@mysteryman,
I prefer to sell Alaska back to the Russians for about $300 trillion dollars.
@cicerone imposter,
I think selling California makes alot more sense.
@okie,
Yeah, why don't you try it? ROFL
@okie,
But who would you sell it to?
If you want to sell it back to the people we got it from, you would have to sell part of it to Mexico and part of it to Russia.
After all, Russia did control parts of northern Ca.
@mysteryman,
I see; like minds think alike. ROFL
@cicerone imposter,
Are you going to actually try and deny what I said about who once controlled Ca?
@mysteryman,
trivia I'm not interested in. You can claim anything you wish about California.
@cicerone imposter,
Actually, you seem to be only worried about what others have said, and you cant stand the fact that you are most likely wrong about something.
You might have learned something, but you seem to be running away instead.
Why is that?
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
But who would you sell it to?
If you want to sell it back to the people we got it from, you would have to sell part of it to Mexico and part of it to Russia.
After all, R
Russia did control parts of northern Ca.
I don't honestly know. I'm not sure anyone would want it, given the debts piling up.
@cicerone imposter,
Then, instead of Sarah seeing Russia from her front porch, she'd be in it!
Wonderful. What's they're laws about children born out of wedlock?
Russians, from Alaska, were moving down the coast, and in 1812 established Fort Ross, a fur trading outpost on the coast of today's Sonoma County. Fort Ross was the southernmost point of expansion, meeting the Spanish northern expansion some 70 miles (113 km) north of San Francisco. In 1841, as the American presence in Northern California began to increase and politics began to change the region, a deal was made with John Sutter and the Russians abandoned their Northern California settlements.
-Encyclopedia Britannica
@okie,
okie wrote:
I think selling California makes alot more sense.
Haha, we could buy your pissant little state anytime we chose. What makes you think you could sell off the world's 6th largest economy?
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, Glad to see you wish to humor okie with his juvenile opinions that's based only on his juvenile brain with a juvenile imagination.
@cicerone imposter,
I see a very interesting trend happening in the currency markets now; the Euro is losing ground to the British pound. That will make trade more difficult between the two countries where most of their trade comes from. This is happening at a time in the world economy where international trade becomes more competitive and needed to survive.
I wonder about two issues; 1) trade between the European countries, and 2) trade with other countries (as their currency value drops).
I hear that you're going green. That should be a laugh.
@spendius,
You must be laughing at an inside joke.
@cicerone imposter,
Good news! I'm even on my retirement funds for YTD as of yesterday.
(But not for long.)
Kind of an interesting graph. Looks like more blue toward the top of the graph. And Michigan with one of the highest rates of union membership leads the pack.
@okie,
Pretty chart, okie. What % of workers in MI belong to a union?
@realjohnboy,
rjb, Your question got me curious, so this is what I found:
Quote:The Decline of the Union Movement in Michigan
Download PDF of the larger publication
By the terms of Michigan’s prevailing wage statute, the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth is required to look at union rates exclusively in determining the prevailing wage. At the time the state law was passed, this might have been a reasonable way to find a prevailing wage. While there are no reliable figures for the state prior to 1983, it is estimated that in 1966, just one year after Michigan’s law was passed, union members made up 41.4 percent of the U.S. construction work force.[25] Given Michigan’s history as a heavily unionized state, it is very likely that half or nearly half of Michigan construction workers were covered by collective bargaining agreements, and the union rates generally did prevail at the time Michigan’s law was passed.
But since 1966, the percentage of American workers who belong to unions has been inexorably dropping, and workers in Michigan and the construction industry are no exception.* According to an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, the trend for the last 20 years has been downward: In 1986, 32.8 percent of construction workers in Michigan were union members; by 1996, that figure was 25.6 percent; and in 2006, only 22.1 percent of Michigan construction workers were union members.[26] Hence, Michigan’s prevailing wage law is based on wage rates for a shrinking minority of construction workers.
