Texsox

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) do you know how many "forms" the U.S. government publishes? I'm guessing its in the millions. And what good do the forms do in two languages if the people behind the counter can't answer questions? That is why I said the front line forms. How many government forms have you looked at this year? Certainly not millions, I doubt even dozens. Why not have those in Spanish? Say the top 250? Currently the clerk and the customer couldn't answer the questions, so now we have a fighting chance that at least the customer could figure it out. A hurdle, all answers would have to be in English. But name, address, etc are the same in any language.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) They don't have a choice in government, unless they choose to go back to mexico. INS, I can understand multilingual people being hired. It should not be a requirement for the PO to have things printed in spanish, or polish, or japanese. it shoudl not be required to print ballots in 12 different languages. If Joe's Deli in Nogalas wants to employ spanish speaking people to help with his large mexican customer base, fine. if that large mexican customer base wants to go to the village hall and get a picnic permit, they should learn enough english to conduct business with the government. If someone there HAPPENS to know spanish and can help out, great. I agree. But doesn't it make sense that at some point it is more efficient and cost effective to offer service in Spanish? A form gets translated once, the English one would need to be translated many times.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 09:12 AM) The big question would be is it more effecient to change the whole system for a few, or change a few for the whole system? By few do you mean 10% of the population? I believe at some point there is a cross over point where it is. It will vary by language. Translating to Icelandic would probably never be, but Spanish very well could.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) How do you keep coming around to less efficient? Spending a bajillion dollars, via the government (which never does anything efficiently), to do something that the people of this country can and should do themselves, is not efficient. It can't be. I don't understand how you don't see that. If you run a private business, you will do whatever it takes to make the most money. If that means you want to go bilingual, then great, so be it. But for a "business" the size of the federal government, that incremental cost is enormous - like many billions of dollars enormous. If instead, immigrants are expected to learn English (and given the tools to do so), that makes not only government agencies but everyone else more efficient, as everyone has to spend less money. Better to invest a little in supplemental education where necessary, and expect a little effort from new immigrants as well, then to try to massively shift the government to be bilingual. Sorry, I didn't see where it takes a bajillion dollars to print two forms. For a Federal form it may take one person a few days to translate the form. Then it is used by millions of people. Why is that going to be less efficient? Wouldn't the English printing costs go down? And looking at the private sector is exactly why I started thinking about bilingual. Which costs more, hiring, forever, more clerks, or translating forms once? Where does it make the government more efficient to take longer to service someone in line? How fast will someone learn enough English to handle these transactions? I'm not suggesting 100% of all forms would be in Spanish, but how about the front line forms? There is a cross over where it is more efficient to communicate with a large group of people in their language than forcing that large group to learn another. Something like this. Average time in English, 7 minutes Average time in Spanish 3 minutes By producing the form in Spanish we can speed up the service line for everyone and delay hiring another clerk.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) The most efficient thing to do would not be to bilingualize the postal service and a bazillion other government agencies - which I cannot even fathom the cost of. The better solution is education and training for immigrants. If the expectation is set that you need English to function, then immigrants will learn English. That is the efficient methodology we should be targeting. How much time do you give an adult to learn English? Here's where I'm going with this, and it's really which is the cheapest or most cost effective model for servicing Spanish speaking customers. I'm limiting to Spanish because it is the #2 language in the US. You have ten people in line at the DMV, City Hall to get a business license, IRS, etc. Two speak English as a second language or not at all. They are next in line. They have their interpretor with them. The clerk gives information to the interpretor, who passes it on to the customer, who replies in Spanish which gets interpreted and back and forth we go. The line stalls. Errors are made. Etc. Do we: Accept the stall? Refuse services to some citizens and resident aliens? Hire more people? Produce forms in Spanish? What would a private business do? I know one just refuses to sell to customers who can't speak English. Bottom line, there is probably a point where bi-lingual is the cheaper way to go. I believe it only makes sense in Spanish across the nation, but probably there are pockets where other languages make sense from an economic standpoint.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:50 AM) If you "train your customers" and I do business the way they prefer, who will have more business and better satisfied customers? So you are in favor of a less efficient post office, INS, etc.?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) That's funny, because I keep getting told that all of these illegals are vital to me keeping my lifestyle. I am so confused. : To paraphrase you: They are vital to what you've said before when raising the minimum wage came up. Owners need the profits, they deserve them for risking everything to start a business. They hire more people and everyone pays more taxes. Sucks when people listen to you and remember. "After consulting the leading economists of his day about where the economy was going and getting a constant stream of forecasts of 'On the one hand this and on the other hand that,' Harry Truman allegedly said, 'Hell, what I need is a one-armed economist.' "

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:35 AM) Show me one official statistic that shows a declining wage in the US. Even in the manufacturing sector this is not true. When I was Executive Director of the South Texas Manufacturers Association I received numerous "state of industry" reports from the DoL. All pointed to a decline in "real wages". And it isn't only declining wages, or wages that are not keeping up with gains in other sectors, but we are losing those jobs. From textiles to food production. Autos to computers. We actually manufactured computers, from the component level up in this country. Find one now.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) That's funny, because I keep getting told that all of these illegals are vital to me keeping my lifestyle. I am so confused. : Well which is it? You seem to be offering two different scenarios, I'm confused.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:31 AM) Your first sentence, again, isn't really accurate. Manufacturing jobs (and customer service jobs), in most industries, had been going down in relative wage for some time. By sending them overseas, if a person loses (or cannot get) a manufacturing job, they will get a different one eventually. Yes, I suppose some will end up flipping burgers (which, sadly, doesn't pay a lot less than many of those industrial jobs do). But many will also find other jobs with wages that are not decreasing like the manufacturing ones were. In the long run, wages go up due to the effect. IN short, you have fewer, higher paying jobs. Now, they would go up MORE, and for more people, if we had a better education system, which is something I mentioned earlier. They have been going down because companies have been willing to relocate here (Mexico) and the Pacific rim.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:25 AM) Now back to feduciary duties, I don't think most people also realize that management and the board of directors can be sued for their business decesions that they make and held liable to the creditors for those moves. Insurance. The companies buy policies to protect their board members. http://www.insurecast.com/html/directors_and_officers.asp in case you are not familiar. I understand what you are saying, why work some of these jobs for only $2,000,000 a year and *not* expect a bonus. Because there are so many companies lining up to offer you $3,000,000? You make it seem as soon as a CEO of a company in bankruptcy is available, everyone is clamoring for their services. The truth is somewhere in between. I'd like to see some examples of them leaving and finding better paying jobs.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:19 AM) These do not have a depressing effect on wages - in fact, they have an increasing effect. Its negative effect in the short run is more people WITHOUT wages. In the long run, it ships lower paying jobs overseas, decreases corporate costs, and allows them to invest more in higher level folks here in the states. So long run, those have an increasing effect on wages. We are losing higher paying jobs and replacing them with lower paying jobs. The demand for these jobs go up, the qualified and willing pool goes up. Wages remain low. Manufacturing jobs paid very well. Tool and Die makers well over $50,000 per year. Industrial Maintenance equal to that. All the way down to line assembly work. Same formerly with customer service.

I was at the post office yesterday and thought about y'all. I have a question for you English only types. To have English only do you mind waiting longer in line while other citizens and visitors try to make sense out of English forms? Many of you also talk about how much more efficient private business is compared to public. What does a private business do in the same situation? They become bilingual for faster, more efficient service. But you are suggesting that your government should not strive to be more efficient, why is that?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) I agree they have an effect - but I'd suggest there are other, stronger forces at work. These for example: --An education system that is underwhelming, and getting worse, when compared to other first world countries (also includes lacking in adult training) --The growing habituation of Americans to acquiring more "stuff" - products that are cheaply made, by cheap labor, all competing for fewer dollars --The continued decrease in union leverage in labor (which, while necessary for the good of the economy, has a short term negative effect) --Massively increasing costs of health care (lots of parties carry some blame here) I'd suggest all of those have a greater negative effect than the presence of illegal labor, or at least on par with it. Manufacturing jobs being moved overseas Customer Service jobs being moved overseas

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) The total workforce in the US is only 150 million people. Adding somewhere around 10% of people to the supply who are willing to work for anything has a huge depressing effect on wages. It takes a hell of a lot more money out of workers pocket than any CEO stock option bonus, which is what most of the huge bonus numbers that you see today are. But then again, paper gains don't make for good arguements either. So it is bad for America when business owners are able to pay lower wages? IIRC you taught me that owners need bigger profits so they can reinvest in the businesses and hire more people and everyone gains, we receive more tax revenues, etc. And how are we adding these people? I thought they were already here and working jobs.

Just like Clinton near the end of his term needed at appease the GOP because he just wasn't cuttin' it, I think it would be good business for Bush to find someone with less of a partisan history. My blog thoughts are, you can find a blog to say anything. 95% are crap, a few experts write some pretty good ones.

Fixed it for you.

As with all Presidential nominiations, I believe the President should get his person, regardless of the political ideology of the candidate. Character, and a track record in the field are the relevent topics to me. I know I am living in a dream world, but I expect Bush to nominate someone who is conservative and he shouold get his person. Having said that, there are some character concerns here.

Surge: 50% More Troops in Iraq 60% Less Nuke Posts What's Not To Like?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) And yet, I haven't heard a single of the Prez candidates in either party even mention it. In fact, they speak very little about energy independence, which is linked in a big way to an effective transit system. Its just not even being discussed. No respect I tell you, no respect.

Public transportation in this country has never been a prioroty, never been world class, never been respected.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:58 PM) oh damn...she left.... BUT NOW SHE'S BACK...RIGHT NEXT TO ME!!!! Isn't it crazy how those voices seem so real?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) My entire right leg is on fire. Note to self, don't ever dive and than slide onto concrete (I was going after a play in softball and there were a bunch of runners on so I was going all out and didn't realize I was coming up onto concrete) Now I am sitting at work and I swear my entire hammy is red...leg, knee..everything. Each time I spray bactine on it I have to run around cursing for a minute till the pain subsides (than I put myself through more torture with Pydroxide or whatever its called). But that's how you get those multi million dollar softball contracts An early understanding of growing up was missing a week of work after hurting myself in a Thanksgiving day football game where losers bought the beer.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) Well, if you want top talent to stay then you have to pay them. Why would they want to stay on a sinking ship when they can quit and join a company that is actually doing well? Or, why would you want the folks who put the hole in the sinking ship to begin with, to stay, and give them a nice bonus? They should clean up their won mess and not expect a pat on the ass when they do. And who is the customer most familiar with? Who does the customers have the most contact with? The very employees you are asking to take a cut while you are expecting a bonus.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:57 PM) Would you feel better as an employee in the unemployment line as the company went through a court-ordered liquidation sale? Would you feel better as an employee who took a slightly smaller pay cut and watched as the CEO also took a cut and not a raise? I think we all would. And I'll differentiate between a CEO and an owner.