesn't stop people like me from refusing to do business with companies (like Bank of America) who ruthlessly fire American workers and replace them with overseas, third-world people, claiming the need to "cut costs" while still paying upper-level folks obscene, multi-million dollar compensation.

I am not for government action. I *am* for people staying informed and, where appropriate, boycotting companies that operate unethically.

[Agnes Heep]

I've been saying this for a long, long time, and I like the way Rush Limbaugh stated it some time back: A job is created when someone has some work they need to have done and offers someone else money to do it. The job belongs to the employer, not the employee, and that idea springs from our notion of personal freedom. The socialist believes, on the other hand, that once a person takes a job he becomes a ward of the employer in perpetuity, with rights and demands on the employer far in excess of the actual worth of his labor.

[cripplecreek]

It didn't take me long to figure out that a disabled person has two choices. I could accept the crumbs govt. was willing to toss my way or i could find another way to earn my own living.

I ended up starting my own business from my garage. I learned small engine repair and took up cabinet making and began building wooden lawn furniture. I work out of my garage, I make my own hours.

Over the last two or three years I've even started hiring local teenagers to help me out after school. I can't pay them a great deal of money, but they get hands on experience to go with their career center training.

My wife and i will be just fine without govt. help.

[BillM]

If the US is a becoming a nation of whining losers, it deserves what it gets. At some point, it will partition into people who want to learn and work and those who don't. It will probably be Civil War 2.

[2banana]

People want employers to pay for health care, care for the environment, overtime, family leave, diversity, etc. but these same people will not buy a more expensive product which pays for these demands on employers

[Merdoug]

YEAH! That's right! To h*ll with America! Rack in those profits!
(sarcasm)

[smith288]

Most of these big corporations are made up of all employees --- the CEO is an employee --- not the owner. If an employee has any stock in a company then he is part owner.

How does a company expect to make any money if their main purpose seems to be give jobs according to voters?

[Taliesan]

Democrats hate the laws of economics. They are so unlike the womb.

[LowCountryJoe]

You think this article is helpful? You think someone who is unemployed and about to lose his home to foreclosure will become convinced by something like this to vote Republican?

Probably not to the person that you've described. But, to a protectionist-conservative who posts in the FR, that has yet to see the consequences of his/her backwardness thinking - I hope so!