Both Trump and PTJ are spot on about China though, we allowed them to screw us and now everyone notices it.
Coal miners look on as Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign rally at Ohio's American Energy Corportation, a Murray subsidiary, in August. NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A coal company headed by a prominent Mitt Romney donor has laid off more than 160 workers in response to President Obama's election victory. Murray Energy said Friday that it had been "forced" to make the layoffs in response to the bleak prospects for the coal industry during Obama's second term. In a prayer circulated by the company, CEO Robert Murray said Americans had voted "in favor of redistribution, national weakness and reduced standard of living and lower and lower levels of personal freedom." "The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals [sic] of our Founders," Murray said in the prayer, which was delivered in a meeting with staff members earlier this week. "Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corporation for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build." Murray cited pending regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the possibility of a carbon tax as factors that could lead to the "total destruction of the coal industry by as early as 2030." One hundred and two layoffs are planned for Murray operations in Utah, with 54 from Illinois and seven from West Virginia. In August, Murray shuttered an operation in Ohio, again blaming the Obama Administration and its alleged "war on coal." Mitt Romney echoed this line on the campaign trail, accusing Obama of undermining the country's energy security during a rally at a Murray-owned mine in Ohio. <http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/09/news/companies/coal-layoffs-obama/index.html?source=yahoo_hosted>
Ah, an ideologue lays off... 160. Stop the press! And he does it solely to make a political point no less. What a narcissist. If he had the stones to put his money where is mouth is, he should lay off a legitimate number and see how competitive his outfit remains with regards to his competition.
"And he does it solely to make a political point no less. if you believe the above nonsense i have a bridge to sell you real cheap.
I do indeed. This is from the same CEO that required miners to attend a rally (closing the mine and busing them there) for Romney and threatened to fire many if they didn't contribute to a conservative PAC. Gambling employees as political ads in exchange for future pork -- not the kind of incentives that should thrive in capitalism. Looks like he lost his bet, but still can't put his money where his mouth is.
there was recently a very interesting documentary on the History Channel about Carnegie. He wanted to be the richest man in America but knew he couldn't do it without cutting labor costs. How different life would have gone for so many if he wanted to be the highest paying employer in The United States of America. Doubt the Steel Trade in Pittsburgh would be much different than it is now, but it could have been a better path for many.
Quite a lot of the story is made up. The assassination attempt on Frick was completely inaccurate. I don't think Carnegie and Vanderbilt were in competition for the richest man either. Anyhow, steel workers don't want higher wages, they want free libraries.
maybe so, but the old idea of having a burning passion to be the richest is now viewed as some kind of mental illness, or at the very least compensation for other shortcomings. If you watch a lot of those tv shows like I do, you may have also seen a clip about an ownwer of a bakery who put a cap on his salary of 60k/yr and started splitting up the excess profits among his employees. Hard really to imagine if Carnegie had gone that way. We might still be making steel in Pittsburgh. I don't have any problem with somebody making a lot of money, all I'm saying is it won't get you the same respect it use to. And most of that money is made for no other reason than to get respect.
Maybe because it took decades and a real talent back in the old days. Nowadays some young college kid can start a website about sharing pictures and hit it big. I like Mark Cuban, but him getting 6 billion for a worthless website is more the buyer's stupidity not his talent of making it... (although he had the talent and/or luck to recognize the opportunity and sell at the highest price)