BajaNomad

A question asked by David K

Packoderm - 9-18-2003 at 08:38 AM

Q for the Baja Political Board: What would happen if America had such a law to protect jobs for its citizens? Where would Mexicans go, to feed their families?

Here's my reply:

I think that if this were to happen, Mexico would either have to swim or sink. If they wanted to swim, they would have to start a very, very unpleasant task of building a viable, widespread, participatory economy, like the U.S. did from the 1920s to the 1960s. This is a very unpleasant task where workers must risk the wellbeing of their own families for the larger public good. People will even kill other people in order to try to prevent the building of a participatory economy in place of the caste system that has worked so well for the wealthy families for so long. In addition, there are ideological enemies to building or maintaining participatory economies who believe that a middle class is an unaffordable luxury. Sometimes this is due to a superiority complex. Such enemies of the middle class exist in the U.S. today, and could be the reason the U.S. seems to be sliding into third world status. In fact, I have heard rumblings the some U.S. conservatives want to abolish the minimum wage altogether.

Inequality there and here

Stephanie Jackter - 9-18-2003 at 03:29 PM

Who needs to abolish the minimum wage? Ten percent of the work force is unemployed and those who are still employed are busy accepting lower wages right and left just to hold onto their jobs. Meanwhile, the rich are still getting richer.....-Stephanie

Unions

Capt. George - 9-18-2003 at 04:53 PM

As the disparity in wages rise so too will the next union movement. I don't know if such a movement would work in Baja but I do know it was a very important factor in the rise of the middle class in the U.S. of A. Capt. George

Stephanie Jackter - 9-18-2003 at 10:43 PM

Funny you should mention unionization, George. I was just at a neighborhood association meeting for one of the most economically depressed areas of Tucson (80% hispanic, large percentage illegal, low income and victim to all kinds of economic predation), and found out there's a group called ACORN organizing union style in the neighborhood to pressure politicians to do neighborhood improvements, immigrants to organize for basic rights (there's a big march on Washington planned, by the way), and give seminars on how to get legalized and avoid predatory lending practices, which are widespread in the neighborhood.

They're charging ten dollars a month dues and surprisingly, have already gotten 20 neighborhood families signed up over the last couple of months. They may be onto something.

The only question is how far down the road to poverty people can be herded like sheep before they understand that collective resistance is the only way to get treated fairly.- Stephanie

unemployment ?

Big Al - 9-19-2003 at 12:39 PM

Sorry Stafanie, but the unemployment rate for August 2003 was 6.1 percent that is a long way from 10%. And unions in Baja are a big problem in the Maquiladors. The Mexican labor laws are also a big problem. They are designed to protect the worker but eventually cause the worker to be trapped because of the large payoff they are entitled too should they be let go. This stagnates people into jobs that they may not be happy with. Maquiladoras are not the answer to there problems either. When Mexican salaries start to rise than foreign interests will go east. EDUCATION is the painful next step for Mexico.

The rich may be getting richer, but so be it. I don't have a problem with that. It's a matter of choices an investments with their money. And despite popular belief, the rich pay more than their share in taxes. Seems like everyone in this country is looking for a handout.

IMHO

We all know the unemployment rate is a lie.

Stephanie Jackter - 9-19-2003 at 01:22 PM

The official unemployment rate only counts people who are recently unemployed, not those who have dropped off the radar and are still looking but not recieving assistance. It is a fiction. And being at an all time high, I would look at my ten percent figure as conservative. I know two people myself who have been unemployed for over two years and one who just got back on the roles, but has had to go from making 9.50 and hour to 7.00 an hour and is now classified as part time and can't afford insurance or even birthday parties for her two children. That's what's going on right now in this country.

Another of my friends just lost her home of 17 years to a predatory lender that was charging her 20 some percent interest. Back in the old days, they used to jail people that charged that kind of interest. These days it's just called "good business".

The only growth businesses I see in Tucson right now are Walgreens drug stores and Payday Loan outlets, both businesses who make their wealth charging too much for what they provide and leaving a lot of people destitute. I think that symbolizes what's going on in America in spades.

Mexico? Ni hablar. I would agree with you that unionization has been disastrous in Mexico, but because it has been done the wrong way. My father was an American exectutive in Mexico City and complained regularly about people who weren't doing their jobs that he nevertheless wasn't able to fire because they were with the unions. But there are many who are unionizing for the most basic employer respect, such as at the machilas, that are in a totally different category of desperation and are having their attempts at unionization busted.

I have a hard time believing at this point that education is the answer. The American population is well educated and look what's happening to the middle class here! What is necessary to do is exactly the opposite of what's happening. We need to stop doing business with China , Indonesia, Dominica and other countries that pay employees 7 dollars a week to produce products and buy and sell our products only with those countries who pay a living wage.

Protectionism has become a dirty word. But I believe it is the only answer to raising the standard of living of those around us.- Stephanie

Education

Big Al - 9-19-2003 at 01:23 PM

I think I may be in need of a little more education as well. I read my post when it went up and it had a lot of errors.

Sorry

Stephanie Jackter - 9-19-2003 at 01:40 PM

You're far from illiterate. A few spelling errors are no problem with me. Hopefully, my own won't be criticized too liberally.

I figure I have a limited amount of time. If I'm writing a resume or a letter to the editor, I'll take some of that time to proof read. If I'm writing to a message board, it's just not likely to happen.

I promise not to be the spelling and grammar police and hopefully, you all will too!- Stephanie

Big Al - 9-19-2003 at 05:19 PM

Thanks for the slack Steffanie. Unfortunately I still have to disagree. The official unemployment rate only counts people who are activley looking for employment not the ones that are happy with public assistance or not those who have dropped off the radar. The unemployment rate may not be accurate but it is the measuring stick that we use and it is consistant. By the way it is not at an all time high. It was at 7.5% when Clinton took office in 1992.

I can't believe anyone can raise two children on even $9.50 an hour. Proper education would help here make far more than that. My receptionist makes more than that without a degree. Your problem with what is going on in this country is an accute problem. I have competitiors trying to steal my employees. I have to give them $15,000 raises just to get them to stay.

Predatory lenders provide a service that your friend was willing to do business with. They charge these rates to people who have bad credit and are susceptible to losing their homes. It is all based on risk, and someone must pay for the risk. With interest rates at all time lows 3-6%, there is no reason she should have to business with these lenders unless she is a risk.

If the only growth businesses you see in Tucson right now are Walgreens drug stores and Payday Loan outlets, maybe it's time to leave Tucson.

The main reason you can't fire people in Mexico is because of the big payday they receive based on years of service. Even your personnel housekeeper is entitled to this severence pay when you fire her for steeling (personal experience).

I am telling you the more people are educated the better off the people. natural resources can't help if the people can't help better themselves. Look at Japan a small overpopulated island where the people do quite well mainly because they are highly educated. I agree we need to stop doing business with China , Indonesia, Dominica and other countries that pay employees 7 dollars a week to produce products and buy and sell our products only with those countries who pay a living wage.

See we can agree on a few things.

Big Al

Great discussion

yosemitejim - 9-19-2003 at 09:04 PM

I was lurking for awhile but was impressed with the tone of this conversation so I decided to include myself, if you all don't mind.

Packoderm noted that Mexico needs to model the American worker and economic model from 1920 - 1960. I wholeheartedly agree and I believe the true backbone of this period of American economic renaissance was not the capitalists but the unions. This period corresponds with the height of the American labor movement. It was on the backs of American union workers that the American dream was built. Not the moneychangers.

Sorry Al, I would have to agree with Stephanie on the unemployment rate issue. The unemployment rate is definitely in excess of 10%. The percentage rate is subject to great manipulation simply by buracratic changes in reporting requirements. What cannot be disputed is that in 1998 there were more than 2,000,000 more Americans employed than in the recent Department of Commerce figures. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure, so to speak.

Stephanie, I wholehearedly agree with you regarding your call for protectionism. I am totally opposed to globalism which has been a complete disaster for so many with unbelievable benefits to a select few giant corporations. I was pleased that the poorer nations stood in unity against the massive welfare provided American, European, and Japanese agricultural interests.

Packoderm, I must comment on your observation regarding Americans only for American jobs. With so many Americans unemployed, I can totally sympathize with these folks and understand protectionism regarding jobs. However, I happen to work in California's central valley, the nation's richest agricultural region. These interests, which control almost all local politics, do not want economic development or a low unemployment rate. These interests rely on low-paid workers with few options. I could show you farmworker housing that you wouldn't want your dog to live in.

Thank you all for the opportunity to respond to your discussion points.

Respectflully,
Jim

Packoderm - 9-20-2003 at 09:39 AM

Hola Yosemite Jim, I think the comments about the American jobs for only Americans was made by Mrs. Jackter. There are pros and cons to protectionism. As far as the companies that rely on how cheap immigrant labor is: The cost of labor is less than 10 % of the cost of producing produce. It is not my intent to sound like a fellow traveler; however, the agricultural bosses could theoretically double, or even triple, the laborer?s income without really hurting anybody except the labor contractors whose margins have been squeezed to the nitty-gritty. As far as nobody (American) wanting these jobs, I believe that our current financial roadmap is leading us to awesome opportunities to reintroduce the American populace to manual labor. Everybody will be hurting so bad that there will be fierce competition for these once spurned jobs. I myself am no stranger to manual labor; I could out-labor any dot-commer any day; no contest. In a way, I think it would be a great opportunity for every white-collar American worker to have to spend 60 hours a week picking produce for people in some other country who have managed to maintain their participatory economy, or build one where a less successful economic system once stood, such as the caste system. Picking tomatoes didn?t hurt my grandfather then, and it won?t hurt anybody today. Who needs Pol-Pot when we can achieve the same goals by cannibalizing our own economy and eating up our natural resources, such as cranking out new homes in California where the world?s most productive agricultural land once stood? I hope by then Mexico will finally get its act together so we can sneak into Mexico for more agricultural employment opportunities.

Stephanie Jackter - 9-20-2003 at 10:12 AM

Thanks for the term of respect, Pachoderm, but I ain't no Mrs. and am not likely to be one in this lifetime. If needs be formality, Ms. will do. But getting out from under the name hasn't gotten me free of housework and organizing my son's birhtday party overnighter, so I'll be brief today.

When I spoke of protectionism, I wasn't very clear, but was thinking more globally than about strictly holding onto jobs in the U.S. I believe that we should get together with other countries in this hemisphere and even abroad and decide what a reasonable global living wage would be, and not allow our international companies to manufacture in other countries without paying that wage. For me, it would be around 20 or 30 dollars a day. It might still serve to bring wages down in the United States, but it's not like they're not going that way already, and if we truly are the inovative powerhouse that creates wealth all over the world as the conservatives like to posit, I wouldn't see even a dent in our economy cause we're so darned creative.

Otherwise, maybe we could use to pick a few of our own tomatoes. We have got to quit sucking up 75% of the world's resources and spread the wealth or else we will be hated and overthrown in the long run anyway.....- Stephanie



TMW - 9-20-2003 at 10:12 AM

I believe that 5% of the population is unemployable due to a lot of reasons, alcohol, drugs, mentally unstable, you name it. Another 10% maybe more, are questionable. By that I mean They may talk a good line then after hired they can't do the job. It has a lot to do with their skill level, education and focus. Some will work for cash and fall between the cracks. I agree that the offical job level is not the true level but is a yard stick.

Some are unemployed because they will not move to the job. They were born and raised in that area and that's where they will stay and die. I've seen that in Lubbock, TX and Bakersfield, CA. Many of the better paying jobs are gotten because of networking.

I have an openning for a parttime job, 30 hrs minimum with benefits (medical, dental and vision). Some experience required. IBEW union. Audio/video/computer training and/or experience necessary. Pay is $9.50 to start and $16.12 after 3 months training and showing the ability to operate the computer production system. Possible full time position after 1 year, pay scale to $25 hr. Must pass drug test.

I have been running an ad on the internet, local paper and all the colleges and employment offices for a week. Right now I have 6 applicants. 4 don't meet the minimum, no audio/video/computer training or experience.

Any suggestions.

Packoderm - 9-20-2003 at 10:39 AM

Stephanie, my intention was quite the opposite of formality when I used a title and your last name. These days, first names and nicknames are used to the point of anonymity. For instance, in the Reading Center where I tutor developing readers at the community college that I attend, I noticed a shy, young, foreign looking student who looked like he felt out of place. I knew his first and last name by my logging him in the computer system each session. One time, for no reason, I addressed him by the title ?Mr.? and his last name. He flashed a big smile, and a connection was made. Now I am sure you do not need a psychological lift such as this; however, today, titles and last names are used as a gesture of casual affection. I cannot bring myself to refer to you as Stephanie Jackter every time. Mrs. Packoderm would not like me corresponding with women on the internet on a first name basis. How?s Miss Jackter? Ms. Jackter? I have always been curious as to how women today feel about the title ?Ms.? It just seems so 70s. My mother subscribed to a magazine called ?Ms.?

And, my name is not Pachoderm or Pacoderm. It is PacKoDerm. And that will be Mr. Packoderm, thank you very much. (just kidding)

UNIONS

Capt. George - 9-20-2003 at 12:03 PM

God, I love this board, All you Mr., Mrs., Ms. Master, Lady Mamm (?) spelling not too good after a few.

I come from a NYC union background, my father was an organizer for the teamsters,
as was my mother! She helped organize the Good Humor Ice Cream Company...

I truly believe we have a middle class (although rapidly shrinking) because of the union movement. I've seen it firsthand. After leaveing the FDNY, I entered the I.U.O.E, Local 15, a heavy equip. union based in NYC. As strong as that union was (and is) it's basic motto was, "if the contactor don't make no money, we don't".

So all the naysayers and corrupters of the union movement, "you're wrong". There's reaches a point when the "rich get richer and the poor keep working" becomes almost perverse......We're getting real close to that in the U.S. of A. Remember the Robber Barons and child labor....if the unions keep backing off, you just might see it again.....

Adios Amigos,

Capt. Georg

JESSE - 9-20-2003 at 09:27 PM

What the U.S. and Mexico need is to stop bull******* each other and make hard desitions about their futures. As a Mexican i believe that Mexican immigration to the U.S. has been the perfect tool for the Mexican goverment to avoid facing responsibility for doing a miserable job with a country with such vast potential, i do wish that all of those millions of poor and agry Mexicans stayed home and put a hell of a lot of pressure on the goverment, instead, they move to the U.S. taking a huige burden off the back of the politicos here, who in turn keep screwing us who stay home perpetually.

On the other hand and this is my belief, the U.S. absolutely needs the cheap Mexican labor, otherwise they would't allow it, if you can defeat Germany and Japan, defeat an entire army in the middle east with less than 200 casualties!!! and shuttle people from orbit back and fort, you can absolutely close your borders if you wanted to, that simple fact shows that the U.S. needs the labor.

So its time to cut the bull, and either agree on closing the borders entirely, or create a long term north american union similar to what the euros have, both our nations can't keep pretending nothing is going on while the rest of the world has nations like China who have exploding economies that will dwarf ours in the near future, and will eventually take our place as the premiere developers of technology in the planet.

Mutual Aid

Capt. George - 9-21-2003 at 05:05 AM

Jesse, Bravo! But how do the poor in Mexico find time to put pressure on a less then caring government? I have fought the Interior Dept Of the USA for fifteen years just trying to keep access rights on "National" Seashores...One of the difficult parts of the fight is to get enough working class people to participate. But, alas, how does the average working Joe (Jose) find the time.....usually too busy just trying to feed their families....Jesse, what I don't know about Mexico or its politics would fill a book but I do know how difficult it is to get an uncaring government to listen to the poor and/or middle class. adios amigo, see you in Loreto..........Capt. George

TMW - 9-21-2003 at 05:55 PM

Jesse, your right on.

aldosalato - 9-21-2003 at 06:08 PM

I agree with you Jesse.

JESSE - 9-21-2003 at 09:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Capt. George
Jesse, Bravo! But how do the poor in Mexico find time to put pressure on a less then caring government? I have fought the Interior Dept Of the USA for fifteen years just trying to keep access rights on "National" Seashores...One of the difficult parts of the fight is to get enough working class people to participate. But, alas, how does the average working Joe (Jose) find the time.....usually too busy just trying to feed their families....Jesse, what I don't know about Mexico or its politics would fill a book but I do know how difficult it is to get an uncaring government to listen to the poor and/or middle class. adios amigo, see you in Loreto..........Capt. George


Capitan,

Where ever you have a growing population, a stagnant economy, and politicians who make 15,000 dollars a month for doing nothing, and who have the nerve to give themselves 30,000 dollars extra at the end of their term as a "bonus",you will find resentment, anger, and eventually social and political movements aimed at getting pay back from the goverment, if the 20 million Mexicans who have emigrated to the U.S. in the past 20 yrs had stayed home, the miserable economy we have could have never be able to provide the basic needs of the people, thus, we would have had a boiling pot that would have exploded to create massive pressure on the Mexican goverment.

As a fairly well off Mexican you would think its in my interest to keep things as they are, all peaceful and nice, but when you have 50,000,000 people who live in misery, you have to realize that your life could be such much better if they had a job and decent income, so i am all for making the Mex goverment responsible for their actions, the Mex goverment is USING the US goverment like a pimp uses a prostitute, and this is unacceptable to both the hard working peopleof Mexico and the U.S.

Dave - 9-23-2003 at 02:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Capt. George
Jesse, Bravo! But how do the poor in Mexico find time to put pressure on a less then caring government?

Jesse, what I don't know about Mexico or its politics would fill a book but I do know how difficult it is to get an uncaring government to listen to the poor and/or middle class.



If you don't think the oppressed in Mexico have the tools to change their society just look to the south. Virtually everywhere you look in South America populist movements are gaining hold. If Argentina, Peru, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela can change so can Mexico. As Jesse has said, it won't be pretty but eventually it WILL happen. I'm amazed the Mexican people have put up with this caca for this long!

JESSE - 9-23-2003 at 02:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Capt. George
Jesse, Bravo! But how do the poor in Mexico find time to put pressure on a less then caring government?

Jesse, what I don't know about Mexico or its politics would fill a book but I do know how difficult it is to get an uncaring government to listen to the poor and/or middle class.



If you don't think the oppressed in Mexico have the tools to change their society just look to the south. Virtually everywhere you look in South America populist movements are gaining hold. If Argentina, Peru, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela can change so can Mexico. As Jesse has said, it won't be pretty but eventually it WILL happen. I'm amazed the Mexican people have put up with this caca for this long!


The only reason why Mexico hasn't been as problematic and caotic as other Latin American nation is simple geography, after WW2 a deal was made betwen Mexico and the U.S., basically the PRI had to keep all reds out of Mexico and in exchange the U.S. would turn a blind eye to the corruption and black dealings of the Mexican goverment, this worked well because every social movement was violently crushed until a decade ago, and the U.S. never had the problem of dealing with a growing communist movement in its neighborhood.

A question for Jesse

Packoderm - 9-23-2003 at 10:48 PM

Jesse, regarding your post containing ?What the U.S. and Mexico need is to stop bull******* each other?,? Are there many more Mexican Nationals in Mexico who share your views on Mexican society needing to erupt? Or is your view considered radical and unpopular?

JESSE - 9-24-2003 at 03:23 PM

Packoderm,

During the last 50 yrs there has been plenty of movements against the Mexican goverment, and all of them where violently crushed. I believe most Mexicans want a change, ANY change, contrary to popular belief, Mexicans are not laid back people who's only desire is to live life in a quiet and calm way, Mexicans are very ambitious, and if given a chance, very hard working and prosperous, sadly here in Mexico the generation before me has been educated to simply accept the way things are, but not my genration, whos just coming into its own.

I would't like my nation to end up as a Venezuela or a Peru, but i would like for people to start complaining about everything, i want my people to punish bad goverment with their votes, and i would like to see more agressive demonstrations against bad goverment.

I would say most Mexicans agree with me, but like i said, the current generation whos in charge of everything is conditioned to not make many waves, so they are too quiet, wait until my generation starts to take over and i think we are going to see a big clash or a big change for the nation.

I hope for that change...

Stephanie Jackter - 9-24-2003 at 06:59 PM

but don't expect it, even in the younger generation. I am one of the most politically active people I know, but the minute I step off the plane in La Paz, I know that it's time to shut my mouth or take the risk of having my family deported or even worse, winding up on a street corner dead for insulting the wrong person. The Mexican population lives under that same fear.

As long as the press, especially, lives under the fear of assasination and information to the public is in that way controlled, I don't see a prayer that there will be any change for the better in Mexico.

A press friend of mine from this side of the border recently covered an event involving a big political mucky muck from Mexico and another from the U.S. (I'm sorry. I can't be more specific without the possibility of getting my friend in trouble). On the way back to the States, the American contingent were all very impressed at how subservient to the politicos the Mexican press covering the event seemed to be.

There is a certain critical line that every Mexican journalist has to decide whether to cross. It is one that can get him or her killed, so it is not crossed by many.

When governments can get that kind of a stranglehold on free speech (and still call themselves "democracies", no less), it is very hard for social change to take place.

Unfortunately, it seems these days that the U.S. will be heading more in the direction of Mexico, not the other way around.-Stephanie

Dave - 9-24-2003 at 08:27 PM

"Unfortunately, it seems these days that the U.S. will be heading more in the direction of Mexico, not the other way around.-Stephanie"

You got that right! If the new FCC regs are implemented, free speech will be history.

TMW - 10-1-2003 at 04:28 PM

"Unfortunately, it seems these days that the U.S. will be heading more in the direction of Mexico, not the other way around.-Stephanie"

"You got that right! If the new FCC regs are implemented, free speech will be history. "

I don't think so. There is more diversified news reporting now than ever before. From the TV side ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC. Plus the large groups like Tribune and Clear Channel. Throw in the Radio of AP and Westwood One as well as the Clear Channel Radio group and a few others.

What has some upset at the FCC is raising the ownership cap from 35% to 45%. So what. Every TV station in the U.S. gets it's primary regional and national news from it's network plus CNN Newsourse. Whether Disney owns your local ABC affiliate or Joe Smith the local caretaker owns it, the news still comes from ABC and/or CNN. The local stations people cover local news. The only way one owner could control all local news is to own all local stations and that is NOT
allowed presently or in any new regulations. You can't own two TV stations in the same market unless there are at least five full power stations in that market.

Add in the newspapers and we have so many different news sources you can't keep up. And if you don't think there is competition between stations you've never been around a news departrment.

Dave - 10-1-2003 at 06:44 PM

There are lots of media outlets, hundreds of cable and satellite channels, four major broadcast networks, Internet access to news from around the world. But those numbers are deceiving. Seventy percent of the news, information, and programming viewers see on television, hear on the radio or read in the newspaper comes from just a handful of media giants.

Here is an example of how big media operates:

After the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, told a concert crowd, "We're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas," angry listeners called local radio stations threatening boycotts if they didn't pull the group's songs. Some individual stations complied, but others went far beyond local action. The nation's second-largest radio chain, Cumulus, banned the group from all of its country-western stations ? 42 in all.

It's only the tip of the iceberg of the kind of control that can happen if we permit more consolidation. At one time the FCC had the power to issue and even revoke, broadcast licenses. The underlying assumption was that since the airwaves belonged to the public, the government had the right to regulate broadcasting, to insist on certain minimal standards. The networks ? just ABC, CBS and NBC, at one time ? were severely restricted as to the number of radio and television stations they could own. Broadcasters were obliged to operate in what was called the "public's interest, convenience, and necessity. In exchange for the right to make tons of money by selling advertising over the public airwaves, broadcasters had a responsibility to provide a certain amount of news, cultural and children's programming, and to present a balanced view of controversial issues.

No more!

Here is a direct quote from the CEO of Clear Channel Communications:

"We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products."

Packoderm - 10-1-2003 at 07:09 PM

Today's radio and TV stations are getting lame to the point of irrelevancy. Hopefully, someday, we'll have low-cost satellite stations that are less homogonous. I don?t buy the FCC?s reasons for regulating public access to media to the point where all we see and hear is narrow bands of moneyed blandness. I?m sure that the FCC would have a problem with U.S. citizens receiving foreign satellite stations, even if they only played music. It?s like Castro having a problem with XM. (Especially the Spanish language news broadcasts) Furthermore, if quality doesn?t sell, then we just aren?t going see or hear it. Which American radio station for instance, would play Jimi Hendrix from his live in Berkley album, or better yet, from his last recorded concert at Isle of Mann, (kick butt stuff) or which TV station would play the same concert?s video footage? Mine would.