If you want to know why the Mexican people can't afford that refrigerator,
just go to these sites and see who promotes that unlivable low wage, so
those wealthy people can continue to rob the poor in Mexico..
http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/nwstor...=96nw353121618

http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/nwstor...=96nw354213652
"Wae Lundbergyn" > wrote in message
...
> A1, you are one stubborn old goat.

You are right on about being stubborn. That's how I got what I have.

I said there were 20 million extremely wealthy Mexicans who dominat the
whole economoy and politics of the country

I did misquote you on the amount of people, as I had already deleted that
post and I apologize. I also apologize to misschef for misquoting her.
I understand that those 20 million wealthy Mexicans could do pretty much
what ever they want to do. What I was trying to say is most of the
population in Mexico, Should be able to afford a ticket on an airplane. I
don't mean they would be able to rent a Lear jet, but at least fly economy
class. As far as the politics, there are allot more of the have nots than
those wealthy people. Like I said before, maybe The People need another
Poncho Villa, to help change those wealthy politicians minds, so everyone
can have a little money in there pockets. To me business and industry,
equals money. It seems to me most of that money is going into the wrong
pockets. The people need a leader who thinks of the people you and misschef
talk about. I believe the standard of living for the poor is way too low. I
also believe, what you never had, you don't miss it. Since great granddad
lived poor, the granddad lives poor, now the dad lives poor, and that trait
is passed on to the son, unless someone stands up and says No More. Someone
needs to teach the people how to stand up to the wealthy and change the
attitude of the Peoples government, so it works for the benefit of the poor
and not so much for the wealthy. If that factory owner is getting rich off
the labor of the people, then the people working for him should share in
that wealth. Then they will be able to afford that refrigerator and good
stove and every other thing that the rest of the world takes for granted.
We were talking in another news group about kitchen knives vs. chopping
gadgets and the guy opted to buy a set of very good German made knives, now
he probably paid over $100.00 dollars American. I don't think he went wrong
by spending that amount of money for a set of good knives that will last a
life time. However what would that have bought in Mexico, maybe a cheap
refrigerator. My point is we all advised this man to buy the knives because
we knew a knife was better than that chopper gadget. Who is teaching the
people in Mexico, that they could live a better life, and have a healthier
life, if they could keep their food from spoiling. If they have good health
regulations on the way the stores and markets handle the food, they may
just be able to save a trip to that market, because the meat and milk will
stay fresher longer. The people should insisted on a regulated minimum wage
that is enough to afford those things I have been talking about. I am not
trying to be arrogant, but what I here from you is, the rich get richer and
the poor don't know they are poor, since their dads and moms did it this
way and granddad and grandmother did it this way and so on and so on.
(snip)
I also said that there are 20 million on the bottom portion of the curve
regarding money; but that many of these 20 million do not work in a cash
economy. They remain pretty much agrarian and trade for what they need or
use a minimum amount of cash.

Why, because they were taught that this is the way it has always been,
teach the people that there is another way. Even if they work for the big
agricultural farms or ranches, they need to be able to have the same
amenities as the people living in the cities should have, and make at least
the same minimum wage. I have nothing against the recipes or the way the
food is prepared. What I'm saying is, let it be a choice to be without a
refrigerator, not because they can't afford one. If you work you should be
worth at the very least a livable wage, If the business doesn't see it that
way, organize and unite and don't work. If the United States trucking
industry shut down all trucking, the US would be on their knees within a
week. If the Mexican people united and refused to go to work I think it
would send a message to those in power.

Most of my recipes and food culture comes from these 20 million 'original'
Mexicans.
You have really been an arrogant asshole in this newsgroup and I don't
understand why most of us have not just put you in the kill file.

I haven't intentionally tried to harm anyone, if I have I apologize. I grew
up hard, and I did business with hard people in the beginning. I learned to
conduct business as hard as necessary to get the job done. If I stepped on
a few toes to stay in business then that's the way it went. I didn't let
any government run me out of business, If they wanted to play hardball I
played hardball. It wasn't always on the up and up, but if you set a goal,
you're going to have to fight what ever stands in your way to reach that
goal. I reached my goal and now I'm enjoying the rewards. I believe anyone
can do the same, so I have a hard time understanding how in the 21st.
century people can't afford a refrigerator, stove, TV or a computer, if
they want it bad enough. Of course they have to know they can get those
things that will improve their standard of living.
You call me an asshole, well I've been called worst, but I got the job done
when others stood around scratching their ass and trying to see how to be
nice and get it done. When I was a young man, you would not have wanted to
do business with me, the way you talk about teaching CEOs to conduct
business, but I sometimes didn't give that option.

But you come up with very interesting recipes which stimulate the
imagination and you do have innovative stuff.

Thanks for the comment about my recipes, some are the original, but allot
are changed to suit myself.

If only you could get off the ignorance of the culture you percieve from a
distance.
Come on down with me to a humble home anywhere in the interior of Mexico
and
I will show you what I write about. Beans are made on Sunday after the
family has gone to market. They start to ferment that night and that is
good
because it adds the right microbes to their tummys to fend off all kinds
of
nasty other bugs. All the rest of what I write about is true and not
fiction. I lived it, loved and yearn for it when nostalgic.

I believe you and that is what makes me angry. They don't have to live like
that. If they had money in their pockets and chose to live like that, then
that would be one thing, but if they live like that because they have to
live like that, then that, as I see it, is a shame. Not on the part of the
poor, but on the part of those wealthy people running the economy.

I know you can't tell just from reading, but their was a time when I
couldn't do what I can today. Like I said, I grew up the hard way. You talk
about people sitting around the table talking about the food and culture.
When I was growing up the quickest way to get slapped out of the chair, was
to talk at the table, you looked down at your plate while you ate so as not
to eat too slow. There were chores to do and very little time to complete
them, so the eating was cutting into that time.

> Now, A1, learn to bend a little. Accept another culture and stop making
enemies when you're not really that bad a guy.
>
Wayne

I bend, and believe it or not, I have mellowed a great degree from my
youth. I could never say these things in public a few years ago, and I
taught my children to take a different approach to life and business. They
still work hard, but they didn't have to go down the same road I did. This
is the most I've talked to a stranger in a long time, lol. If I hurt
anyone's feelings, I don't intend to, I have just always spoke my mind.

> > --
William Barfieldsr
> For some fun in the wind see my son's innovation at
www.modelsailcars.com -
> Tacos served now and then

A1 WBarfieldsr on 21 Oct 2003 suggested:

> I reached my goal
> and now I'm enjoying the rewards. I believe anyone can do the same,
> so I have a hard time understanding how in the 21st. century people
> can't afford a refrigerator, stove, TV or a computer, if they want it
> bad enough. Of course they have to know they can get those things
> that will improve their standard of living.

I just have a few things to comment here. First, having more
material goods does not necessarily improve your standard of living.
Simplicity, happiness and family are in many ways a much higher standard
of living than having material goods. And going to the markets, which are
clean and regulated and have fresh food, are more than just trips to buy
goods. They are also social events for the housewives and children. You
confuse, because you have been taught that way, quality of life with
wealth. From what I have seen and experienced, wealth actually seems to
lower quality of life and happiness, in most cases.

I renew my offer to show you Mexico, so that you can learn the
realities and get a better understanding of what you try to speak of, if
you're willing to pay for your education.

--Douglas

No thanks, the items I spoke of was not what I think the wealthy should
have, the items I spoke of, is what the common person should be able to
afford. I'm sure Grandma with her bad knees and arthritis along other
ailments, looks forward to climbing down stair-steps and long walks to the
market. Don't start with, other family members going for her, not every
grandma has other family members to run to the market every day. Still if
they Choose to live that way, more power to them, but if they Have to live
that way, because they can't afford to live any other way, then that is a
shame on the powers that keep them in poverty. I think people should live
the way it makes them happy, but if they are forced into poverty by the
powers that rule, then that is the shame.
--
William Barfieldsr
"Douglas S. Ladden" > wrote in message
9.17...
> A1 WBarfieldsr on 21 Oct 2003 suggested:
>
> > I reached my goal
> > and now I'm enjoying the rewards. I believe anyone can do the same,
> > so I have a hard time understanding how in the 21st. century people
> > can't afford a refrigerator, stove, TV or a computer, if they want it
> > bad enough. Of course they have to know they can get those things
> > that will improve their standard of living.
>
> I just have a few things to comment here. First, having more
> material goods does not necessarily improve your standard of living.
> Simplicity, happiness and family are in many ways a much higher standard
> of living than having material goods. And going to the markets, which
are
> clean and regulated and have fresh food, are more than just trips to buy
> goods. They are also social events for the housewives and children. You
> confuse, because you have been taught that way, quality of life with
> wealth. From what I have seen and experienced, wealth actually seems to
> lower quality of life and happiness, in most cases.
>
> I renew my offer to show you Mexico, so that you can learn the
> realities and get a better understanding of what you try to speak of, if
> you're willing to pay for your education.
>
> --Douglas

"A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
...
> No thanks, the items I spoke of was not what I think the wealthy should
> have, the items I spoke of, is what the common person should be able to
> afford. I'm sure Grandma with her bad knees and arthritis along other
> ailments, looks forward to climbing down stair-steps and long walks to
the
> market. Don't start with, other family members going for her, not every
> grandma has other family members to run to the market every day. Still if
> they Choose to live that way, more power to them, but if they Have to
live
> that way, because they can't afford to live any other way, then that is a
> shame on the powers that keep them in poverty. I think people should live
> the way it makes them happy, but if they are forced into poverty by the
> powers that rule, then that is the shame.
> --
> William Barfieldsr
> "Douglas S. Ladden" > wrote in message
> 9.17...
> > > I just have a few things to comment here. First, having more
> > material goods does not necessarily improve your standard of living.
> > Simplicity, happiness and family are in many ways a much higher
standard
> > of living than having material goods. And going to the markets, which
> are
> > clean and regulated and have fresh food, are more than just trips to
buy
> > goods. They are also social events for the housewives and children.
You
> > confuse, because you have been taught that way, quality of life with
> > wealth. From what I have seen and experienced, wealth actually seems
to
> > lower quality of life and happiness, in most cases.
> >
> > I renew my offer to show you Mexico, so that you can learn the
> > realities and get a better understanding of what you try to speak of,
if
> > you're willing to pay for your education.
> >
> > --Douglas
************************************************** *************************
*******************
Mexico minimum wage increase
La Prensa

The Mexican government increased the minimum wage base by 10%. The increase
will bring the 1999 minimum of 34.50 pesos ($3.63) per day to 37.90 pesos
($3.99) per day. Roughly 20 percent of Mexico's work force earns the
minimum wage. Inflation currently at 12.03%.
http://pub136.ezboard.com/fcomebuild...opicID=3.topic
************************************************** *************************
*******************
> MEXICO'S MINIMUM WAGE COMMISSION APPROVES 4.5 PERCENT INCREASE IN RATE

The daily minimum wage rate for Mexico in 2003 increases to 43.65 pesos, or
about $4.27, in the nation's most industrialized regions. However, because
of depreciation in the value of the Mexican peso over the last year, the
minimum wage at the start of 2003 in U.S. dollars will be lower than it was
at the beginning of 2002, when it was $4.58 per day
The National Minimum Wage Commission approved the 4.5 percent average
increase Dec. 19, setting the rate in less industrialized areas at 40.3
pesos, or about $4 a day.

01/02/2003
http://www.apawestmichigan.org/newsletter.cfm?get=1400
************************************************** *************************
*******************
SUNS 4347 Thursday 17 December 1998

MEXICO: MINIMUM WAGE NOT ENOUGH TO BUY FOOD

Mexico, Dec 15 (IPS/Diego Cevallos) -- Despite a recent increase of 14
percent, Mexico's minimum wage is still not enough to buy food with,
according to calculations by university researchers here.

In the past 14 years, the amount of money it takes to feed a family of four
has shot up by 1,727 percent, experts from the National Autonomous
University of Mexico (UNAM) have found, whereas the minimum wage has
increased by just 435.9 percent.

The researchers released their findings last week, on the heels of an
agreement between the government and employers to increase the national
minimum wage by 14 percent for the period December 1998 to December 1999.
The two sides agreed that sacrifices needed to be made to void fiscal
problems so it was not possible to give salary increases that were higher
than the inflation rate.

The 14-percent increase - which is not enough to buy a liter of milk - will
keep the wage index on the downward curve on which it has been since the
1980s. "The situation is dramatic for millions of workers who earn the
minimum wage," said Luis Lozano, director of the Center for
Multidisciplinary Studies of UNAM's Faculty of Economics.

Official studies show that 55 percent of workers who have social security -
less than 40 percent of the 37-million-strong potential workforce - earn
the equivalent of one to two minimum wages.

Despite the recent increase, the real minimum wage is lower than it was
just weeks ago. Due to the devaluation of the national currency, it has now
shrunk from $3.40 to $3.20 a day.

According to UNAM, Mexican workers now have salaries equivalent to 0.01
percent of what their counterparts earn in the United States. This
disparity has helped transform Mexico into a major exporter to its northern
neighbor, to which it sells more than 84 billion dollars' worth of goods
and services a year, with 40 percent coming from companies in its
export-processing zones.

The low salaries are only one indication of the precarious situation in
which Mexico's workers live. In recent years, they have also been buffeted
by repeated adjustment measures interspersed with calls for sacrifice,
Lozano told IPS.

Rogelio Martinez, director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Monterrey
Institute of Technology and Higher Studies, accuses the government of
violating the constitution on the minimum wage issue: by law, Mexico's
government is bound to guarantee its workers a minimum wage that satisfies
the material, social and cultural needs of the head of each household.

The main trade union federations, which are close to the government,
acknowledge that salaries are low but deny that they are precarious and
ought to be rejected by the population. Opposition trade unionists, a
growing minority, maintain that wages are far too low.

Still, despite the decline in wages, trade unions have never called out
workers on a general strike.

Wealth is also concentrated in just a few hands, according to figures from
the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computer Science: 10
percent of Mexicans own 41 percent of the country's wealth, while the
poorest fifth of the nation shares 3.2 percent of its wealth.

Things are not expected to improve in 1999 for Mexico's workers, especially
since economic prospects for next year look dim, given a sharp drop in the
prices of oil, which finances about 40 percent of the state budget.
http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/proc...8/12170698.htm
************************************************** *************************
*******************
The Impact of Minimum Wages in Mexico and Colombia
in Working Papers -- Labor & Employment. Labor market policies and
institutions. from World Bank
Linda A. Bell

Abstract: Comparative data from Mexico and Colombia are used to analyze the
impact of minimum wages. In Mexico, low levels of compliance and
ineffective levels of minimum wages imply negligible employment effects. In
Colombia, where the minimum wage is closer to the average wage in the
formal sector, the minimum wage has a significant impact on employment.


There are diverging views about how minimum wages affect labor markets in
developing countries.


Advocates of minimum wages hold that they redistribute resources in a
welfare-enhancing way, and can thus reduce poverty, improve productivity,
and foster growth. Opponents, on the other hand, contend that minimum wage
interventions result in a misallocation of labor and lead to depressed
wages in the very sectors --- the rural and informal urban sectors ---
where most of the poor are found, with the effect of wasting resources and
reducing the growth rate.


Data from Colombia and Mexico for the 1980s provide an opportunity to
evaluate the impact of minimum wages. In Mexico in the 1980s, the minimum
wage fell in real terms roughly 45 percent. By 1990, Mexico's minimum wage
was about 13 percent of the average unskilled manufacturing wage.


During the same period, the minimum wage in Colombia increased at nearly
the same rate, reaching roughly 53 percent of the average unskilled wage.


Bell charts how the mandated minimum wage affected the demand for skilled
and unskilled labor in both countries during that decade. She finds:


° In Mexico, minimum wages have had virtually no effect on wages or
employment in the formal sector. The main reason: the minimum wage is not
an effective wage for most firms or workers. In the informal sector, in
turn, there is considerable noncompliance with the mandated minimum wage,
especially among part-time and female workers. As a result, significant
numbers of workers are paid at or below minimum wages.

° In Colombia, minimum wages have a much stronger impact on wages, judging
from their proximity to the average wage and both cross-section and time
series estimates. The estimates imply that the elasticity of low-paid
unskilled employment with respect to minimum wages is in the range of 2 to
12 percent.


This paper --- a product of the Poverty and Human Resources Division,
Policy Research Department --- is part of a larger effort in the department
to analyze the implications of labor market distortions. The study was
funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project
"The Impact of Labor Market Policies and Institutions on Economic
Performance" (RPO 678-46). Copies of this paper are available free from the
World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Sheila
Fallon, room N8-057, telephone 202-473-8009, fax 202-522-1153, Internet
address sfallon @worldbank.org (41 pages).
http://econpapers.hhs.se/paper/wopwobale/1514.htm
************************************************** *************************
*******************

Mexico sets small increase in country's meager minimum wage
ASSOCIATED PRESS December 22, 2000

Mexico City - Despite widespread dissatisfaction with low minimum wages
here, a quasi-government board granted workers an increase of only $0.25
cents per day (2.45 pesos) for 2001.

Starting Jan. 1, the lowest-paid employees - about 20 percent of Mexican
workers earn the minimum wage - will get 40.35 pesos per day, or about U.S.
dollars $4.21, a 6.5-percent increase from the current rate.

An announcer at Mexico City's AM Formato 21 radio station reacted with
shock to the decision, telling listeners to "call in, if you can think of
anything you can buy with two pesos."

The median salary *(not 'mean' or 'average') here *(Mexico City) is about
three times the minimum.

The increase was exactly in line with the government's inflation goal of
6.5 percent for 2001, meaning that, even if the government meets it's goal,
workers will see no real-term gains.

That comes on the heels of nearly two decades in which the purchasing power
of the minimum wage has steadily shrunk, losing about 75 percent of its
value since its peak in 1980.

The minimum wage level is set by a commission made up of government, labor
and business leaders. Labor leaders had earlier said they would demand a
double-digit salary hike, but apparently abandoned that position.

Workers in rural regions can be paid a sub-minimum wage of as little as
U.S. dollars $3.75 (35.85 pesos) per day under the new rate schedule.
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/surferslim/mexwage.html
************************************************** *************************
*******************
I rest my case.
--
William Barfieldsr

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:11:12 GMT, "A1 WBarfieldsr"
> wrote:

>If you want to know why the Mexican people can't afford...

Bill, weren't you the one who got upset about somebody posting 12
words regarding a hot dog with saurkraut, because it wasn't considered
mexican cooking and hence, off-topic?

Hypocrite, again.

ObMexicanFood: Shredded pork taquitos dunked in Herdez Salsa Casera
tonight. Not only is Herdez probably the best commercial salsas, it
comes in a *can*!

-sw
z

No, I didn't get upset. I don't take these posts as serious as some. This
is just a way of entertaining myself, without letting little lizards like
you get under my skin. Sometimes, I'm not successful, but it's not from
failing to try.

--
William Barfieldsr
"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:11:12 GMT, "A1 WBarfieldsr"
> > wrote:
>
> >If you want to know why the Mexican people can't afford...
>
> Bill, weren't you the one who got upset about somebody posting 12
> words regarding a hot dog with saurkraut, because it wasn't considered
> mexican cooking and hence, off-topic?
>
> Hypocrite, again.
>
> ObMexicanFood: Shredded pork taquitos dunked in Herdez Salsa Casera
> tonight. Not only is Herdez probably the best commercial salsas, it
> comes in a *can*!
>
> -sw
> z

A1 WBarfieldsr wrote:
> "A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No thanks, the items I spoke of was not what I think the wealthy should
>>have, the items I spoke of, is what the common person should be able to
>>afford. I'm sure Grandma with her bad knees and arthritis along other
>>ailments, looks forward to climbing down stair-steps and long walks to
>
> the
>
>>market. Don't start with, other family members going for her, not every
>>grandma has other family members to run to the market every day. Still if
>>they Choose to live that way, more power to them, but if they Have to
>
> live
>
>>that way, because they can't afford to live any other way, then that is a
>>shame on the powers that keep them in poverty. I think people should live
>>the way it makes them happy, but if they are forced into poverty by the
>>powers that rule, then that is the shame.
>>--
>>William Barfieldsr
>>"Douglas S. Ladden" > wrote in message
. 199.17...
>>
>>>> I just have a few things to comment here. First, having more
>>>
>>>material goods does not necessarily improve your standard of living.
>>>Simplicity, happiness and family are in many ways a much higher
>
> standard
>
>>>of living than having material goods. And going to the markets, which
>>
>>are
>>
>>>clean and regulated and have fresh food, are more than just trips to
>
> buy
>
>>>goods. They are also social events for the housewives and children.
>
> You
>
>>>confuse, because you have been taught that way, quality of life with
>>>wealth. From what I have seen and experienced, wealth actually seems
>
> to
>
>>>lower quality of life and happiness, in most cases.
>>>
>>> I renew my offer to show you Mexico, so that you can learn the
>>>realities and get a better understanding of what you try to speak of,
>
> if
>
>>>you're willing to pay for your education.
>>>
>>>--Douglas
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> *******************
> Mexico minimum wage increase
> La Prensa
>
> The Mexican government increased the minimum wage base by 10%. The increase
> will bring the 1999 minimum of 34.50 pesos ($3.63) per day to 37.90 pesos
> ($3.99) per day. Roughly 20 percent of Mexico's work force earns the
> minimum wage. Inflation currently at 12.03%.
> http://pub136.ezboard.com/fcomebuild...opicID=3.topic
> ************************************************** *************************
> *******************
>
>>MEXICO'S MINIMUM WAGE COMMISSION APPROVES 4.5 PERCENT INCREASE IN RATE
>
>
> The daily minimum wage rate for Mexico in 2003 increases to 43.65 pesos, or
> about $4.27, in the nation's most industrialized regions. However, because
> of depreciation in the value of the Mexican peso over the last year, the
> minimum wage at the start of 2003 in U.S. dollars will be lower than it was
> at the beginning of 2002, when it was $4.58 per day
> The National Minimum Wage Commission approved the 4.5 percent average
> increase Dec. 19, setting the rate in less industrialized areas at 40.3
> pesos, or about $4 a day.
>
> 01/02/2003
> http://www.apawestmichigan.org/newsletter.cfm?get=1400
> ************************************************** *************************
> *******************
> SUNS 4347 Thursday 17 December 1998
>
> MEXICO: MINIMUM WAGE NOT ENOUGH TO BUY FOOD
>
> Mexico, Dec 15 (IPS/Diego Cevallos) -- Despite a recent increase of 14
> percent, Mexico's minimum wage is still not enough to buy food with,
> according to calculations by university researchers here.
>
> In the past 14 years, the amount of money it takes to feed a family of four
> has shot up by 1,727 percent, experts from the National Autonomous
> University of Mexico (UNAM) have found, whereas the minimum wage has
> increased by just 435.9 percent.
>
> The researchers released their findings last week, on the heels of an
> agreement between the government and employers to increase the national
> minimum wage by 14 percent for the period December 1998 to December 1999.
> The two sides agreed that sacrifices needed to be made to void fiscal
> problems so it was not possible to give salary increases that were higher
> than the inflation rate.
>
> The 14-percent increase - which is not enough to buy a liter of milk - will
> keep the wage index on the downward curve on which it has been since the
> 1980s. "The situation is dramatic for millions of workers who earn the
> minimum wage," said Luis Lozano, director of the Center for
> Multidisciplinary Studies of UNAM's Faculty of Economics.
>
> Official studies show that 55 percent of workers who have social security -
> less than 40 percent of the 37-million-strong potential workforce - earn
> the equivalent of one to two minimum wages.
>
> Despite the recent increase, the real minimum wage is lower than it was
> just weeks ago. Due to the devaluation of the national currency, it has now
> shrunk from $3.40 to $3.20 a day.
>
> According to UNAM, Mexican workers now have salaries equivalent to 0.01
> percent of what their counterparts earn in the United States. This
> disparity has helped transform Mexico into a major exporter to its northern
> neighbor, to which it sells more than 84 billion dollars' worth of goods
> and services a year, with 40 percent coming from companies in its
> export-processing zones.
>
> The low salaries are only one indication of the precarious situation in
> which Mexico's workers live. In recent years, they have also been buffeted
> by repeated adjustment measures interspersed with calls for sacrifice,
> Lozano told IPS.
>
> Rogelio Martinez, director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Monterrey
> Institute of Technology and Higher Studies, accuses the government of
> violating the constitution on the minimum wage issue: by law, Mexico's
> government is bound to guarantee its workers a minimum wage that satisfies
> the material, social and cultural needs of the head of each household.
>
> The main trade union federations, which are close to the government,
> acknowledge that salaries are low but deny that they are precarious and
> ought to be rejected by the population. Opposition trade unionists, a
> growing minority, maintain that wages are far too low.
>
> Still, despite the decline in wages, trade unions have never called out
> workers on a general strike.
>
> Wealth is also concentrated in just a few hands, according to figures from
> the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Computer Science: 10
> percent of Mexicans own 41 percent of the country's wealth, while the
> poorest fifth of the nation shares 3.2 percent of its wealth.
>
> Things are not expected to improve in 1999 for Mexico's workers, especially
> since economic prospects for next year look dim, given a sharp drop in the
> prices of oil, which finances about 40 percent of the state budget.
> http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/proc...8/12170698.htm
> ************************************************** *************************
> *******************
> The Impact of Minimum Wages in Mexico and Colombia
> in Working Papers -- Labor & Employment. Labor market policies and
> institutions. from World Bank
> Linda A. Bell
>
> Abstract: Comparative data from Mexico and Colombia are used to analyze the
> impact of minimum wages. In Mexico, low levels of compliance and
> ineffective levels of minimum wages imply negligible employment effects. In
> Colombia, where the minimum wage is closer to the average wage in the
> formal sector, the minimum wage has a significant impact on employment.
>
>
> There are diverging views about how minimum wages affect labor markets in
> developing countries.
>
>
> Advocates of minimum wages hold that they redistribute resources in a
> welfare-enhancing way, and can thus reduce poverty, improve productivity,
> and foster growth. Opponents, on the other hand, contend that minimum wage
> interventions result in a misallocation of labor and lead to depressed
> wages in the very sectors --- the rural and informal urban sectors ---
> where most of the poor are found, with the effect of wasting resources and
> reducing the growth rate.
>
>
> Data from Colombia and Mexico for the 1980s provide an opportunity to
> evaluate the impact of minimum wages. In Mexico in the 1980s, the minimum
> wage fell in real terms roughly 45 percent. By 1990, Mexico's minimum wage
> was about 13 percent of the average unskilled manufacturing wage.
>
>
> During the same period, the minimum wage in Colombia increased at nearly
> the same rate, reaching roughly 53 percent of the average unskilled wage.
>
>
> Bell charts how the mandated minimum wage affected the demand for skilled
> and unskilled labor in both countries during that decade. She finds:
>
>
> ° In Mexico, minimum wages have had virtually no effect on wages or
> employment in the formal sector. The main reason: the minimum wage is not
> an effective wage for most firms or workers. In the informal sector, in
> turn, there is considerable noncompliance with the mandated minimum wage,
> especially among part-time and female workers. As a result, significant
> numbers of workers are paid at or below minimum wages.
>
> ° In Colombia, minimum wages have a much stronger impact on wages, judging
> from their proximity to the average wage and both cross-section and time
> series estimates. The estimates imply that the elasticity of low-paid
> unskilled employment with respect to minimum wages is in the range of 2 to
> 12 percent.
>
>
> This paper --- a product of the Poverty and Human Resources Division,
> Policy Research Department --- is part of a larger effort in the department
> to analyze the implications of labor market distortions. The study was
> funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project
> "The Impact of Labor Market Policies and Institutions on Economic
> Performance" (RPO 678-46). Copies of this paper are available free from the
> World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Sheila
> Fallon, room N8-057, telephone 202-473-8009, fax 202-522-1153, Internet
> address sfallon @worldbank.org (41 pages).
> http://econpapers.hhs.se/paper/wopwobale/1514.htm
> ************************************************** *************************
> *******************
>
> Mexico sets small increase in country's meager minimum wage
> ASSOCIATED PRESS December 22, 2000
>
> Mexico City - Despite widespread dissatisfaction with low minimum wages
> here, a quasi-government board granted workers an increase of only $0.25
> cents per day (2.45 pesos) for 2001.
>
> Starting Jan. 1, the lowest-paid employees - about 20 percent of Mexican
> workers earn the minimum wage - will get 40.35 pesos per day, or about U.S.
> dollars $4.21, a 6.5-percent increase from the current rate.
>
> An announcer at Mexico City's AM Formato 21 radio station reacted with
> shock to the decision, telling listeners to "call in, if you can think of
> anything you can buy with two pesos."
>
> The median salary *(not 'mean' or 'average') here *(Mexico City) is about
> three times the minimum.
>
> The increase was exactly in line with the government's inflation goal of
> 6.5 percent for 2001, meaning that, even if the government meets it's goal,
> workers will see no real-term gains.
>
> That comes on the heels of nearly two decades in which the purchasing power
> of the minimum wage has steadily shrunk, losing about 75 percent of its
> value since its peak in 1980.
>
> The minimum wage level is set by a commission made up of government, labor
> and business leaders. Labor leaders had earlier said they would demand a
> double-digit salary hike, but apparently abandoned that position.
>
> Workers in rural regions can be paid a sub-minimum wage of as little as
> U.S. dollars $3.75 (35.85 pesos) per day under the new rate schedule.
> http://www.dslextreme.com/users/surferslim/mexwage.html
> ************************************************** *************************
> *******************
> I rest my case.

Really, I don't think you understand what you have posted (and in
violation of copyright law, too, I'll bet). Square this article with
your statement about what the common person in Mexico SHOULD BE ABLE to
afford. About their refridgerators and stoves, while you're paradiong
your ignorance.


jim

A1 WBarfieldsr wrote:

> No, I didn't get upset. I don't take these posts as serious as some. This
> is just a way of entertaining myself, without letting little lizards like
> you get under my skin. Sometimes, I'm not successful, but it's not from
> failing to try.
>

While we fall to the floor in gales of laughter at your mentalmidgetry
and ignorance.

Fitting.


jim

"A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
...
> If you want to know why the Mexican people can't afford that refrigerator,
> just go to these sites and see who promotes that unlivable low wage, so
> those wealthy people can continue to rob the poor in Mexico..
> http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/nwstor...=96nw353121618

You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".

Please reflect upon your attitudes and you will understand why in some
places Americans are hated.

Dimitri

>A1 WBarfieldsr on 21 Oct 2003 suggested:
>
>> I reached my goal
>> and now I'm enjoying the rewards. I believe anyone can do the same,
>> so I have a hard time understanding how in the 21st. century people
>> can't afford a refrigerator, stove, TV or a computer, if they want it
>> bad enough. Of course they have to know they can get those things
>> that will improve their standard of living.

Gee whiz. Get your head out... There are billions of people in the
world who can't afford/don't have access to refrigerators or TVs or
ISPs or lawn services. Even in the US, where a reasonably stable
electricity supply is nearly universal. millions of people (yes,
millions) work full-time to achieve minimal food, shelter, and
clothing needs. Absent state regulations, US minimum wage is $5.15/hr.
That's $206 per 40-hr week. Before taxes. Let's see -- the usual
guideline for rent is 1/3rd income. That's almost $300 per month
(before taxes). Take a look at your 'for rent' classified pages. I
don't recall the guideline for food spending -- another 30%? Make up a
menu for 4. Health care? Transportation? School supplies and shoes for
kids? Utilities? And this is in the wealthiest nation in the world.

People (and there are plenty in the US) who buy their clothes at
Salvation Army stores and salvage furniture off the street (and work
at least 40 hrs per week) aren't lacking in determination or energy to
"want" computers and steaks and new cars.

Imagine a place where the non-regulated minimum wage is $1/hr. And a
refrigerator (much less the electric network to connect it) costs
$300.

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you want to know why the Mexican people can't afford that
refrigerator,
> > just go to these sites and see who promotes that unlivable low wage, so
> > those wealthy people can continue to rob the poor in Mexico..
> > http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/nwstor...=96nw353121618
>
> You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".
>
> Please reflect upon your attitudes and you will understand why in some
> places Americans are hated.
>
> Dimitri
>
How on earth can a person be hated for wanting an improved life style for
those who wish it. If they don't want the better life style and want to
live without the convinces, that is great, they can put the money in a bank
and save it for hard times. What I am saying is the people should have a
choice in how they wish to live. Somehow you have missed what I'm saying. I
am saying people of any country should be able to choose their own standard
of living. What is bad about that? There have been remarks made about why
the industry in the US is coming to Mexico. It was said that a better
product is made there, and that may be true, it was said that cheaper labor
cost also played a roll. I say it was the biggest reason, when a company is
paying $15.00 per HOUR and can go to another country and get by with only
paying $5.00 per DAY. And what are the benefit packages that the companies
don't have to pay in Mexico or any other country where they can exploit the
labor force. I am not against the people of Mexico or any other country,
just the opposite is true. Are you serious, when you say the worker making
$5.00 per DAY would not be happier if they were making $7.00 or more per
HOUR, that to me is unconceivable.
Would you turn down that much of a raise in your pay check, NOT. People
that say "Money Isn't Everything", are usually the ones with the money.
Dolly Parton once said,"I've been poor and I've been rich, but Believe Me,
Richer is Better".
> --
William Barfieldsr

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:16 GMT, "A1 WBarfieldsr"
> wrote:

>How on earth can a person be hated for wanting an improved life style for
>those who wish it. If they don't want the better life style and want to
>live without the convinces, that is great, they can put the money in a bank
>and save it for hard times. What I am saying is the people should have a
>choice in how they wish to live. Somehow you have missed what I'm saying. I
>am saying people of any country should be able to choose their own standard
>of living.

Are you for real? Who do you think "chooses" poverty over wealth? I
must have missed sending in the form that says "if you'd rather live
in San Francisco with an income of $150,000 than in rural Nicaragua
with $3,000, please check this box."

"A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
...
> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > If you want to know why the Mexican people can't afford that
> refrigerator,
> > > just go to these sites and see who promotes that unlivable low wage,
so
> > > those wealthy people can continue to rob the poor in Mexico..
> > > http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/nwstor...=96nw353121618
> >
> > You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".
> >
> > Please reflect upon your attitudes and you will understand why in some
> > places Americans are hated.
> >
> > Dimitri


Obviously you just don't have a clue


> How on earth can a person be hated for wanting an improved life style for
> those who wish it. If they don't want the better life style and want to
> live without the convinces, that is great, they can put the money in a
bank
> and save it for hard times.

Whose Values? Yours or theirs?

What I am saying is the people should have a
> choice in how they wish to live. Somehow you have missed what I'm saying.
I
> am saying people of any country should be able to choose their own
standard
> of living. What is bad about that?

Is called Communism and it doesn't work!

There have been remarks made about why
> the industry in the US is coming to Mexico. It was said that a better
> product is made there, and that may be true, it was said that cheaper
labor
> cost also played a roll.

Why is that bad? How else do you help an economy to grow?

Johnson's "Great Society" while a good idea at the time only propogarted the
dissolotion of the family and "welfare generations".


I say it was the biggest reason, when a company is
> paying $15.00 per HOUR and can go to another country and get by with only
> paying $5.00 per DAY. And what are the benefit packages that the companies
> don't have to pay in Mexico or any other country where they can exploit
the
> labor force. I am not against the people of Mexico or any other country,
> just the opposite is true. Are you serious, when you say the worker making
> $5.00 per DAY would not be happier if they were making $7.00 or more per
> HOUR, that to me is unconceivable.


I take it you flunked ECON 101.

> Would you turn down that much of a raise in your pay check, NOT. People
> that say "Money Isn't Everything", are usually the ones with the money.
> Dolly Parton once said,"I've been poor and I've been rich, but Believe Me,
> Richer is Better".
> > --
> William Barfieldsr


Back to my original statement.

You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".

Dimitri

Frogleg wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:16 GMT, "A1 WBarfieldsr"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>How on earth can a person be hated for wanting an improved life style for
>>those who wish it. If they don't want the better life style and want to
>>live without the convinces, that is great, they can put the money in a bank
>>and save it for hard times. What I am saying is the people should have a
>>choice in how they wish to live. Somehow you have missed what I'm saying. I
>>am saying people of any country should be able to choose their own standard
>>of living.
>
>
> Are you for real? Who do you think "chooses" poverty over wealth? I
> must have missed sending in the form that says "if you'd rather live
> in San Francisco with an income of $150,000 than in rural Nicaragua
> with $3,000, please check this box."

Personally, I think we ought to nominate A1 as Usenet Kook of the Month.
Of course we would all have to vote for him, but he does fit the
requirements.


jim

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dimitri" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > >
> > > "A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > If you want to know why the Mexican people can't afford that
> > refrigerator,
> > > > just go to these sites and see who promotes that unlivable low
wage,
> so
> > > > those wealthy people can continue to rob the poor in Mexico..
> > > > http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/nwstor...=96nw353121618
> > >
> > > You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".
> > >
> > > Please reflect upon your attitudes and you will understand why in
some
> > > places Americans are hated.
> > >
> > > Dimitri
>
>
> Obviously you just don't have a clue
>
>
> > How on earth can a person be hated for wanting an improved life style
for
> > those who wish it. If they don't want the better life style and want to
> > live without the convinces, that is great, they can put the money in a
> bank
> > and save it for hard times.
>
> Whose Values? Yours or theirs?
>
> What I am saying is the people should have a
> > choice in how they wish to live. Somehow you have missed what I'm
saying.
> I
> > am saying people of any country should be able to choose their own
> standard
> > of living. What is bad about that?
>
> Is called Communism and it doesn't work!
>
> There have been remarks made about why
> > the industry in the US is coming to Mexico. It was said that a better
> > product is made there, and that may be true, it was said that cheaper
> labor
> > cost also played a roll.
>
> Why is that bad? How else do you help an economy to grow?
>
> Johnson's "Great Society" while a good idea at the time only propogarted
the
> dissolotion of the family and "welfare generations".
>
>
> I say it was the biggest reason, when a company is
> > paying $15.00 per HOUR and can go to another country and get by with
only
> > paying $5.00 per DAY. And what are the benefit packages that the
companies
> > don't have to pay in Mexico or any other country where they can exploit
> the
> > labor force. I am not against the people of Mexico or any other
country,
> > just the opposite is true. Are you serious, when you say the worker
making
> > $5.00 per DAY would not be happier if they were making $7.00 or more
per
> > HOUR, that to me is unconceivable.
>
>
> I take it you flunked ECON 101.
>
> > Would you turn down that much of a raise in your pay check, NOT. People
> > that say "Money Isn't Everything", are usually the ones with the money.
> > Dolly Parton once said,"I've been poor and I've been rich, but Believe
Me,
> > Richer is Better".
> > > --
> > William Barfieldsr
>
>
> Back to my original statement.
>
> You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".
>
> Dimitri
>
> And you sir are as dumb as a brick.
>--
William Barfieldsr

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:34:16 GMT, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>Back to my original statement.
>
>You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".
>
>Dimitri
>
Dimitri, remember the irony in the title of the book, "The Ugly
American."

The character that title refers to was not the stupid, arrogant
state-department type, but the physically-ugly engineer who had
scarred hands and greasy fingernails because he spent so much of his
time helping the local people do what had to be done to fix a well or
keep an engine running or whatever else needed attention.

I don't know what Wayne looks like <BG>, but I think more of him
fitting that image than your present application.

David

"Frogleg" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:45:16 GMT, "A1 WBarfieldsr"
> > wrote:
>
> >How on earth can a person be hated for wanting an improved life style
for
> >those who wish it. If they don't want the better life style and want to
> >live without the convinces, that is great, they can put the money in a
bank
> >and save it for hard times. What I am saying is the people should have a
> >choice in how they wish to live. Somehow you have missed what I'm
saying. I
> >am saying people of any country should be able to choose their own
standard
> >of living.
>
> Are you for real? Who do you think "chooses" poverty over wealth? I
> must have missed sending in the form that says "if you'd rather live
> in San Francisco with an income of $150,000 than in rural Nicaragua
> with $3,000, please check this box."

My point exactly, NOBODY. What I'm getting, is scorn for proposing that
the workers in the factories should not live in poverty. I'm the hated one
for wishing for a better life for the workers in these countries that
exploit the people, by keeping them in poverty through low wages. NOBODY
should have to work for $5.00 dollars per DAY and 48 hours per week. I
think if my math is right that comes to about $45.00 per WEEK. But what I'm
proposing is communistic, according to Dimitri, who hasn't a clue as to
what a communistic society is . Dimitri needs to go to school and review
the differences between Communism and Capitalism. I think we have seen how
the former USSR went out of business, while the USA prospered. If your able
to work, you should work for your living, and get paid a livable wage, at
the very least. Those that can't work should be cared for by the taxes
imposed on those that do work, and those rich land owners and rich factory
owners.
I have never said the USA doesn't have it's faults, and they are many, but
I wouldn't live anywhere else.

--
William Barfieldsr

Wayne? Wayne? .........waiting anxiously for your reply.

I have read your sites that Mr. Barfield so graciously supplied
and I'm impressed! You've done your homework,
know the Mexican way of life well enough to navigate around
the possible "pitfalls", and seem to have a very good working knowledge
of how to do business in Mexico.

But, more so.....you obviously have a love for the rich culture of Mexico
and it's people, food, and long standing traditions.

I will always appeciate someone who can take something at it's face value
and appreciate it for WHAT IT IS, rather that trying to change it into what
THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE. ( Ahem, A1)

Sincerely, misschef

A1 WBarfieldsr on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:

>
>
> "Frogleg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Are you for real? Who do you think "chooses" poverty over wealth? I
>> must have missed sending in the form that says "if you'd rather live
>> in San Francisco with an income of $150,000 than in rural Nicaragua
>> with $3,000, please check this box."
>
> My point exactly, NOBODY. What I'm getting, is scorn for proposing
> that the workers in the factories should not live in poverty. I'm the
> hated one for wishing for a better life for the workers in these
> countries that exploit the people, by keeping them in poverty through
> low wages.

No, you're getting scorn for making statements that don't fit
reality, making ignorant comments about people's living conditions about
which they may not have any control over, and suggesting that the people
who are spending all their time to keep their families alive now
threaten their own limited economic viability by rebelling and perhaps
lowering their income to ZERO.

> NOBODY should have to work for $5.00 dollars per DAY and
> 48 hours per week. I think if my math is right that comes to about
> $45.00 per WEEK.

Perhaps in that reality that you live in, there are NINE days in
the week, but there aren't in mine. And actually, there would have to
be TEN days in the week, because workers are entitled to a day of rest.

--Douglas

"A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
...

> How on earth can a person be hated for wanting an improved life style for
> those who wish it. If they don't want the better life style and want to
> live without the convinces, that is great, they can put the money in a
bank
> and save it for hard times.
---snip---

I've been staying out of this fray, but can't stand it any longer. A1's
blatant stupidity regarding cultural difference is just too much. There was
a movie back in the 60's with Cantinflas on the beach in Acapulco, a bum,
beggar, poor, broke, panhandling... and this rich American is on the beach
sunning himself, margarita in one hand, oyster cocktail in the other. They
get into a 'discussion'. The A1 guy starts giving Cantinflas a lecture on
cleaning himself up, going to work, being punctual, striving to succeed,
stop just being a bum, go for broke, get a frige and TV... So Cantinflas
shows great interest in what A1 is saying, then he asks: "So, Mr bigshot...
why are you here on this beach?" A1 responds "I work my tail off to get a
couple of weeks off, to come to Acapulco, to spend my money to make you
rich, to enjoy my drink and oysters." Cantinflas shrugs, and says "I'm here
every day and don't have to do anything but be here."

A1, you have it all mixed up. The happiest people I have ever had the
pleasure to be with are the poor campesinos in Mexico who would gladly give
me the shirt off their back for just being human. My last trip to the ranch
my mother had to give up because of a stupid argument between her and my
stepdad, I was invited to a neighbor's new home and offered a snack. The
snack was the last egg this newlywed couple had in the whole house. It was
their pleasure to give me their meal for the day. Now go eat some crow and
begone with your arrogant stupidity.

Wayne

Thank you David, I'm glad to know at least one person in this world has read
the original book and knows that the Ugly American is all about. This is
most refreshing. And yes, I fit the picture in that I have given insight
into entrepreneurship, self reliance, change, capitalism and all of that
from the lowest, poorest Mexican husband or wife, to the most exalted of
executives of the sixth largest corporation in Mexico. A1 will blast the
world for the inequities, I'm out there in the trenches trying to breach
these inequities. Not with hate of the culture, nor hate of the villans nor
victims; but with a positive bent to show an alternative to both. It's an
uphill battle, but worth it.

A1 is the perfect spokesman for the narrow-minded, self-indulgent,
parrochail mindset of many in today's United States of Americas thining.

Wayne

"I've been staying out of this fray, but can't stand it any longer. A1's
> blatant stupidity regarding cultural difference is just too much.

> A1, you have it all mixed up. The happiest people I have ever had the
> pleasure to be with are the poor campesinos in Mexico who would gladly
give
> me the shirt off their back for just being human.


WOOO-HOOOO, Wayne!!!
my heart sings.......
XXX,OOO, misschef

"Misschef" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Wayne? Wayne? .........waiting anxiously for your reply.
>
> I have read your sites that Mr. Barfield so graciously supplied
> and I'm impressed! You've done your homework,
> know the Mexican way of life well enough to navigate around
> the possible "pitfalls", and seem to have a very good working knowledge
> of how to do business in Mexico.
>
> But, more so.....you obviously have a love for the rich culture of Mexico
> and it's people, food, and long standing traditions.
>
> I will always appeciate someone who can take something at it's face value
> and appreciate it for WHAT IT IS, rather that trying to change it into
what
> THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE. ( Ahem, A1)
>
> Sincerely, misschef
>
What an idiot, HAIL HAIL to the rich. What it should be to anyone, is to
live life as best as they can, and not be exploited beyond their control.
Wayne promotes the idea that workers should be happy making $5.00 per Day.
This is why he is selling the movement of factories from other countries to
Mexico. Now, if these companies were forced to pay at least $7.00 per HOUR,
NOT $5.00 per DAY, and include a benefit and retirement package for it's
workers, do you think the workers would grumble about the changes. I say
give the people the choice, not the other way around.

Misschef, I can't see why you think this is bad. It's called Democracy, not
a dictatorial rule. I havn't said anything about forcing the workers of any
country to accept better living contitions. If they want to stay at the
poverty level, I totally approve their choice, so long as it is THEIR
choice. Why would you keep these people in poverty when something could be
done to help them. The factory would still make a profit by cutting their
labor expences almost in half, and the worker could afford that
refrigerator or other convinces if they so chose. I can't see the logic in
refusing them this.

> --
William Barfieldsr

"Misschef" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Wayne? Wayne? .........waiting anxiously for your reply.
>
> I have read your sites that Mr. Barfield so graciously supplied
> and I'm impressed! You've done your homework---snip---

This string has been an eye-opener for me. A1's point of view is a complete
shock to me even though it reminds me of why I gave up Mormonism. Back in
'40 my mother and dad broke up and I was left in Logan Utah with my paternal
grandparents. Went to church, when the war started walked the neighborhood
for junk steel, cans and the like - put a picture of Hitler on the cherry
tree and shot my bow and arrow at it, hiked with the Boy Scouts, was told
anything I did with boys or girls in the chicken coop was ok until I reached
8 then it would all be a sin. But okay for now, no matter what. But that's
another story.

In 42 my mother married Capitan Ricardo Gonzalez Figueroa and we all got on
a DC3 in Tijuana and headed south. From 7 to 17 I was more a Mexican than an
American. My schooling was in a Mexican public school. My friends in Mexico
City and our ranch in Veracruz were humble servant-class Mexicans with few
exceptions. So I learned how so little in the form of ingredients could make
so much in the resulting taste, pleasure and joy in eating. I avoid any
restaurant with "All you can Eat" as the main feature.

I got into a spoiled brat syndrome about two years after I was in Mexico and
begged my Utah relatives for reprieve. My aunt came to Mexico, partied, had
a ball, spend my War Bonds, and took me back. The first few weeks in school
were killers. Since I had learned Spanish, I spoke with a bit of an accent.
Instead of saying Zenith with a hard ee, I said it with a soft e like in
elephant. Zenith, and i was a hard i, like ee - a reversal, if you will, of
pronunciation. I was promptly called the Mexican Moron.

How's that for temperance?

So in this rather interesting string, A1 is again proving himself as the
schoolyard bully that convinced me to pack my bags and go back to Mexico
where discrimination is almost unheard of. Negroes, Americans, Japanese,
Chinese, Mongols and whoever else has a place in the Mexican culture - even
queers, queens, maternalistic societies, pagans, Christians and the like.
They may have to find niches and sometimes avoid direct contact, but there
is a place for all.

A1 will never be able to see any of this. It is so completely opposite his
life's paradigm. I feel sorry for him. He is missing so much!

Wayne

"Douglas S. Ladden" > wrote in message
9.17...
> A1 WBarfieldsr on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:
>
> >
> >
> > "Frogleg" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Are you for real? Who do you think "chooses" poverty over wealth? I
> >> must have missed sending in the form that says "if you'd rather live
> >> in San Francisco with an income of $150,000 than in rural Nicaragua
> >> with $3,000, please check this box."
> >
> > My point exactly, NOBODY. What I'm getting, is scorn for proposing
> > that the workers in the factories should not live in poverty. I'm the
> > hated one for wishing for a better life for the workers in these
> > countries that exploit the people, by keeping them in poverty through
> > low wages.
>
> No, you're getting scorn for making statements that don't fit
> reality, making ignorant comments about people's living conditions about
> which they may not have any control over, and suggesting that the people
> who are spending all their time to keep their families alive now
> threaten their own limited economic viability by rebelling and perhaps
> lowering their income to ZERO.
>
> > NOBODY should have to work for $5.00 dollars per DAY and
> > 48 hours per week. I think if my math is right that comes to about
> > $45.00 per WEEK.
>
> Perhaps in that reality that you live in, there are NINE days in
> the week, but there aren't in mine. And actually, there would have to
> be TEN days in the week, because workers are entitled to a day of rest.
>
> --Douglas
That kind of talk was shouted when they formed the first unions, but look
at what the Unions have attained for the workers. Not only better and safer
working conditions, higher wages, but a say in how they are to be treated
by those Rich factory owners. When those first unions were formed, not only
were there comfort sacrifices made, there were heads busted on both sides.
This didn't stop the workers from getting what they were entitled to. It
didn't then and it doesn't now, and it shouldn't stop the workers in other
countries from getting a fair deal for their labor..
--
William Barfieldsr

"A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
...
> That kind of talk was shouted when they formed the first unions, but look
> at what the Unions have attained for the workers. Not only better and
safer
> working conditions, higher wages, but a say in how they are to be treated
> by those Rich factory owners. When those first unions were formed, not
only
> were there comfort sacrifices made, there were heads busted on both sides.
> This didn't stop the workers from getting what they were entitled to. It
> didn't then and it doesn't now, and it shouldn't stop the workers in other
> countries from getting a fair deal for their labor..
> --
> William Barfieldsr
---snip---

Bill, your paradigm is based on the Boston Tea Party where rebels were able
to rebel again and again because of the nature of the beast. You must
understand that the Mexican culture is 180 degrees out of phase with what we
live in this country and what is our cultural heritage.

Consider: Around 1,000 AD the whole of Mexico was an agrarian civilization
with trade and commerce flourishing, from Florida to Tierra del Fuego.
Around 1,200 the northern nomads we know as Apaches, Comanches were then
called Chichimecas to the native sedentary cities and communities south of
Torreon in the high central valleys between the Sierra Madre Occidental and
Sierra Madre Oriental, from El Paso, to the Darien Straights in Panama.
Because of global warming.... yes, and this is not fiction nor oratory....
global warming has been taking place for the last 40,000 years, drying up
the rich grasslands of New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and forcing the
hunter/gathering tribes to seek food elswhere. Being hunters, they knew how
to use the atlatl, bow and arrow and spear. They knew how to kill mammals
but not how to plant a seed and make pottery while the seed grew to give a
hundred seeds for every one invested. (I'd love to have that kind of
incentive today!).

So the Chichimecas ambled south, finding it easy to slay a farmer and take
his grain. And so the peaceful farming, pottery, art oriented people of the
Toltecs, Tarascans, Texcocans, Mayas and other fell under the Aztec war club
and their hearts torn from their chests and tossed to the multitudes, as
Cortez and his 300 braves discovered when they finally put an end to the
Aztecs. Only to use what the Aztecs had invented for the Amerindians:
Slavery and obedience above all.

Mexicans have lived through this arrangement now for over two thousand
years. It is inbred and part of the culture. You are either a rich man who
has total dominion over your serfs, or you are a peon who depends totally on
the master. Even in huge capitalistic organizations you see this
relationships. To put it bluntly: When the boss asks his chaufer what time
it is, the chaufer will respond "Whatever time you want it to be, sir". And
this is no joke. This is reality.

So, A1, you want unions in Mexico. They have existed since the revolution
that brought the PRI to power in the 20's. They are franchises. If your
grandfather was lucky enough to have been a soldier in the revolution you
were given a franchise of your choice - notary public, customs broker,
union.... among the many choices. So today's unions have been in power in
Mexico since the 20's and their only purpose for being is to collect dues.
These dues are collected either from the workers or the company. If you want
a white union, you agree to pay the union boss the wages of one or two
employees per hundred per year and they leave you alone. If you balk, then
you will see the dreaded black flag across the door to your place of
business on a bright Monday morning when you had expected to simply do
business. But now you are locked out of your own business. That's the union
in Mexico and it will not change because people are not rebellious in
Mexico. They take it in their stride. This, is what you are failing to
recognize.

Wayne

>

"Wayne Lundberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Misschef" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Wayne? Wayne? .........waiting anxiously for your reply.
> >
>>
> So in this rather interesting string, A1 is again proving himself as the
> schoolyard bully that convinced me to pack my bags and go back to Mexico
> where discrimination is almost unheard of. Negroes, Americans, Japanese,
> Chinese, Mongols and whoever else has a place in the Mexican culture -
even
> queers, queens, maternalistic societies, pagans, Christians and the like.
> They may have to find niches and sometimes avoid direct contact, but
there
> is a place for all.
>
> A1 will never be able to see any of this. It is so completely opposite
his
> life's paradigm. I feel sorry for him. He is missing so much!
>
> Wayne
>
> Who have I bullied? I have not tried to force anyone to do anything. I
have not spoken ill of any of the working class. Explain how you come to
those conclusions. I have said time , and time again, If the people want to
live like they live today, then I am all for it, but if they are forced to
live like this, then there should be changes made. You talk like I'm
attacking the people, I'm not. Why can't you see that. What I have
propossed is to show them there is another way, and let the people chose
what road to travel.
> --
William Barfieldsr

"A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
...

> > Back to my original statement.
> >
> > You sir are the embodiment of "The Ugly American".
> >
> > Dimitri
> >
> > And you sir are as dumb as a brick.
> >--
> William Barfieldsr

That's it?

Awe come on is that the best you can do?

Let's have some of that good old American anger and arrogance?

Hmmm Lets see. How about "You I take it your mother worked on her back in
TJ"

Then again you could say, "Are you a greaser?, You sound like a pachuko"

How about, "I'll bet you know the translation to La Bamba?"

You could be a little more subtle. "I hope your air shocks spring a leak"

You are a goat! (Translated)

ROTFLMAO!

Dimitri

A1 WBarfieldsr on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:

>
>
>
> "Douglas S. Ladden" > wrote in message
> 9.17...
>> A1 WBarfieldsr on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Frogleg" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> Are you for real? Who do you think "chooses" poverty over wealth?
>> >> I must have missed sending in the form that says "if you'd rather
>> >> live in San Francisco with an income of $150,000 than in rural
>> >> Nicaragua with $3,000, please check this box."
>> >
>> > My point exactly, NOBODY. What I'm getting, is scorn for
>> > proposing that the workers in the factories should not live in
>> > poverty. I'm the hated one for wishing for a better life for the
>> > workers in these countries that exploit the people, by keeping
>> > them in poverty through low wages.
>>
>> No, you're getting scorn for making statements that don't fit
>> reality, making ignorant comments about people's living conditions
>> about which they may not have any control over, and suggesting that
>> the people who are spending all their time to keep their families
>> alive now threaten their own limited economic viability by rebelling
>> and perhaps lowering their income to ZERO.
>>
>> > NOBODY should have to work for $5.00 dollars per DAY and
>> > 48 hours per week. I think if my math is right that comes to about
>> > $45.00 per WEEK.
>>
>> Perhaps in that reality that you live in, there are NINE days in
>> the week, but there aren't in mine. And actually, there would have
>> to be TEN days in the week, because workers are entitled to a day of
>> rest.
>>
>> --Douglas
> That kind of talk was shouted when they formed the first unions, but
> look at what the Unions have attained for the workers. Not only
> better and safer working conditions, higher wages, but a say in how
> they are to be treated by those Rich factory owners. When those first
> unions were formed, not only were there comfort sacrifices made,
> there were heads busted on both sides. This didn't stop the workers
> from getting what they were entitled to. It didn't then and it
> doesn't now, and it shouldn't stop the workers in other countries
> from getting a fair deal for their labor..

There was a big difference between then and now. Then, the
factory owners couldn't easily move to another part of the country, much
less the world, like China, where the labor is even cheaper. Today they
can. And you've seen it in the U.S., that when labor demands get
"excessive" they simply shut the factory down, build one where labor is
cheap, and hire the cheap labor. It's a completely different world.
Oh, there are many unions in Mexico, and it's a rare industry that
doesn't have labor represented by one, and they clearly recognize that
reality.

--Douglas

> > Who have I bullied? I have not tried to force anyone to do anything. I
> have not spoken ill of any of the working class. Explain how you come to
> those conclusions. I have said time , and time again, If the people want
to
> live like they live today, then I am all for it, but if they are forced to
> live like this, then there should be changes made. You talk like I'm
> attacking the people, I'm not. Why can't you see that. What I have
> propossed is to show them there is another way, and let the people chose
> what road to travel.
> > --
> William Barfieldsr

Come on A1... all you have done in this sting is to be critical of Mexicans
for not overthrowing their oppressors.

Wayne

>

Methinks this A1 is a group of students at a pshychology lab in some college
testing us like rats in a maze. They plant bait and we bite then when we
reply with rightous indignation, they clap, fill out clipboards full of
columns and begin to categorize us in one or the other. This A1 is playing
us like mice in a maze and we are falling for it line, hook and sinker.

Wayne

"Wayne Lundberg" > wrote in message
...
> > > Who have I bullied? I have not tried to force anyone to do anything.
I
> > have not spoken ill of any of the working class. Explain how you come to
> > those conclusions. I have said time , and time again, If the people want
> to
> > live like they live today, then I am all for it, but if they are forced
to
> > live like this, then there should be changes made. You talk like I'm
> > attacking the people, I'm not. Why can't you see that. What I have
> > propossed is to show them there is another way, and let the people chose
> > what road to travel.
> > > --
> > William Barfieldsr
>
> Come on A1... all you have done in this sting is to be critical of
Mexicans
> for not overthrowing their oppressors.
>
> Wayne


Lets put his name on the top of the list for "Kill a Commie for Christ
week"

Dimitri

Wayne Lundberg on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:

> My friends in Mexico City and our ranch in Veracruz were
> humble servant-class Mexicans with few exceptions. So I learned how
> so little in the form of ingredients could make so much in the
> resulting taste, pleasure and joy in eating. I avoid any restaurant
> with "All you can Eat" as the main feature.
>
May I recommend one restaurant in Mexico City that is "All you can
Eat", though I don't know if that is the main feature. If I recall
correctly, it is called "Los Campiranos", not too far from Insurgentes. I
was only able to go twice, but what a wonderful experience.

Almost all the offerings are traditional Mexican dishes (except the
french fries *laf*), and since there were many things I did not recognize,
I enjoyed the buffet style, as I could try small portions of many things,
and then go back for what delighted my fancy. On one of the days I went,
they had both Barbacoa, and Cecina de Yecapixtla, and I was just in
heaven. Everything was so delicious. I recommend it highly.

--Douglas

OK, but please give us some more info on what will be on the menu for that
particular week, and what kind of mariachi or Huasteco group is to play the
music, and will there be piñatas and fire-works?

Wayne

"Dimitri" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Wayne Lundberg" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > > Who have I bullied? I have not tried to force anyone to do
anything.
> I
> > > have not spoken ill of any of the working class. Explain how you come
to
> > > those conclusions. I have said time , and time again, If the people
want
> > to
> > > live like they live today, then I am all for it, but if they are
forced
> to
> > > live like this, then there should be changes made. You talk like I'm
> > > attacking the people, I'm not. Why can't you see that. What I have
> > > propossed is to show them there is another way, and let the people
chose
> > > what road to travel.
> > > > --
> > > William Barfieldsr
> >
> > Come on A1... all you have done in this sting is to be critical of
> Mexicans
> > for not overthrowing their oppressors.
> >
> > Wayne
>
>
> Lets put his name on the top of the list for "Kill a Commie for Christ
> week"
>
> Dimitri
>
>

"Douglas S. Ladden" > wrote in message
9.17...
> Wayne Lundberg on 22 Oct 2003 suggested:

> May I recommend one restaurant in Mexico City that is "All you can
> Eat", though I don't know if that is the main feature. If I recall
> correctly, it is called "Los Campiranos", not too far from Insurgentes. I
> was only able to go twice, but what a wonderful experience.
>
> Almost all the offerings are traditional Mexican dishes (except the
> french fries *laf*), and since there were many things I did not recognize,
> I enjoyed the buffet style, as I could try small portions of many things,
> and then go back for what delighted my fancy. On one of the days I went,
> they had both Barbacoa, and Cecina de Yecapixtla, and I was just in
> heaven. Everything was so delicious. I recommend it highly.
>
> --Douglas

I take it back. When confronted with obvious delights such as this, then for
sure, all you can eat is the way to go.

Wayne

>

"Wayne Lundberg" > wrote in message
...
> > > Who have I bullied? I have not tried to force anyone to do anything.
I
> > have not spoken ill of any of the working class. Explain how you come
to
> > those conclusions. I have said time , and time again, If the people
want
> to
> > live like they live today, then I am all for it, but if they are forced
to
> > live like this, then there should be changes made. You talk like I'm
> > attacking the people, I'm not. Why can't you see that. What I have
> > propossed is to show them there is another way, and let the people
chose
> > what road to travel.
> > > --
> > William Barfieldsr
>
> Come on A1... all you have done in this sting is to be critical of
Mexicans
> for not overthrowing their oppressors.
>
> Wayne
>
> >I guess you are right Wayne. There is just too much fight in me for
freedom. I believe you either live free are you die fighting for that
freedom. There is no compromise, Semper Fidelis.
> --
William Barfieldsr

>

"A1 WBarfieldsr" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > >I guess you are right Wayne. There is just too much fight in me for
> freedom. I believe you either live free are you die fighting for that
> freedom. There is no compromise, Semper Fidelis.
> > --
> William Barfieldsr

For a few years I have been paid to show California businesses how to gain
from trading with Mexico. From experience I know the major obstacles and I
illustrate them through examples and experience. To set the stage I show a
series of slides that show a Roman reaching through the window of his home
for a grape, and his son catching a fish with a simple lure, and it's in
winter. This is on the Mediterranean, of course. I then show a series of
slides of a Saxon, a barbarian, hustling and bustling for food and wood,
enough to keep his family fed and warmed during the winter months. I then
explain that in our genes we white folk have the Viking gene which tells us
that we must hurry like heck during the six months of fair weather in order
to stash enough to survive for the six when nothing is there. So time and
projects become our God. To the Romans, it matters not. They can reach out
and feed themselves at any time without the slightest pain.

Well... Mexico is a nation conquered by Mediterranean cultures, from the
Spanish and Portuguese, to the Italians, Greeks and Arabians. These cultures
thrived on a never-ending supply of goodies and slavery.

You have that Viking gene that keeps you moving ahead regardless of the
odds. Mexicans are one of two - they are inheritors of the
Mediterranean/European wealth without an effort, or they are slaves. There
is a middle class which is totally confused and without a prayer. They hate
Americans, but love American products, TV and movies.

It's a wonderful world we live in if we can see it as spectators. And Bill,
I think you are enjoying the hell out of all the attention you are getting
from this newsgroup.

Wayne

"Wayne Lundberg" > wrote in message
...
> Methinks this A1 is a group of students at a pshychology lab in some
college
> testing us like rats in a maze. They plant bait and we bite then when we
> reply with rightous indignation, they clap, fill out clipboards full of
> columns and begin to categorize us in one or the other. This A1 is
playing
> us like mice in a maze and we are falling for it line, hook and sinker.
>
> Wayne
>
> LMAO, look how long this thread has gone with absolutely nothing to do
with Mexican cooking. It has been entertaining, and I, as should you have
known, that nothing I said was going to change the Mexican culture. They
are what they are.
> --
William Barfieldsr

It's been fun!

Wayne Lundberg wrote:
> Methinks this A1 is a group of students at a pshychology lab in some college
> testing us like rats in a maze. They plant bait and we bite then when we
> reply with rightous indignation, they clap, fill out clipboards full of
> columns and begin to categorize us in one or the other. This A1 is playing
> us like mice in a maze and we are falling for it line, hook and sinker.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>

He's not that intelligent. In fact, he's lower on the totem pole than
the UPS - MBA dude on TV.


jim