Apologies are not necessary.  I have bantered back and forth enough times to
have realize a long time ago that you are often easily confused, when you
choose to comment on some subjects  ;)

.

Of course I don't believe I read on the web. For example, I believe very
little of your posts. ;-)

I use other sources besides the web, like books and Science magazine.
And I take media like the NY Times, NPR and Fox news with a grain of
salt. They all have their own agendas.

As far as Ford's paying workers a relatively high wage, I didn't mean to
imply that this was the only reason why his company was more profitable
by any means. Only that by increasing his employees wages, the employees
were more productive, because turnover went way down. perhaps, I should
have said increase productivity instead increase profitability. Sorry if
I was confusing.

Jeff

We know you like to pick a part of every post with which you can argue but
do you actually believe everything you read on the web?  Are you really that
slow?

The profits increased because that giant Ford, totally integrated plant
that made the steel, glass and all of the parts as well as the cars, is what
made it possible for Ford to meet the ever growing demand for the cars he
was beginning to sell at ever declining retail prices... You might want to
check the selling price of the model "T" over the years

By the way employing the best of the best tech from all around the area, at
higher wages than anybody else, was how I went for from two Fleet Service
shops, when I started the business, to twenty six in six eastern states when
sold it twelve years later.

That's why I like good unions.  They set work standards that provided me
with the best most productive worker I ever employed.  When the techs in our
Pennsylvania shop voted to join the Machinists Union, my partner wanted out,
thinking we would go broke.  I had to buy him out and became sole owner.
After I took over, I offered my shop in Delaware to the Union.   LOL

.

Corporations are owned by stockholders. They are responsible first to
their stockholders, not their costumers.

Look at the way drug companies give gifts to doctors, so they will
prescribe their drugs. And the way drug companies don't release negative
clinical studies or negative information about their drugs that could
help patients and doctors make better decisions. There is a good reason
why drug companies and insurance companies are almost always for-profit
companies and not non-profit organizations: so they can make money for
their stockholders.

Look at the way companies blow off mountain tops in West Virgina to get
at the coal. They aren't doing it this way because it is good for the
environment!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html

(And please don't tell us that coal is found only in the valleys. That
may be true in Eastern PA, but the geology is different in WV and other
places where they do mountaintop mining.)

The rich own most of the companies. The richest 1% of the people own
about 1/3 of the wealth of this country. The poorest 50% of the country
own 3% of the wealth of this country.

From wikipedia:

"Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage, which
more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. The move proved
extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the
best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human
capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training
costs. Ford called it "wage motive." The company's use of vertical
integration also proved successful when Ford built a gigantic factory
that shipped in raw materials and shipped out finished automobiles."

Ford didn't increase the wage to increase the income of Americans. He
did it because he thought it would decrease worker turnover. Decreasing
worker turnover improves profitability.

http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451_18670_18793-53441--,00.html

Gee, that's why Wal-Mart pays it workers $100 per hour, and pays its
suppliers twice the going rate for their goods and services. That's why
US companies never outsource call centers and software engineering jobs
to India, too. ;-)

Actually, the Harlem Globe Trotters did that before Robinson. Although
they are original from the midwest, they called themselves the Harlem
Globe Trotters so people would know that their local team would be
playing a black team.

McDonalds?

Unfortunately, most famous black people are athletes or other
performers. Most black kids won't go on to become professional athletes.
Maybe one in 10,000 will. That means of the 600,000 black kids in NYC
schools today, only 60 or so will become black athletes. There are some
good role models in science, like Ben Carson, who was the youngest ever
division chief at Johns Hopkins (pediatric neurosurgery) and Erich
Jarvis of Duke university (brain research), but not enough.

When I used to go to national science meetings, I noticed that the rooms
were awfully white.

Protecting the land the gives us oxygen and food does not make one a nut.

NASCAR has Bill Lester in the truck series. However, the France family,
which controls NASCAR is white, as is Mike Helton, the president of NASCAR.

Unfortunately, there are not many senior executives in large companies
that are minorities or females. In addition, in science and engineering,
there are relatively few blacks, as well.

When Minnie Lee Jones was growing up, it never occurred to her that she
can become a female black doctor because she had never heard of one (it
never occurred to me that I could become a female black doctor either,
but that's because I am not female or black). She became the first black
Surgeon General.

Jeff

Why would anybody think that?   Why do some people seem to think
"Corporations" are generally bad? Such thinking makes no sense.
Incorporating is what makes it possible for a company to grow, generally buy
issuing stock, bought mostly by insurance companies, trusts, pension plans,
and individuals who "own" the Corporation.

Were we better off when only the "rich" owned big companies? Did we forget
the "Robber Barons" of old? Henry Ford realized if people were going to be
able to purchase his cars they need money.  That is why he started his "Five
dollar day" to raise the wag standard for all Americans.  More importantly
today Corporations employ more people at higher wages than the average small
business they sell to and employ people of all races.  Why would they want
to hold down the customer's ability to obtain wealth?

Jackie Robinson proved that whites would pay money to see a good "performer"
albeit an athlete, actor, musician etc.   Where would our black performer be
if whites and corporations did not purchase their services?

We hear politicians so often telling us they will not bow to the "special
Interests."   Which "special interest?"    Your employer or your Union, Move
On, Green Peace, NBC or Fox, GM or a foreign corporation, the environuts of
those that want reasonable environmental laws that do not force your
employer off shore or out of business?   Those that want you to pay the
"costs" of your special interest or somebody else's?

If so may white Americans are willing to "employ" a black man as their
President can NASCAR be far behind?    LOL

On Feb 25, 12:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Look at you guys, how cute, like big brothers.  So touching,
chivalrous, even.  Hey, your girl bowed out and headed for the door.
That's YOUR girl.

=====================

Hey...I'm just watching the show, like a sports commentator.

Look at you guys, how cute, like big brothers.  So touching,
chivalrous, even.  Hey, your girl bowed out and headed for the door.
That's YOUR girl.

On Feb 24, 11:54 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddollnofeckingspam1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well there you go.

=================

She gave you THE LOOK, and you can't even see her. But it worked.

On Feb 24, 11:54 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddollnofeckingspam1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well there you go.

<edspyhill01@yahoo.com>

Well, princess, we ain't talking about Obama running THEN, are we?

Espy

If you're going to be insulting, we don't have to talk at all.

Natalie

On Feb 24, 11:09 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddollnofeckingspam1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, princess, we ain't talking about Obama running THEN, are we?

<edspyhill01@yahoo.com>
"Wickeddoll®"
wrote:

You are being naive.  Obama is in more danger because the threatens
the corporate oligarchy in America.  Doesn't matter what race he is.
JFK & RFK were white, MLK was black.

Espy

So you're saying he's doomed because he represents breaking up the old boy
network?

That seems far-fetched to me.  The Kennedys had already ruffled feathers
long before JFK and & RFK were in office.

MLK was fighting a tide in a country that had barely begun to recognize
civil rights for all Americans.  They were in an entirely different time,
different situations.

Obama wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, had he lived
during that time.

Natalie

On Feb 24, 10:14 pm, "Wickeddoll®"
<wickeddollnofeckingspam1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are being naive.  Obama is in more danger because the threatens
the corporate oligarchy in America.  Doesn't matter what race he is.
JFK & RFK were white, MLK was black.

"Don't Taze Me, Bro!"

Personally, I'm more worried about my children's safety, with all the random
shootings in this country.

I don't believe Obama is in any more danger than any other politician.

Natalie

Blacks don't worry about Obama's safety, but the media has told them that
they do. That has to be one of the most silly stories lately. As if a people
somehow have a personal relationship with a political leader, enough to
"worry" about them.

I hope that no President is ever assasinated, but that story just made me
laugh. As soon as it was posted, you saw the boards light up with "We are
worried about Obama" posts.

This is just more proof that the media encourages everyone to feel a certain
way... creating a market for stories that they can sell...