# The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend



## TGN

We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era. 

Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.


----------



## Toro

It didn't work in France.  It won't work in America.


----------



## norwegen

Why do we even have a 40-hour work week?  Whatever happened to the idea that employers and employees can draft the terms of a two-party contract?


----------



## Missourian

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.




How about your employer simply automating your job...then you can have the whole week off.  It's win/win!


----------



## Mr Natural

The last thing the poor, put upon American businessman needs is to pay workers more for less time on the job.

I mean don't they already do more than enough for us as it is?


----------



## Smashy

I would love to have a 40 hour work week instead of my usual 50.


----------



## ScienceRocks

This should be put on corporations making more than 10 billion/year in profit. The smaller businesses should get a break as we want competition.


----------



## alanbmx123

What is stopping Google from doing this on its own?  Cut top executive salaries, boost the lower level employees and cut back to 20-30 hours a week and see.  Or do they not practice what they preach 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jughead

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for *reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day.* Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.


All this sounds great, so does a nice siesta in the afternoon, but that isn't about to happen anytime soon either.


----------



## TGN

Missourian said:


> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about your employer simply automating your job...then you can have the whole week off.  It's win/win!
Click to expand...

 Throw in Unconditional Basic Income and then it is a win-win.


----------



## Missourian

TGN said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about your employer simply automating your job...then you can have the whole week off.  It's win/win!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Throw in Unconditional Basic Income and then it is a win-win.
Click to expand...


IOW, "The Dole".


----------



## jwoodie

On a serious note, we do not have enough real jobs for everyone.  I don't know if it is better to create make-work jobs or pay people to stay home, but the gap between productive and nonproductive people is widening every day.


----------



## sameech

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.



You are wrong about why we have a 40 hour work week.  It is because productivity studies showed at the time that was the number that made employees most productive.  Working longer than that tends to make workers, on average, less productive.  The labor movement did not have any success until major companies themselves like Ford Motors had already adopted that model.  

A 32 hour work week--4 eight hour days--with the potential for a weekend shift of 3 12 hour days would work well and absorb some of the unemployed, but wages would need not rise so that hourly workers are treated like salaried employees with a guaranteed income as if they worked 40 hours.  Likewise, people would just have to get used to having fewer businesses opened when it is most convenient to them.


----------



## Mathbud1

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.


People keep talking about how much more productive workers are than they used to be and saying they should earn higher wages because of the increased productivity.

But why are they more productive? Are workers working harder? Are they more skilled than they used to be?

No.

In fact they usually work less hard and are less skilled than they were because their jobs have been simplified by technology and investments made by the company.

So now you want companies to not only invest money in technologies and work models to increase productivity, but also pay more for the labor from workers who are probably doing less actual work?

Next post: "but... but... but... evil profits!"


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

You want a four day work week? Work four tens.
I loved it!! Three day weekends every four days is kick ass!!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wait...  there are people that only 40 hours in a week?
Slackers.


----------



## anotherlife

The French have a 30 hour work week, and their economy is better than the USA.  Proof is that with those few hours their GDP is equal to the USA, plus all their quality statistics, such as average individual happiness is 10 times better than the USA.  

But I think that employment is a relic of a by-gone industrial age.  Now that everything is automated, even robotic trucks are forecasted to enter the highways in 10 years, a workweek and employment is just wishful thinking. 

The general problem with any employment anyways is that it is not like a contract.  It is a take-it-or-leave it, has no room for negotiations.  That's why unions used to be important, to balance this.  But unions are usually controlled by organized crime to control the industry, so there is really no future in any employment.  

Without employment then we have millions of wannabe contractors biting up each others' foot for a dime.  I think the workweek problem therefore is a much larger problem, a national currency management problem, and international trade balance problem, and mainly the problem about the national governments' priorities between government insiders and average citizens.


----------



## Mathbud1

anotherlife said:


> The French have a 30 hour work week, and their economy is better than the USA.  Proof is that with those few hours their GDP is equal to the USA, plus all their quality statistics, such as average individual happiness is 10 times better than the USA.
> 
> But I think that employment is a relic of a by-gone industrial age.  Now that everything is automated, even robotic trucks are forecasted to enter the highways in 10 years, a workweek and employment is just wishful thinking.
> 
> The general problem with any employment anyways is that it is not like a contract.  It is a take-it-or-leave it, has no room for negotiations.  That's why unions used to be important, to balance this.  But unions are usually controlled by organized crime to control the industry, so there is really no future in any employment.
> 
> Without employment then we have millions of wannabe contractors biting up each others' foot for a dime.  I think the workweek problem therefore is a much larger problem, a national currency management problem, and international trade balance problem, and mainly the problem about the national governments' priorities between government insiders and average citizens.


And who builds and maintains all these robots? Automation just shifts jobs. It doesn't destroy them. As long as there is money to be made, people will always create more jobs out of this evil greed we always hear about. If you want to kill jobs, make hiring people too expensive. If you can't make a profit, why create a job?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

anotherlife said:


> The French have a 30 hour work week, and their economy is better than the USA.  Proof is that with those few hours their GDP is equal to the USA, plus all their quality statistics, such as average individual happiness is 10 times better than the USA.
> 
> But I think that employment is a relic of a by-gone industrial age.  Now that everything is automated, even robotic trucks are forecasted to enter the highways in 10 years, a workweek and employment is just wishful thinking.
> 
> The general problem with any employment anyways is that it is not like a contract.  It is a take-it-or-leave it, has no room for negotiations.  That's why unions used to be important, to balance this.  But unions are usually controlled by organized crime to control the industry, so there is really no future in any employment.
> 
> Without employment then we have millions of wannabe contractors biting up each others' foot for a dime.  I think the workweek problem therefore is a much larger problem, a national currency management problem, and international trade balance problem, and mainly the problem about the national governments' priorities between government insiders and average citizens.



  The GDP of france is nowhere close to the United states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


----------



## BlueGin

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You want a four day work week? Work four tens.
> I loved it!! Three day weekends every four days is kick ass!!



Yep...or 4 nines and get off early on Friday. Go in early 6:00am...and get off at 2:30pm every day.  A lot of employers don't hold you to a 8 to 5 time frame any more.


----------



## BlueGin

M14 Shooter said:


> Wait...  there are people that only 40 hours in a week?
> Slackers.



I used to work 50.  40 reg hrs plus 5 hours mandatory OT per week... and another 5 hours at night once a week.

Got very old and burnt me out.  A flexible 40 hour week was one of the things I looked for when getting a new job. I'm a lot happier now...not to mention healthier. I'm sure my productivity is better too.


----------



## TGN

I think the issue of better wages and shorter hours are inextricably linked. I also think the new slogan should be something like "Livable Wages, Reasonable Hours!"


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Read the Four Hour Work Week. 

Really.


----------



## Stephanie

so what they're pushing is work less and have the company make up the difference in pay

and the people on government dole in France are?


----------



## Avorysuds

Mr Clean said:


> The last thing the poor, put upon American businessman needs is to pay workers more for less time on the job.
> 
> I mean don't they already do more than enough for us as it is?



You know, as someone with employee's but also political I see where you're coming from... But simply put, you're dumb as fuk yo~

Where is my raise or payment for 30-40-50-60 or even 70 hour work weeks? What do I get for coming in at 5AM and leaving at past 7pm? Oh, I get nothing but what I can make because shit luck for me, I'm a rich ass, lazy, fat, pin stripe suit wearing freeloader business owner. Mmmmmmy gawd I should feel so lucky to have employee's actualy show up on time and not want to leave early.... Well, shit I guess I got crap luck.


----------



## guno

Mathbud1 said:


> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> People keep talking about how much more productive workers are than they used to be and saying they should earn higher wages because of the increased productivity.
> 
> But why are they more productive? Are workers working harder? Are they more skilled than they used to be?
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact they usually work less hard and are less skilled than they were because their jobs have been simplified by technology and investments made by the company.
> 
> So now you want companies to not only invest money in technologies and work models to increase productivity, but also pay more for the labor from workers who are probably doing less actual work?
> 
> Next post: "but... but... but... evil profits!"
Click to expand...


----------



## Avorysuds

You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong. 

2 people

person 1 makes 100$ a day
person 2 makes 1,000$ a day

Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.


----------



## guno

Avorysuds said:


> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.



A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.


----------



## Missourian

guno said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
Click to expand...


Out of the seven dollars,  the boss pays himself $2,  the shareholders get $1,  future expansion,  so the workers unemployed brother can get a job takes a buck and research and development gets 50 cents.

The governments 35% corporate tax swallows up the rest.


----------



## anotherlife

Mathbud1 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French have a 30 hour work week, and their economy is better than the USA.  Proof is that with those few hours their GDP is equal to the USA, plus all their quality statistics, such as average individual happiness is 10 times better than the USA.
> 
> But I think that employment is a relic of a by-gone industrial age.  Now that everything is automated, even robotic trucks are forecasted to enter the highways in 10 years, a workweek and employment is just wishful thinking.
> 
> The general problem with any employment anyways is that it is not like a contract.  It is a take-it-or-leave it, has no room for negotiations.  That's why unions used to be important, to balance this.  But unions are usually controlled by organized crime to control the industry, so there is really no future in any employment.
> 
> Without employment then we have millions of wannabe contractors biting up each others' foot for a dime.  I think the workweek problem therefore is a much larger problem, a national currency management problem, and international trade balance problem, and mainly the problem about the national governments' priorities between government insiders and average citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> And who builds and maintains all these robots? Automation just shifts jobs. It doesn't destroy them. As long as there is money to be made, people will always create more jobs out of this evil greed we always hear about. If you want to kill jobs, make hiring people too expensive. If you can't make a profit, why create a job?
Click to expand...

Yes, shifts is but with a huge down-factor, I guess by 10:1.  Plus to have those shifted jobs, however few, you need access to technology, which is geography specific and now outside the USA.  To illustrate, Ford employed ~1 million workers in the early 20th century.  Google employs max. 1000.  So that 10:1 is rather 1000:1. 


HereWeGoAgain said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French have a 30 hour work week, and their economy is better than the USA.  Proof is that with those few hours their GDP is equal to the USA, plus all their quality statistics, such as average individual happiness is 10 times better than the USA.
> 
> But I think that employment is a relic of a by-gone industrial age.  Now that everything is automated, even robotic trucks are forecasted to enter the highways in 10 years, a workweek and employment is just wishful thinking.
> 
> The general problem with any employment anyways is that it is not like a contract.  It is a take-it-or-leave it, has no room for negotiations.  That's why unions used to be important, to balance this.  But unions are usually controlled by organized crime to control the industry, so there is really no future in any employment.
> 
> Without employment then we have millions of wannabe contractors biting up each others' foot for a dime.  I think the workweek problem therefore is a much larger problem, a national currency management problem, and international trade balance problem, and mainly the problem about the national governments' priorities between government insiders and average citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GDP of france is nowhere close to the United states.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Click to expand...

This is nominal GDP in the link.  To do a real comparison, first we need to discount the speculative paper trading volumes, which is ~40 % in the UK economy, ~20 % in France, and ~85-90% in the USA. 


BlueGin said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...  there are people that only 40 hours in a week?
> Slackers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to work 50.  40 reg hrs plus 5 hours mandatory OT per week... and another 5 hours at night once a week.
> 
> Got very old and burnt me out.  A flexible 40 hour week was one of the things I looked for when getting a new job. I'm a lot happier now...not to mention healthier. I'm sure my productivity is better too.
Click to expand...

Try to tell this to Americans.  They think they all are just temporarily embarrassed millioners.  Americans never ask where their productivity should go. 


TGN said:


> I think the issue of better wages and shorter hours are inextricably linked. I also think the new slogan should be something like "Livable Wages, Reasonable Hours!"


Yes, but then you get labelled a communist.  Everyone who wants to negotiate his pay gets labelled a communist.  We are expected to blindly accept what the controllers of the currency and legislation put us into. 


Stephanie said:


> so what they're pushing is work less and have the company make up the difference in pay
> and the people on government dole in France are?


Well, nobody by default makes money ever by working.  Profits are a function of asset ownership, not work.  Work factors in only because the assets need energizing to produce the profits.  What you are paid is not for your work but for how long it takes to find your replacement.  And that is entirely under the control of those who control your government.


----------



## The Rabbi

We know countries become richer by their people working fewer hours.  Right?

Another dumb idea promoted by people who dont have a clue.


----------



## BlueGin

> Well, nobody by default makes money ever by working.  Profits are a function of asset ownership, not work.  Work factors in only because the assets need energizing to produce the profits.  What you are paid is not for your work but for how long it takes to find your replacement.



True statement.  Unfortuantely we now live in a disposable society with the "everything can be replaced" mentality.  Nothing holds value anymore...not even tenured employee's and their years of knowledge.

Employers don't understand or care about the complexities or quality of the job performed... as long as they have a live body sitting in the chair for 8 hrs a day.


----------



## whitehall

We are in the worst GDP downturn in a century and real unemployment is in the double digits and you want to do what?


----------



## beagle9

Smashy said:


> I would love to have a 40 hour work week instead of my usual 50.


Yes it has become a problem for many, where as the work week has expanded in hours for the investors to make more and more money, while the wages went stagnant for to many years in all of it. I remember in construction, most all were working a 40 hour work week that consisted of 10 hours a day 4 days a week. This worked well for the workers who most were from out of town working their specialty talent in that industry. This allowed them to get back home on Friday evening, and spend Saturday and Sunday with their families. This was a good thing, but greed began spreading as hours increased all the way to Saturday, where as threats were issued next that if the workers didn't like it, then they could just find them something else to do. Then the illegals or migrants were used as leverage to change the system and replace those Americans who wanted to have a decent job in life, and a better balance of their family life in the situation as well. This is also where the lies were told that the Americans wouldn't work, and these illegals or migrants were just doing the job's that Americans won't do. Greed has changed everything, and it has just about destroyed the American construction worker families in America.


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> Smashy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to have a 40 hour work week instead of my usual 50.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has become a problem for many, where as the work week has expanded in hours for the investors to make more and more money, while the wages went stagnant for to many years in all of it. I remember in construction, most all were working a 40 hour work week that consisted of 10 hours a day 4 days a week. This worked well for the workers who most were from out of town working their specialty talent in that industry. This allowed them to get back home on Friday evening, and spend Saturday and Sunday with their families. This was a good thing, but greed began spreading as hours increased all the way to Saturday, where as threats were issued next that if the workers didn't like it, then they could just find them something else to do. Then the illegals or migrants were used as leverage to change the system and replace those Americans who wanted to have a decent job in life, and a better balance of their family life in the situation as well. This is also where the lies were told that the Americans wouldn't work, and these illegals or migrants were just doing the job's that Americans won't do. Greed has changed everything, and it has just about destroyed the American construction worker families in America.
Click to expand...


Hint; If you can be replaced by an illiterate migrant worker you're doing it wrong.


----------



## initforme

Working for low wages is the problem.   Everyone having a degree ensures higher wages.   Workers don't need to give their lives to the company.  Punch in punch out.... unless you are getting at least $20 an hour.


----------



## The Rabbi

initforme said:


> Working for low wages is the problem.   Everyone having a degree ensures higher wages.   Workers don't need to give their lives to the company.  Punch in punch out.... unless you are getting at least $20 an hour.



Um, the underemployment/unemployment rate for college grads to age 25 is almost 50%.


----------



## Mathbud1

guno said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> People keep talking about how much more productive workers are than they used to be and saying they should earn higher wages because of the increased productivity.
> 
> But why are they more productive? Are workers working harder? Are they more skilled than they used to be?
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact they usually work less hard and are less skilled than they were because their jobs have been simplified by technology and investments made by the company.
> 
> So now you want companies to not only invest money in technologies and work models to increase productivity, but also pay more for the labor from workers who are probably doing less actual work?
> 
> Next post: "but... but... but... evil profits!"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I've seen the chart. It doesn't change what I said.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smashy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to have a 40 hour work week instead of my usual 50.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has become a problem for many, where as the work week has expanded in hours for the investors to make more and more money, while the wages went stagnant for to many years in all of it. I remember in construction, most all were working a 40 hour work week that consisted of 10 hours a day 4 days a week. This worked well for the workers who most were from out of town working their specialty talent in that industry. This allowed them to get back home on Friday evening, and spend Saturday and Sunday with their families. This was a good thing, but greed began spreading as hours increased all the way to Saturday, where as threats were issued next that if the workers didn't like it, then they could just find them something else to do. Then the illegals or migrants were used as leverage to change the system and replace those Americans who wanted to have a decent job in life, and a better balance of their family life in the situation as well. This is also where the lies were told that the Americans wouldn't work, and these illegals or migrants were just doing the job's that Americans won't do. Greed has changed everything, and it has just about destroyed the American construction worker families in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hint; If you can be replaced by an illiterate migrant worker you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just go on and say what you want to say, and that is if one can be replaced by an illiterate black slave says the plantation owner, then you are doing it all wrong. Same thing isn't it ?


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has become a problem for many, where as the work week has expanded in hours for the investors to make more and more money, while the wages went stagnant for to many years in all of it. I remember in construction, most all were working a 40 hour work week that consisted of 10 hours a day 4 days a week. This worked well for the workers who most were from out of town working their specialty talent in that industry. This allowed them to get back home on Friday evening, and spend Saturday and Sunday with their families. This was a good thing, but greed began spreading as hours increased all the way to Saturday, where as threats were issued next that if the workers didn't like it, then they could just find them something else to do. Then the illegals or migrants were used as leverage to change the system and replace those Americans who wanted to have a decent job in life, and a better balance of their family life in the situation as well. This is also where the lies were told that the Americans wouldn't work, and these illegals or migrants were just doing the job's that Americans won't do. Greed has changed everything, and it has just about destroyed the American construction worker families in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint; If you can be replaced by an illiterate migrant worker you're doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you just go on and say what you want to say, and that is if one can be replaced by an illiterate black slave says the plantation owner, then you are doing it all wrong. Same thing isn't it ?
Click to expand...


Not exactly but the tenor is right.
Yes, if your job skills suck so bad that someone who didnt get the benefit of an American education, can hardly speak English, and has minimal skills can replace you then the problem is not immigration.  The problem is you.


----------



## Andylusion

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.



Actually, if you look at the evidence, the hours per work week, was falling BEFORE the labor movement.

Further, the claims that wages have not increased in proportion to productivity is entirely false.

If you were to add up all the money spent on employee benefits, and on government fees and government regulations, and add that to employee wages, we are paid a massive amount of money.

But the people on the left, are completely ignorant of economics.

Every time the employer has to pay the government more money for Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, and so on, that means they pay the employee less.

Every time that the employer has to pay thousands of dollars to meet some government regulation, that means the employer has to pay the employees less.

So Leftists jump around saying we need more Social Security, we need more Unemployment Comp, we need more regulations, and then are shocked, just shocked that pay hasn't risen in direct relation to productivity.


----------



## Mathbud1

Androw said:


> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you look at the evidence, the hours per work week, was falling BEFORE the labor movement.
> 
> Further, the claims that wages have not increased in proportion to productivity is entirely false.
> 
> If you were to add up all the money spent on employee benefits, and on government fees and government regulations, and add that to employee wages, we are paid a massive amount of money.
> 
> But the people on the left, are completely ignorant of economics.
> 
> Every time the employer has to pay the government more money for Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, and so on, that means they pay the employee less.
> 
> Every time that the employer has to pay thousands of dollars to meet some government regulation, that means the employer has to pay the employees less.
> 
> So Leftists jump around saying we need more Social Security, we need more Unemployment Comp, we need more regulations, and then are shocked, just shocked that pay hasn't risen in direct relation to productivity.
Click to expand...


The leftist logic problem starts before that though. The initial flaw is with the idea that wages _should_ rise in direct relation to productivity. If the workers themselves were responsible for the increase in productivity, that would make sense. In actuality, the workers themselves have little to nothing to do with the increase in productivity. In most cases their jobs are made easier by the very technology that is also responsible for their increased productivity. So wages and overall productivity are not tightly coupled. Individual productivity usually _is_ rewarded by increased wages though. Where an individual is responsible for their own increased productivity, that individual is usually rewarded.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hint; If you can be replaced by an illiterate migrant worker you're doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just go on and say what you want to say, and that is if one can be replaced by an illiterate black slave says the plantation owner, then you are doing it all wrong. Same thing isn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly but the tenor is right.
> Yes, if your job skills suck so bad that someone who didnt get the benefit of an American education, can hardly speak English, and has minimal skills can replace you then the problem is not immigration.  The problem is you.
Click to expand...

And so you having an attitude like you have against those who are less fortunate than you are in life, umm makes you a what then ? Would some consider you a bigot racist arrogant fool that considers everything in terms of class or class warfare in life, and all for the purpose of your greed and exploitation of less fortunate peoples for your greed maybe ? Is this why the liberals are winning the war on repubs because of this attitude that tries to explain things in the way that you all try to explain or frame them in this way ? Maybe you ought not try to be a spokesperson for your cause or your groups cause in life, because you really suck at it. Pulling the race card is appropriate here I think, because it applies perfectly due your attitude towards those who can do a job, but because they didn't pass through your hoops, then they are ripe for exploitation until you decide you have used them up enough before allowing them status to maybe graduate after they are almost dead and you are filthy rich. This is the game you all are protecting now isn't it ?


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you look at the evidence, the hours per work week, was falling BEFORE the labor movement.
> 
> Further, the claims that wages have not increased in proportion to productivity is entirely false.
> 
> If you were to add up all the money spent on employee benefits, and on government fees and government regulations, and add that to employee wages, we are paid a massive amount of money.
> 
> But the people on the left, are completely ignorant of economics.
> 
> Every time the employer has to pay the government more money for Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, and so on, that means they pay the employee less.
> 
> Every time that the employer has to pay thousands of dollars to meet some government regulation, that means the employer has to pay the employees less.
> 
> So Leftists jump around saying we need more Social Security, we need more Unemployment Comp, we need more regulations, and then are shocked, just shocked that pay hasn't risen in direct relation to productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leftist logic problem starts before that though. *The initial flaw is with the idea that wages should rise in direct relation to productivity.* If the workers themselves were responsible for the increase in productivity, that would make sense. *In actuality, the workers themselves have little to nothing to do with the increase in productivity.* In most cases their jobs are made easier by the very technology that is also responsible for their increased productivity. So wages and overall productivity are not tightly coupled. Individual productivity usually _is_ rewarded by increased wages though. Where an individual is responsible for their own increased productivity, that individual is usually rewarded.
Click to expand...


You actually can make statements like this with a straight face ? Without American workers contributing to this great nation or should I say making huge sacrifices as a team working together for this nation, then this nation would be nothing today. The rich or wanna be rich have become total idiots with thoughts such as these that are written so shallow in thought of above. The story of America is a united one, not an exploitation one, where as if weakness is present in a group and/or groups, then seize on the opportunity quickly by getting in and getting out before the exploited gets smart enough to know what had happened to them? Joining up with the world for exploitative purposes will be the end of us.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you look at the evidence, the hours per work week, was falling BEFORE the labor movement.
> 
> Further, the claims that wages have not increased in proportion to productivity is entirely false.
> 
> If you were to add up all the money spent on employee benefits, and on government fees and government regulations, and add that to employee wages, we are paid a massive amount of money.
> 
> But the people on the left, are completely ignorant of economics.
> 
> Every time the employer has to pay the government more money for Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, and so on, that means they pay the employee less.
> 
> Every time that the employer has to pay thousands of dollars to meet some government regulation, that means the employer has to pay the employees less.
> 
> So Leftists jump around saying we need more Social Security, we need more Unemployment Comp, we need more regulations, and then are shocked, just shocked that pay hasn't risen in direct relation to productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist logic problem starts before that though. *The initial flaw is with the idea that wages should rise in direct relation to productivity.* If the workers themselves were responsible for the increase in productivity, that would make sense. *In actuality, the workers themselves have little to nothing to do with the increase in productivity.* In most cases their jobs are made easier by the very technology that is also responsible for their increased productivity. So wages and overall productivity are not tightly coupled. Individual productivity usually _is_ rewarded by increased wages though. Where an individual is responsible for their own increased productivity, that individual is usually rewarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You actually can make statements like this with a straight face ?* Without American workers contributing to this great nation or should I say making huge sacrifices as a team working together for this nation, then this nation would be nothing today. The rich or wanna be rich have become total idiots with thoughts such as these that are written so shallow in thought of above. The story of America is a united one, not an exploitation one, where as if weakness is present in a group and/or groups, then seize on the opportunity quickly by getting in and getting out before the exploited gets smart enough to know what had happened to them? Joining up with the world for exploitative purposes will be the end of us.
Click to expand...


Yes I can make them with a straight face. That is because they are logical statements based on actuality rather than wishful thinking.

You, on the other hand, are framing your position based only on the emotional. You can't make poilcy based on nothing but what would be nice. Would you destroy the country to pursue feel-good policies? Every move we make HAS to be based in reason and logic. If there are two reasonable and logical courses that can be chosen, THEN you can decide between the two based on emotional appeals to what would be nice or good. Choosing an illogical or unreasonable course of action because it feels nice is nothing but the road to destruction.


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just go on and say what you want to say, and that is if one can be replaced by an illiterate black slave says the plantation owner, then you are doing it all wrong. Same thing isn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly but the tenor is right.
> Yes, if your job skills suck so bad that someone who didnt get the benefit of an American education, can hardly speak English, and has minimal skills can replace you then the problem is not immigration.  The problem is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so you having an attitude like you have against those who are less fortunate than you are in life, umm makes you a what then ? Would some consider you a bigot racist arrogant fool that considers everything in terms of class or class warfare in life, and all for the purpose of your greed and exploitation of less fortunate peoples for your greed maybe ? Is this why the liberals are winning the war on repubs because of this attitude that tries to explain things in the way that you all try to explain or frame them in this way ? Maybe you ought not try to be a spokesperson for your cause or your groups cause in life, because you really suck at it. Pulling the race card is appropriate here I think, because it applies perfectly due your attitude towards those who can do a job, but because they didn't pass through your hoops, then they are ripe for exploitation until you decide you have used them up enough before allowing them status to maybe graduate after they are almost dead and you are filthy rich. This is the game you all are protecting now isn't it ?
Click to expand...


It is not an attitude towards those less fortunate.  It is an attitude towatrds those who want to sit on their fast self entitled asses and blame others for their problems.  It is people who think they are owed a living because they exist and ownt take any steps to help themselves.  Meanwhile others are actually improving themselves so they can adapt to new sitiuations.
Pulling the race card is a sign you dont know what the fuck you're blabbering about but looking for some kind of talking point that might hit home.  You failed, big time. Just like life.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leftist logic problem starts before that though. *The initial flaw is with the idea that wages should rise in direct relation to productivity.* If the workers themselves were responsible for the increase in productivity, that would make sense. *In actuality, the workers themselves have little to nothing to do with the increase in productivity.* In most cases their jobs are made easier by the very technology that is also responsible for their increased productivity. So wages and overall productivity are not tightly coupled. Individual productivity usually _is_ rewarded by increased wages though. Where an individual is responsible for their own increased productivity, that individual is usually rewarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You actually can make statements like this with a straight face ?* Without American workers contributing to this great nation or should I say making huge sacrifices as a team working together for this nation, then this nation would be nothing today. The rich or wanna be rich have become total idiots with thoughts such as these that are written so shallow in thought of above. The story of America is a united one, not an exploitation one, where as if weakness is present in a group and/or groups, then seize on the opportunity quickly by getting in and getting out before the exploited gets smart enough to know what had happened to them? Joining up with the world for exploitative purposes will be the end of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can make them with a straight face. That is because they are logical statements based on actuality rather than wishful thinking.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are framing your position based only on the emotional. You can't make poilcy based on nothing but what would be nice. Would you destroy the country to pursue feel-good policies? Every move we make HAS to be based in reason and logic. If there are two reasonable and logical courses that can be chosen, THEN you can decide between the two based on emotional appeals to what would be nice or good. Choosing an illogical or unreasonable course of action because it feels nice is nothing but the road to destruction.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong because these are not feel good emotional solutions being talked about here, when in fact they have been tried and tested in the past, and they have worked wonderfully until the greedy came along and destroyed the balance that was once found in it all. Remember deregulation back in the early to mid 90's, and the destruction it led to eventually, thus destroying peoples lives along with their careers and such for a so called better system of doing things ? How did that work out for many in this nation ? Then came the learning how to bring in the illegals to pit against American workers, thus driving them out of their jobs in construction, electrical, brick masonry, manufacturing, landscaping, service work and on and on it all went. Then the lies that were touted by the politicians such as with Bush himself who said " Their only doing JOBS THAT AMERICANS WON"T DO". Remember ? Sickening is what it all is and was. Now the genie is out of the bottle, and there is no going back, so deal with it for what is going on now at the southern border, and even elsewhere in the world as a possible result of it all.

I am old enough to know the past and what worked in areas of the past, but yet was changed sometimes what people thought was for the better, and then sometimes it ended up being for the worst. The worst is what is being protected by some, because it has buttered their bread big time, but it has left so many destroyed all at the same time. There are many guises that are used by those people who are in protect mode, and they do this in order to cloak this problem in which they benefited from, yet it has left the nations working citizens (regardless of the levels they are at) in turmoil and uncertainty for so long now because of.

If I hadn't known this nation when it was more balanced and structured in a more decent and moral way, then I might be fooled, but I knew it when it was good & better, and I know it now as a result of some people doing the wrong things in which has led to people rebelling against the systems in which had been created against them. Greed is what has become a problem, and the protection of that greed is even a bigger problem. It has opened the door for not so good a politicians to take advantage of the downfall, and the politicians who are taking advantage might not have the best interest of this nation as a whole in their eyes either.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You actually can make statements like this with a straight face ?* Without American workers contributing to this great nation or should I say making huge sacrifices as a team working together for this nation, then this nation would be nothing today. The rich or wanna be rich have become total idiots with thoughts such as these that are written so shallow in thought of above. The story of America is a united one, not an exploitation one, where as if weakness is present in a group and/or groups, then seize on the opportunity quickly by getting in and getting out before the exploited gets smart enough to know what had happened to them? Joining up with the world for exploitative purposes will be the end of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can make them with a straight face. That is because they are logical statements based on actuality rather than wishful thinking.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are framing your position based only on the emotional. You can't make poilcy based on nothing but what would be nice. Would you destroy the country to pursue feel-good policies? Every move we make HAS to be based in reason and logic. If there are two reasonable and logical courses that can be chosen, THEN you can decide between the two based on emotional appeals to what would be nice or good. Choosing an illogical or unreasonable course of action because it feels nice is nothing but the road to destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> No, you are wrong because these are not feel good emotional solutions being talked about here, when in fact they have been tried and tested in the past, and they have worked wonderfully until the greedy came along and destroyed the balance that was once found in it all.



We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the _current_ economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?

When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was. 



> Remember deregulation back in the early to mid 90's, and the destruction it led to eventually, thus destroying peoples lives along with their careers and such for a so called better system of doing things ? How did that work out for many in this nation ? Then came the learning how to bring in the illegals to pit against American workers, thus driving them out of their jobs in construction, electrical, brick masonry, manufacturing, landscaping, service work and on and on it all went. Then the lies that were touted by the politicians such as with Bush himself who said " Their only doing JOBS THAT AMERICANS WON"T DO". Remember ? Sickening is what it all is and was. Now the genie is out of the bottle, and there is no going back, so deal with it for what is going on now at the southern border, and even elsewhere in the world as a possible result of it all.



How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?

For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.



> I am old enough to know the past and what worked in areas of the past, but yet was changed sometimes what people thought was for the better, and then sometimes it ended up being for the worst. The worst is what is being protected by some, because it has buttered their bread big time, but it has left so many destroyed all at the same time. There are many guises that are used by those people who are in protect mode, and they do this in order to cloak this problem in which they benefited from, yet it has left the nations working citizens (regardless of the levels they are at) in turmoil and uncertainty for so long now because of.
> 
> If I hadn't known this nation when it was more balanced and structured in a more decent and moral way, then I might be fooled, but I knew it when it was good & better, and I know it now as a result of some people doing the wrong things in which has led to people rebelling against the systems in which had been created against them. Greed is what has become a problem, and the protection of that greed is even a bigger problem. It has opened the door for not so good a politicians to take advantage of the downfall, and the politicians who are taking advantage might not have the best interest of this nation as a whole in their eyes either.



You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.



> Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings, we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices.
> 
> - Terry Goodkind


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly but the tenor is right.
> Yes, if your job skills suck so bad that someone who didnt get the benefit of an American education, can hardly speak English, and has minimal skills can replace you then the problem is not immigration.  The problem is you.
> 
> 
> 
> And so you having an attitude like you have against those who are less fortunate than you are in life, umm makes you a what then ? Would some consider you a bigot racist arrogant fool that considers everything in terms of class or class warfare in life, and all for the purpose of your greed and exploitation of less fortunate peoples for your greed maybe ? Is this why the liberals are winning the war on repubs because of this attitude that tries to explain things in the way that you all try to explain or frame them in this way ? Maybe you ought not try to be a spokesperson for your cause or your groups cause in life, because you really suck at it. Pulling the race card is appropriate here I think, because it applies perfectly due your attitude towards those who can do a job, but because they didn't pass through your hoops, then they are ripe for exploitation until you decide you have used them up enough before allowing them status to maybe graduate after they are almost dead and you are filthy rich. This is the game you all are protecting now isn't it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an attitude towards those less fortunate.  It is an attitude towatrds those who want to sit on their fast self entitled asses and blame others for their problems.  It is people who think they are owed a living because they exist and ownt take any steps to help themselves.  Meanwhile others are actually improving themselves so they can adapt to new sitiuations.
> Pulling the race card is a sign you dont know what the fuck you're blabbering about but looking for some kind of talking point that might hit home.  You failed, big time. Just like life.
Click to expand...

It's not an attitude against those less fortunate eh ? Well you need to go back and rethink your ways of speaking then, because it appears that you have a lot of attitude against those who are less fortunate in life and but of course you do, not to forget to mention that you assign blame and character on to those less fortunate even when it doesn't fit them. You and others do this because you figure they can't come up with a good enough rebuttal against you who are so fortunate in life, but sadly it is you who are only fortunate in the ways of maliciousness, and then framing people into being something that they are not in order to keep the old games going.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can make them with a straight face. That is because they are logical statements based on actuality rather than wishful thinking.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are framing your position based only on the emotional. You can't make poilcy based on nothing but what would be nice. Would you destroy the country to pursue feel-good policies? Every move we make HAS to be based in reason and logic. If there are two reasonable and logical courses that can be chosen, THEN you can decide between the two based on emotional appeals to what would be nice or good. Choosing an illogical or unreasonable course of action because it feels nice is nothing but the road to destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the current economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?
> 
> When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was.
> *
> 
> 
> How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?
> 
> For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am old enough to know the past and what worked in areas of the past, but yet was changed sometimes what people thought was for the better, and then sometimes it ended up being for the worst. The worst is what is being protected by some, because it has buttered their bread big time, but it has left so many destroyed all at the same time. There are many guises that are used by those people who are in protect mode, and they do this in order to cloak this problem in which they benefited from, yet it has left the nations working citizens (regardless of the levels they are at) in turmoil and uncertainty for so long now because of.
> 
> If I hadn't known this nation when it was more balanced and structured in a more decent and moral way, then I might be fooled, but I knew it when it was good & better, and I know it now as a result of some people doing the wrong things in which has led to people rebelling against the systems in which had been created against them. Greed is what has become a problem, and the protection of that greed is even a bigger problem. It has opened the door for not so good a politicians to take advantage of the downfall, and the politicians who are taking advantage might not have the best interest of this nation as a whole in their eyes either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings, we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices.
> 
> - Terry Goodkind
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes we have tried these things in the past, but maybe not in the exact form by which they are talked about today, but yes we have done things in the past to make things better sure.

Where do you think the 40 hour work week came from ? Where do you think the minimum wage came from ? Where do you think any of the good things from the past came from ? they came from fed up citizens who knew they were getting a bad deal under their current system, and so they began work to change the system for the better.


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so you having an attitude like you have against those who are less fortunate than you are in life, umm makes you a what then ? Would some consider you a bigot racist arrogant fool that considers everything in terms of class or class warfare in life, and all for the purpose of your greed and exploitation of less fortunate peoples for your greed maybe ? Is this why the liberals are winning the war on repubs because of this attitude that tries to explain things in the way that you all try to explain or frame them in this way ? Maybe you ought not try to be a spokesperson for your cause or your groups cause in life, because you really suck at it. Pulling the race card is appropriate here I think, because it applies perfectly due your attitude towards those who can do a job, but because they didn't pass through your hoops, then they are ripe for exploitation until you decide you have used them up enough before allowing them status to maybe graduate after they are almost dead and you are filthy rich. This is the game you all are protecting now isn't it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an attitude towards those less fortunate.  It is an attitude towatrds those who want to sit on their fast self entitled asses and blame others for their problems.  It is people who think they are owed a living because they exist and ownt take any steps to help themselves.  Meanwhile others are actually improving themselves so they can adapt to new sitiuations.
> Pulling the race card is a sign you dont know what the fuck you're blabbering about but looking for some kind of talking point that might hit home.  You failed, big time. Just like life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an attitude against those less fortunate eh ? Well you need to go back and rethink your ways of speaking then, because it appears that you have a lot of attitude against those who are less fortunate in life and but of course you do, not to forget to mention that you assign blame and character on to those less fortunate even when it doesn't fit them. You and others do this because you figure they can't come up with a good enough rebuttal against you who are so fortunate in life, but sadly it is you who are only fortunate in the ways of maliciousness, and then framing people into being something that they are not in order to keep the old games going.
Click to expand...


People who claim to be "less fortunate" typically ascribe their situation to forces beyond their control.  That works OK when someone is 10, 12, even 18 years old.  But beyond that it is merely an excuse for lack of intiative, laziness, and self entitlement.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can make them with a straight face. That is because they are logical statements based on actuality rather than wishful thinking.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are framing your position based only on the emotional. You can't make poilcy based on nothing but what would be nice. Would you destroy the country to pursue feel-good policies? Every move we make HAS to be based in reason and logic. If there are two reasonable and logical courses that can be chosen, THEN you can decide between the two based on emotional appeals to what would be nice or good. Choosing an illogical or unreasonable course of action because it feels nice is nothing but the road to destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the _current_ economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?
> 
> When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was.
> 
> 
> *
> How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?
> 
> For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am old enough to know the past and what worked in areas of the past, but yet was changed sometimes what people thought was for the better, and then sometimes it ended up being for the worst. The worst is what is being protected by some, because it has buttered their bread big time, but it has left so many destroyed all at the same time. There are many guises that are used by those people who are in protect mode, and they do this in order to cloak this problem in which they benefited from, yet it has left the nations working citizens (regardless of the levels they are at) in turmoil and uncertainty for so long now because of.
> 
> If I hadn't known this nation when it was more balanced and structured in a more decent and moral way, then I might be fooled, but I knew it when it was good & better, and I know it now as a result of some people doing the wrong things in which has led to people rebelling against the systems in which had been created against them. Greed is what has become a problem, and the protection of that greed is even a bigger problem. It has opened the door for not so good a politicians to take advantage of the downfall, and the politicians who are taking advantage might not have the best interest of this nation as a whole in their eyes either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings, we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices.
> 
> - Terry Goodkind
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


How did they steal the jobs from the Americans you ask ? Well they didn't, but what happened was this, where as it was the American businessmen who set the whole thing up, and to replace the Americans with them because they would work for what they could pay them under the table, meanwhile they got government assistance and free schooling while here, and yes it was all off of the taxpayers dime as a subsidy for them. Wow what a set up that was..wow..... The Americans even if they wanted to work couldn't beat that system of doing things, so it was see ya and wouldn't want to be ya to the American workers. There are countless news reports and claims on this situation, but I bet many hope time erases the knowledge of it all soon. This way people can claim it was all a myth in what people are claiming now, just like you who deny the whole thing by claiming ignorance to these things. In the situation it mattered not how smarter or harder you worked, because you were about to be replaced regardless of these things you speak of, and especially if thinking about asking for a raise in such a rigged game as it was.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the current economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?
> 
> When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was.
> *
> 
> 
> How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?
> 
> For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.
> 
> 
> 
> You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings, we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices.
> 
> - Terry Goodkind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we have tried these things in the past, but maybe not in the exact form by which they are talked about today, but yes we have done things in the past to make things better sure.
> 
> Where do you think the 40 hour work week came from ? Where do you think the minimum wage came from ? Where do you think any of the good things from the past came from ? they came from fed up citizens who knew they were getting a bad deal under their current system, and so they began work to change the system for the better.
Click to expand...


Let's try that again.

1. When did we try a federally mandated 36 hour work week?

2. When did we try raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the same exact economic environment we have today (or even a similar one?)

3. When did we try having federally mandated employer provided health coverage with specific guidelines on what must be covered?

I'm not against trying to improve the situation. I think our current situation is a mess. I don't think most of the ideas presented are good solutions, and some are laughably bad solutions.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an attitude towards those less fortunate.  It is an attitude towatrds those who want to sit on their fast self entitled asses and blame others for their problems.  It is people who think they are owed a living because they exist and ownt take any steps to help themselves.  Meanwhile others are actually improving themselves so they can adapt to new sitiuations.
> Pulling the race card is a sign you dont know what the fuck you're blabbering about but looking for some kind of talking point that might hit home.  You failed, big time. Just like life.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an attitude against those less fortunate eh ? Well you need to go back and rethink your ways of speaking then, because it appears that you have a lot of attitude against those who are less fortunate in life and but of course you do, not to forget to mention that you assign blame and character on to those less fortunate even when it doesn't fit them. You and others do this because you figure they can't come up with a good enough rebuttal against you who are so fortunate in life, but sadly it is you who are only fortunate in the ways of maliciousness, and then framing people into being something that they are not in order to keep the old games going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who claim to be "less fortunate" typically ascribe their situation to forces beyond their control.  That works OK when someone is 10, 12, even 18 years old.  But beyond that it is merely an excuse for lack of intiative, laziness, and self entitlement.
Click to expand...

Keep living in your fantasy world of ignorance, because you are making a fool of yourself, and you are not helping but hurting those who are trying to dig out from under such a mess.  Why operate in denial of the wrong in it all, and therefore give the opposition party ammo to use over and over again on you and your party in these ways ?


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the current economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?
> 
> When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was.
> *
> 
> 
> How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?
> 
> For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.
> 
> 
> 
> You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have tried these things in the past, but maybe not in the exact form by which they are talked about today, but yes we have done things in the past to make things better sure.
> 
> Where do you think the 40 hour work week came from ? Where do you think the minimum wage came from ? Where do you think any of the good things from the past came from ? they came from fed up citizens who knew they were getting a bad deal under their current system, and so they began work to change the system for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try that again.
> 
> 1. When did we try a federally mandated 36 hour work week?
> 
> 2. When did we try raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the same exact economic environment we have today (or even a similar one?)
> 
> 3. When did we try having federally mandated employer provided health coverage with specific guidelines on what must be covered?
> 
> I'm not against trying to improve the situation. I think our current situation is a mess. I don't think most of the ideas presented are good solutions, and some are laughably bad solutions.
Click to expand...

I just answered you, but it must not have been the answer that you were looking for, so you want me to somehow conform to your demands for your desired answer or else ? I don't tow the line for no one if they are trying to defend the indefensible or fabricate and/or coerce answers out of someone to their liking.


----------



## Slyhunter

They should get rid of overtime requirements.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the _current_ economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?
> 
> When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was.
> 
> 
> *
> How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?
> 
> For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.*
> 
> 
> 
> You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings, we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices.
> 
> - Terry Goodkind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they steal the jobs from the Americans you ask ? Well they didn't, but what happened was this, where as it was the American businessmen who set the whole thing up, and to replace the Americans with them because they would work for what they could pay them under the table, meanwhile they got government assistance and free schooling while here, and yes it was all off of the taxpayers dime as a subsidy for them. Wow what a set up that was..wow..... The Americans even if they wanted to work couldn't beat that system of doing things, so it was see ya and wouldn't want to be ya to the American workers. There are countless news reports and claims on this situation, but I bet many hope time erases the knowledge of it all soon. This way people can claim it was all a myth in what people are claiming now, just like you who deny the whole thing by claiming ignorance to these things. In the situation it mattered not how smarter or harder you worked, because you were about to be replaced regardless of these things you speak of, and especially if thinking about asking for a raise in such a rigged game as it was.
Click to expand...


Is this anectdotal? Do you have some personal experience with this?

How were these illegals getting government assistance and free schooling?

In essence, are you saying that the illegals were able to underprice the American workers out of work because they were able to accept lower wages than the Americans could?

I'm not trying to deny anything, and I cannot claim ignorance as ignorance is what I have about these events regardless of any claim. I'm not particularly aged, there was no mention of this in the AP American History course I took in High School, I haven't had any other American History classes since, and I haven't heard anyone talk about American business owners rigging the system to oust the American worker outside of this board.


----------



## Slyhunter

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the _current_ economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?
> 
> When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was.
> 
> 
> *
> How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?
> 
> For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.*
> 
> 
> 
> You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they steal the jobs from the Americans you ask ? Well they didn't, but what happened was this, where as it was the American businessmen who set the whole thing up, and to replace the Americans with them because they would work for what they could pay them under the table, meanwhile they got government assistance and free schooling while here, and yes it was all off of the taxpayers dime as a subsidy for them. Wow what a set up that was..wow..... The Americans even if they wanted to work couldn't beat that system of doing things, so it was see ya and wouldn't want to be ya to the American workers. There are countless news reports and claims on this situation, but I bet many hope time erases the knowledge of it all soon. This way people can claim it was all a myth in what people are claiming now, just like you who deny the whole thing by claiming ignorance to these things. In the situation it mattered not how smarter or harder you worked, because you were about to be replaced regardless of these things you speak of, and especially if thinking about asking for a raise in such a rigged game as it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this anectdotal? Do you have some personal experience with this?
> 
> How were these illegals getting government assistance and free schooling?
> 
> In essence, are you saying that the illegals were able to underprice the American workers out of work because they were able to accept lower wages than the Americans could?
> 
> I'm not trying to deny anything, and I cannot claim ignorance as ignorance is what I have about these events regardless of any claim. I'm not particularly aged, there was no mention of this in the AP American History course I took in High School, I haven't had any other American History classes since, and I haven't heard anyone talk about American business owners rigging the system to oust the American worker outside of this board.
Click to expand...


Everyone gets free schooling whether they are citizens or not.
Everyone who has a kid born in America gets food stamps and assistance whether they themselves are citizens or not.
Illegals/immigrants are able to underprice the American workers because they are willing to live like animals with barely enough room to lay down and sleep they stuff their homes with so many people. Do you want Americans to live like that because they have to bid down the wages to get a job?

In Hong Kong the "working poor" live in cages in hostels. In Japan, the working poor live in coffin size hotels. In Cambodia, they live in the streets or in bamboo huts with no running water, and no electric, the working poor. Doesn't American's working poor deserve better than that?


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have tried these things in the past, but maybe not in the exact form by which they are talked about today, but yes we have done things in the past to make things better sure.
> 
> Where do you think the 40 hour work week came from ? Where do you think the minimum wage came from ? Where do you think any of the good things from the past came from ? they came from fed up citizens who knew they were getting a bad deal under their current system, and so they began work to change the system for the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try that again.
> 
> 1. When did we try a federally mandated 36 hour work week?
> 
> 2. When did we try raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the same exact economic environment we have today (or even a similar one?)
> 
> 3. When did we try having federally mandated employer provided health coverage with specific guidelines on what must be covered?
> 
> I'm not against trying to improve the situation. I think our current situation is a mess. I don't think most of the ideas presented are good solutions, and some are laughably bad solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just answered you, but it must not have been the answer that you were looking for, so you want me to somehow conform to your demands for your desired answer or else ? I don't tow the line for no one if they are trying to defend the indefensible or fabricate and/or coerce answers out of someone to their liking.
Click to expand...


How am I trying to fabricate or coerce an answer? By asking questions? Questions do usually require that the answer, in fact, answer the question. To the best of my knowledge we have not tried these specific things in the past. If you know of examples when we HAVE tried them, I would like to know about the examples. If you know about SIMILAR attempts in the past, tell me about THEM. If you don't know of any, say so. There isn't anything wrong with admitting you don't know something.

If you don't want to answer questions, that is your right. Just don't pretend you did answer them, and don't expect much in the way of conversation.


----------



## boedicca

ObamaCare is already doing this for millions of people by destroying full time job creation and replacing it with parttime jobs.


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an attitude against those less fortunate eh ? Well you need to go back and rethink your ways of speaking then, because it appears that you have a lot of attitude against those who are less fortunate in life and but of course you do, not to forget to mention that you assign blame and character on to those less fortunate even when it doesn't fit them. You and others do this because you figure they can't come up with a good enough rebuttal against you who are so fortunate in life, but sadly it is you who are only fortunate in the ways of maliciousness, and then framing people into being something that they are not in order to keep the old games going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who claim to be "less fortunate" typically ascribe their situation to forces beyond their control.  That works OK when someone is 10, 12, even 18 years old.  But beyond that it is merely an excuse for lack of intiative, laziness, and self entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep living in your fantasy world of ignorance, because you are making a fool of yourself, and you are not helping but hurting those who are trying to dig out from under such a mess.  Why operate in denial of the wrong in it all, and therefore give the opposition party ammo to use over and over again on you and your party in these ways ?
Click to expand...


Yeah that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
I've met plenty of people who were "less fortunate."  They frequently made much more money than I do and didnt sit back and bemoan how their parents/schools/government/employers had screwed them.  Then there are people like you.


----------



## Mathbud1

Slyhunter said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they steal the jobs from the Americans you ask ? Well they didn't, but what happened was this, where as it was the American businessmen who set the whole thing up, and to replace the Americans with them because they would work for what they could pay them under the table, meanwhile they got government assistance and free schooling while here, and yes it was all off of the taxpayers dime as a subsidy for them. Wow what a set up that was..wow..... The Americans even if they wanted to work couldn't beat that system of doing things, so it was see ya and wouldn't want to be ya to the American workers. There are countless news reports and claims on this situation, but I bet many hope time erases the knowledge of it all soon. This way people can claim it was all a myth in what people are claiming now, just like you who deny the whole thing by claiming ignorance to these things. In the situation it mattered not how smarter or harder you worked, because you were about to be replaced regardless of these things you speak of, and especially if thinking about asking for a raise in such a rigged game as it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this anectdotal? Do you have some personal experience with this?
> 
> How were these illegals getting government assistance and free schooling?
> 
> In essence, are you saying that the illegals were able to underprice the American workers out of work because they were able to accept lower wages than the Americans could?
> 
> I'm not trying to deny anything, and I cannot claim ignorance as ignorance is what I have about these events regardless of any claim. I'm not particularly aged, there was no mention of this in the AP American History course I took in High School, I haven't had any other American History classes since, and I haven't heard anyone talk about American business owners rigging the system to oust the American worker outside of this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone gets free schooling whether they are citizens or not.
> Everyone who has a kid born in America gets food stamps and assistance whether they themselves are citizens or not.
> Illegals/immigrants are able to underprice the American workers because they are willing to live like animals with barely enough room to lay down and sleep they stuff their homes with so many people. Do you want Americans to live like that because they have to bid down the wages to get a job?
> 
> In Hong Kong the "working poor" live in cages in hostels. In Japan, the working poor live in coffin size hotels. In Cambodia, they live in the streets or in bamboo huts with no running water, and no electric, the working poor. Doesn't American's working poor deserve better than that?
Click to expand...


So the illegals had no greater advantage in government assistance or free schooling than the Americans did right?

Deserve? Deserve is a fickle word, friend, and I'd be careful when tossing it around.

What makes America's working poor deserving of a better conditions than the working poor in any other country? Were they born deserving it by virtue of being born in the good ol' USA? Did they do something special to earn this "deserving" status?

Would you make me a slave to the wants and needs of those who have less? I work to earn money to buy food for my kids. To put a roof over their heads. Then the government swoops in to take the money I've earned to pass it along to others. So the time I spent earning that money is now forced pro bono labor, or, in a word, slavery.


----------



## anotherlife

BlueGin said:


> Well, nobody by default makes money ever by working.  Profits are a function of asset ownership, not work.  Work factors in only because the assets need energizing to produce the profits.  What you are paid is not for your work but for how long it takes to find your replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True statement.  Unfortuantely we now live in a disposable society with the "everything can be replaced" mentality.  Nothing holds value anymore...not even tenured employee's and their years of knowledge.
> 
> Employers don't understand or care about the complexities or quality of the job performed... as long as they have a live body sitting in the chair for 8 hrs a day.
Click to expand...

People should have known this when it became cheaper to get anything new than repair anything current.  If your stuff becomes a commodity, next you become a commodity too.  At least the feudal serfs were a part of their masters' land, now we are all marchandise.  You can still make this work though, by eliminating the international barriers of human migration to follow capital migration.  This is how it always was, until the 20th century, when national borders emerged and closed lives. 


whitehall said:


> We are in the worst GDP downturn in a century and real unemployment is in the double digits and you want to do what?


To do what?  Push every country, including the US, to give up competing claims to people's incomes.  This would open up individual mobility to the same freedom that corporate mobility has had for min. 20 years now.  Luckily, the US is actually making steps in this direction recently. 

Plus almost every country in the world has more workers rights than the US.


----------



## SmedlyButler

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.



Some of the Futurists in the 60's and 70's were saying that in the 21st Century the average man would have so much leisure time he wouldn't know what to do with it all.
Well through the 40yrs since then I've worked hundreds of 60+ hour weeks. I think the glitch they didn't anticipate was the reality that the working man in the affluent west 
would have to compete with the working man in the rising third world. They were often sweat shop labor. So even though our productivity rose signifigantly there has been that anchor holding back an equivalent rise in our standard of living.

I for one think it would be great if a person could afford to give more time to their familys or their art or volunteering, whatever, if that's what they chose. That would be a leap forward in *quality* of living as far as I'm concerned. There's no universal law that says a human being has to work 60 hrs or 40hrs. a week to earn his daily bread. 

That time may come when the world's labor market levels out, and if everybody isn't actually strapped to the wheel by then.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've tried a 36 hour work week in the past? We've tried raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" in the _current_ economic environment in the past? We've tried forcing businesses to provide health coverage and mandated what that coverage has to cover in the past?
> 
> When did we try all these things? I really must be more ignorant of American history than even I thought I was.
> 
> 
> *
> How did these illegals steal the jobs from the people who had them? Did they threaten someone at gunpoint for the job? What actually happened there?
> 
> For the record, I am against allowing any illegals to stay in the U.S. It is disrespectful to all the people who did things the right way to get here legally. I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If someone is under-bidding me for a job, I better make damn sure I'm working harder, smarter, and better than they are. Just like people don't always buy the cheapest product, companies don't hire the cheapest labor every time. They buy the best they can get for the price they can afford. So if I have to work a little harder to show them I'm that Best, that will only make me better.*
> 
> 
> 
> You are still using emotion and nostalgia. The world is not the same as it was and it will never be the same again. We have to look at the situation as it is, evaluate it, and make the best rational decision we can make given the current circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they steal the jobs from the Americans you ask ? Well they didn't, but what happened was this, where as it was the American businessmen who set the whole thing up, and to replace the Americans with them because they would work for what they could pay them under the table, meanwhile they got government assistance and free schooling while here, and yes it was all off of the taxpayers dime as a subsidy for them. Wow what a set up that was..wow..... The Americans even if they wanted to work couldn't beat that system of doing things, so it was see ya and wouldn't want to be ya to the American workers. There are countless news reports and claims on this situation, but I bet many hope time erases the knowledge of it all soon. This way people can claim it was all a myth in what people are claiming now, just like you who deny the whole thing by claiming ignorance to these things. In the situation it mattered not how smarter or harder you worked, because you were about to be replaced regardless of these things you speak of, and especially if thinking about asking for a raise in such a rigged game as it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this anectdotal? Do you have some personal experience with this?
> 
> How were these illegals getting government assistance and free schooling?
> 
> In essence, are you saying that the illegals were able to underprice the American workers out of work because they were able to accept lower wages than the Americans could?
> 
> I'm not trying to deny anything, and I cannot claim ignorance as ignorance is what I have about these events regardless of any claim. I'm not particularly aged, there was no mention of this in the AP American History course I took in High School, I haven't had any other American History classes since, and I haven't heard anyone talk about American business owners rigging the system to oust the American worker outside of this board.
Click to expand...

Yep, I sure do..I went through it all, and I was a supervisor at the time who eventually got replaced, because I wouldn't work the illegals instead of the Americans after the transformation took place. I also know about the situations where they were living like 3 families to a single family house.  I also know of companies that were busted big time for having nothing but illegals working for them, where as they were soon replaced for the Americans again. I thought the Americans wouldn't work right ? It's mighty strange isn't it, that these Americans after all would work ?  Now it's the nation scrambling trying to get back to treating them right again.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who claim to be "less fortunate" typically ascribe their situation to forces beyond their control.  That works OK when someone is 10, 12, even 18 years old.  But beyond that it is merely an excuse for lack of intiative, laziness, and self entitlement.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep living in your fantasy world of ignorance, because you are making a fool of yourself, and you are not helping but hurting those who are trying to dig out from under such a mess.  Why operate in denial of the wrong in it all, and therefore give the opposition party ammo to use over and over again on you and your party in these ways ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
> I've met plenty of people who were "less fortunate."  They frequently made much more money than I do and didnt sit back and bemoan how their parents/schools/government/employers had screwed them.  Then there are people like you.
Click to expand...

Lets see people like me eh,  whom have worked since I was 16, and had no problem with the system that was in play all the way till I was asked to run a construction site that worked illegals instead of the Americans for whom I had always worked before? This is where I changed, and changed career fields after being layed off. I have been a fish out of water ever since, but I was very adaptable to other areas of the workforce in life, so I took a job in a company that was still working Americans, and was still doing things right. It's been great, but I have sit back and watched all the systems collapse due to all the shenanigans that was going on back in the day. Now the ones who were running the systems like they were running them, have taken their golden parachutes and just flown away on them. They are living up in holes with all their spoils, and acting as if they done it all above board and legit, when I know better about them. I don't worry about it all, because I look to Heaven for my treasures, and not here where rust and moth doth corrupt them, for surely where my treasures are, so shall my heart also be with them as well. They shall soon understand that we are but a passing here, and what we do in our lives here will have consequences come the great judgement. I am a believer so forgive me of my ramblings, but it is who I am and what I believe in life. I feel for the ones who gain the whole world in their minds here, yet lose their own souls in the here after.  Holy Bible - James: Chapter 5 - verse 1 thru 17 is a good read also.


----------



## Lepetomane

I think the solution if a change is needed would be a hybrid work week.

Meaning, when you start in the biz world, its good to have a set 40 hours and a stricter schedule. As you get comfortable and are producing, then hybrid it between set hours and hitting your goals.

Reminds me of when I started at a biotech about 12 years ago. I was on a small Trade/Distribution team of 4 people. On the team there was one person who was always amped up and moving around busy. Coming in on weekends. etc etc. Over time I realized they were always starting over. Always stressing themselves out. Not well organized. So, when they would brag about working twice as hard as most people, we'd all just look at each other. It was because that person was half as organized.

I think the moral of this story is that a 40 hour work week has lasted so long because people are different and jobs are different. So maybe the solution is allowing flexibility once a person shows they produce quality work. Whether that be allowing them to telecommute X amount, or come in early/leave early...or late/late. So, that's up to the boss/business to be able to identify a good policy for this to work and for the employee to be responsible with their work.


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep living in your fantasy world of ignorance, because you are making a fool of yourself, and you are not helping but hurting those who are trying to dig out from under such a mess.  Why operate in denial of the wrong in it all, and therefore give the opposition party ammo to use over and over again on you and your party in these ways ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
> I've met plenty of people who were "less fortunate."  They frequently made much more money than I do and didnt sit back and bemoan how their parents/schools/government/employers had screwed them.  Then there are people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see people like me eh,  whom have worked since I was 16, and had no problem with the system that was in play all the way till I was asked to run a construction site that worked illegals instead of the Americans for whom I had always worked before? This is where I changed, and changed career fields after being layed off. I have been a fish out of water ever since, but I was very adaptable to other areas of the workforce in life, so I took a job in a company that was still working Americans, and was still doing things right. It's been great, but I have sit back and watched all the systems collapse due to all the shenanigans that was going on back in the day. Now the ones who were running the systems like they were running them, have taken their golden parachutes and just flown away on them. They are living up in holes with all their spoils, and acting as if they done it all above board and legit, when I know better about them. I don't worry about it all, because I look to Heaven for my treasures, and not here where rust and moth doth corrupt them, for surely where my treasures are, so shall my heart also be with them as well. They shall soon understand that we are but a passing here, and what we do in our lives here will have consequences come the great judgement. I am a believer so forgive me of my ramblings, but it is who I am and what I believe in life. I feel for the ones who gain the whole world in their minds here, yet lose their own souls in the here after.  Holy Bible - James: Chapter 5 - verse 1 thru 17 is a good read also.
Click to expand...


Yeah you're full of shit.  We can tell.


----------



## Slyhunter

Mathbud1 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this anectdotal? Do you have some personal experience with this?
> 
> How were these illegals getting government assistance and free schooling?
> 
> In essence, are you saying that the illegals were able to underprice the American workers out of work because they were able to accept lower wages than the Americans could?
> 
> I'm not trying to deny anything, and I cannot claim ignorance as ignorance is what I have about these events regardless of any claim. I'm not particularly aged, there was no mention of this in the AP American History course I took in High School, I haven't had any other American History classes since, and I haven't heard anyone talk about American business owners rigging the system to oust the American worker outside of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone gets free schooling whether they are citizens or not.
> Everyone who has a kid born in America gets food stamps and assistance whether they themselves are citizens or not.
> Illegals/immigrants are able to underprice the American workers because they are willing to live like animals with barely enough room to lay down and sleep they stuff their homes with so many people. Do you want Americans to live like that because they have to bid down the wages to get a job?
> 
> In Hong Kong the "working poor" live in cages in hostels. In Japan, the working poor live in coffin size hotels. In Cambodia, they live in the streets or in bamboo huts with no running water, and no electric, the working poor. Doesn't American's working poor deserve better than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the illegals had no greater advantage in government assistance or free schooling than the Americans did right?
> 
> Deserve? Deserve is a fickle word, friend, and I'd be careful when tossing it around.
> 
> *What makes America's working poor deserving of a better conditions than the working poor in any other country?* Were they born deserving it by virtue of being born in the good ol' USA? Did they do something special to earn this "deserving" status?
Click to expand...

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.


----------



## Papageorgio

guno said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
Click to expand...

 
This is exactly the mentality of a guy that does not get business. There are other expenses, there is labor, materials, utilities, equipment, building space, time spent dealing with government agencies, there are permits, licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, workman comp insurance, business insurance, building insurance, time spent selling, not to mention the businesses are charged more for sewer, water, electrical, internet access and a host of other costs.


----------



## Papageorgio

I have worked 50-70 hours a week for years. A 40 hour work week is unrealistic to me.


----------



## Mathbud1

Slyhunter said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone gets free schooling whether they are citizens or not.
> Everyone who has a kid born in America gets food stamps and assistance whether they themselves are citizens or not.
> Illegals/immigrants are able to underprice the American workers because they are willing to live like animals with barely enough room to lay down and sleep they stuff their homes with so many people. Do you want Americans to live like that because they have to bid down the wages to get a job?
> 
> In Hong Kong the "working poor" live in cages in hostels. In Japan, the working poor live in coffin size hotels. In Cambodia, they live in the streets or in bamboo huts with no running water, and no electric, the working poor. Doesn't American's working poor deserve better than that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the illegals had no greater advantage in government assistance or free schooling than the Americans did right?
> 
> Deserve? Deserve is a fickle word, friend, and I'd be careful when tossing it around.
> 
> *What makes America's working poor deserving of a better conditions than the working poor in any other country?* Were they born deserving it by virtue of being born in the good ol' USA? Did they do something special to earn this "deserving" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
Click to expand...


George Washington and Thomas Jefferson passed down an inheritance of deserving-ness? How does that work exacty? I'm not sure what you think you are saying here.

Let's be clear here. I'm not saying I don't _want_ Americans to have a better standard of living than those countries' poor do. But they don't _deserve_ it. To _deserve_ it they would have to have done something deserving or have some trait that makes them deserving. What have Americans done or what trait to Americans have that makes them more deserving in your eyes than any other humans on the planet?


----------



## Slyhunter

Mathbud1 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the illegals had no greater advantage in government assistance or free schooling than the Americans did right?
> 
> Deserve? Deserve is a fickle word, friend, and I'd be careful when tossing it around.
> 
> *What makes America's working poor deserving of a better conditions than the working poor in any other country?* Were they born deserving it by virtue of being born in the good ol' USA? Did they do something special to earn this "deserving" status?
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson passed down an inheritance of deserving-ness? How does that work exacty? I'm not sure what you think you are saying here.
> 
> Let's be clear here. I'm not saying I don't _want_ Americans to have a better standard of living than those countries' poor do. But they don't _deserve_ it. To _deserve_ it they would have to have done something deserving or have some trait that makes them deserving. What have Americans done or what trait to Americans have that makes them more deserving in your eyes than any other humans on the planet?
Click to expand...


Americans deserve more than non-Americans because our ancestors fought for and created this country that can provide more.


----------



## Mathbud1

Papageorgio said:


> I have worked 50-70 hours a week for years. A 40 hour work week is unrealistic to me.



[SARCASM]
How about 36 then? Much more realistic right?
[/SARCASM]


----------



## Mathbud1

Slyhunter said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson passed down an inheritance of deserving-ness? How does that work exacty? I'm not sure what you think you are saying here.
> 
> Let's be clear here. I'm not saying I don't _want_ Americans to have a better standard of living than those countries' poor do. But they don't _deserve_ it. To _deserve_ it they would have to have done something deserving or have some trait that makes them deserving. What have Americans done or what trait to Americans have that makes them more deserving in your eyes than any other humans on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans deserve more than non-Americans because our ancestors fought for and created this country that can provide more.
Click to expand...


What about the Americans who's ancestors fought on the other sides of those wars. Were they adopted into the deserving-ness club despite their ancestry or do we need to start keeping track of who deserves what based on when their ancestors migrated here?


----------



## beagle9

Papageorgio said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the mentality of a guy that does not get business. There are other expenses, there is labor, materials, utilities, equipment, building space, time spent dealing with government agencies, there are permits, licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, workman comp insurance, business insurance, building insurance, time spent selling, not to mention the businesses are charged more for sewer, water, electrical, internet access and a host of other costs.
Click to expand...

All these things are anecdotal, where as they are figured in along with everything else when doing business, and it has nothing to do with how you pay your employee as based upon the supply and demand chain one might fine themselves in.  How do you think businessmen get so filthy rich then, I mean if they are so overwhelmed with debt, cost and all else that is dragging them down ? They know how to make a profit above and beyond of all the things you mention that's how, but for some reason even when they are in a supply and demand chain that ensures huge profits for them, they are greedy still, and worse disrespectful, and so they decide that they should have almost 300% instead of a little less so that their employee's might share in that success along with them better ( I mean why not they helped them make it also).

 Why is this greed I wonder ? Is it because they unionize in their thinking at or near the top, and so they can't operate as corporate* individuals* in which is what they want to be called when it benefits them, but when it comes to their employee's they group themselves in with the others who cry and complain about this all of the time, and so they say that they are hurting all the time right, and so there is just no way that they can pay anymore at all to their employee's because they (these con men) are just hurting all the time as according to them right?  

Then we all go and watch episodes of Epic homes and other shows like this on TV, but they couldn't afford to do people right in life, no there was just no way they could do nothing like that on their own now could they?...LOL


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the mentality of a guy that does not get business. There are other expenses, there is labor, materials, utilities, equipment, building space, time spent dealing with government agencies, there are permits, licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, workman comp insurance, business insurance, building insurance, time spent selling, not to mention the businesses are charged more for sewer, water, electrical, internet access and a host of other costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All these things are anecdotal, where as they are figured in along with everything else when doing business, and it has nothing to do with how you pay your employee as based upon the supply and demand chain one might fine themselves in.  How do you think businessmen get so filthy rich then, I mean if they are so overwhelmed with debt, cost and all else that is dragging them down ? They know how to make a profit above and beyond of all the things you mention that's how, but for some reason even when they are in a supply and demand chain that ensures huge profits for them, they are greedy still, and worse disrespectful, and so they decide that they should have almost 300% instead of a little less so that their employee's might share in that success along with them better ( I mean why not they helped them make it also).
> 
> Why is this greed I wonder ? Is it because they unionize in their thinking at or near the top, and so they can't operate as corporate* individuals* in which is what they want to be called when it benefits them, but when it comes to their employee's they group themselves in with the others who cry and complain about this all of the time, and so they say that they are hurting all the time right, and so there is just no way that they can pay anymore at all to their employee's because they (these con men) are just hurting all the time as according to them right?
> 
> Then we all go and watch episodes of Epic homes and other shows like this on TV, but they couldn't afford to do people right in life, no there was just no way they could do nothing like that on their own now could they?...LOL
Click to expand...


You are completely worthless and uninformed. No wonder your boss fired you.  Probably for gross stupidity, laziness and incompetence.  First, look up the word "anecdotal" before you bother to abuse it again.


----------



## Skull Pilot

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.



You ignore the fact that increases in productivity are not necessarily due to an increase in worker's skills but rather are due to technological innovation that allow less skilled workers to produce more.

And the average work week is already at 34.5 hours.

Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted


----------



## Skull Pilot

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You want a four day work week? Work four tens.
> I loved it!! Three day weekends every four days is kick ass!!



I had a job in my 20s where I worked 3 12 hour shifts one week and 4 12 hour shifts on alternate weeks.

It was great.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the mentality of a guy that does not get business. There are other expenses, there is labor, materials, utilities, equipment, building space, time spent dealing with government agencies, there are permits, licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, workman comp insurance, business insurance, building insurance, time spent selling, not to mention the businesses are charged more for sewer, water, electrical, internet access and a host of other costs.
> 
> 
> 
> All these things are anecdotal, where as they are figured in along with everything else when doing business, and it has nothing to do with how you pay your employee as based upon the supply and demand chain one might fine themselves in.  How do you think businessmen get so filthy rich then, I mean if they are so overwhelmed with debt, cost and all else that is dragging them down ? They know how to make a profit above and beyond of all the things you mention that's how, but for some reason even when they are in a supply and demand chain that ensures huge profits for them, they are greedy still, and worse disrespectful, and so they decide that they should have almost 300% instead of a little less so that their employee's might share in that success along with them better ( I mean why not they helped them make it also).
> 
> Why is this greed I wonder ? Is it because they unionize in their thinking at or near the top, and so they can't operate as corporate* individuals* in which is what they want to be called when it benefits them, but when it comes to their employee's they group themselves in with the others who cry and complain about this all of the time, and so they say that they are hurting all the time right, and so there is just no way that they can pay anymore at all to their employee's because they (these con men) are just hurting all the time as according to them right?
> 
> Then we all go and watch episodes of Epic homes and other shows like this on TV, but they couldn't afford to do people right in life, no there was just no way they could do nothing like that on their own now could they?...LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are completely worthless and uninformed. No wonder your boss fired you.  Probably for gross stupidity, laziness and incompetence.  First, look up the word "anecdotal" before you bother to abuse it again.
Click to expand...

Is that the only thing you found wrong with my post (one word), so how about the rest of it ? 

You know I'm right on this stuff, as it takes no rocket scientist to understand what goes on, and have you forgotten why I was *layed off* or do you just ignore what one says in so that you can try and make up things in the ways that you want them to read or be read otherwise? Why so hostile, I mean are you a businessman who has been guilty of being greedy, and hoarding everything for yourself in life in which I figure if so, then you are probably the real lazy one who was just some how fortunate enough to have been in the right situation and at the right time in life.  I know people who have taken dirt and turned it into a fortune, but it was only because they were in a supply and demand chain that allowed it to turn out that way. There wasn't really much thought involved in it all, so it is amazing what can come from some of the most unsuspecting businesses that people can get into, but it is still no reason for them to be bad people if they are fortunate in life, so I see it as a character flaw really when they who are the guilty ones are bad, and in other situations there are trends that get started, and that are followed, where as it is supposed that you are a fool if you treat your employee's as if they are somebody instead of idiots who can be duped easily.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these things are anecdotal, where as they are figured in along with everything else when doing business, and it has nothing to do with how you pay your employee as based upon the supply and demand chain one might fine themselves in.  How do you think businessmen get so filthy rich then, I mean if they are so overwhelmed with debt, cost and all else that is dragging them down ? They know how to make a profit above and beyond of all the things you mention that's how, but for some reason even when they are in a supply and demand chain that ensures huge profits for them, they are greedy still, and worse disrespectful, and so they decide that they should have almost 300% instead of a little less so that their employee's might share in that success along with them better ( I mean why not they helped them make it also).
> 
> Why is this greed I wonder ? Is it because they unionize in their thinking at or near the top, and so they can't operate as corporate* individuals* in which is what they want to be called when it benefits them, but when it comes to their employee's they group themselves in with the others who cry and complain about this all of the time, and so they say that they are hurting all the time right, and so there is just no way that they can pay anymore at all to their employee's because they (these con men) are just hurting all the time as according to them right?
> 
> Then we all go and watch episodes of Epic homes and other shows like this on TV, but they couldn't afford to do people right in life, no there was just no way they could do nothing like that on their own now could they?...LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely worthless and uninformed. No wonder your boss fired you.  Probably for gross stupidity, laziness and incompetence.  First, look up the word "anecdotal" before you bother to abuse it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that the only thing you found wrong with my post (one word), so how about the rest of it ?
> 
> You know I'm right on this stuff, as it takes no rocket scientist to understand what goes on, and have you forgotten why I was *layed off* or do you just ignore what one says in so that you can try and make up things in the ways that you want them to read or be read otherwise? Why so hostile, I mean are you a businessman who has been guilty of being greedy, and hoarding everything for yourself in life in which I figure if so, then you are probably the real lazy one who was just some how fortunate enough to have been in the right situation and at the right time in life.  I know people who have taken dirt and turned it into a fortune, but it was only because they were in a supply and demand chain that allowed it to turn out that way. There wasn't really much thought involved in it all, so it is amazing what can come from some of the most unsuspecting businesses that people can get into, but it is still no reason for them to be bad people if they are fortunate in life, so I see it as a character flaw really when they who are the guilty ones are bad, and in other situations there are trends that get started, and that are followed, where as it is supposed that you are a fool if you *treat your employee's as if they are somebody instead of idiots who can be duped easily.*
Click to expand...


If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?


----------



## The Rabbi

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely worthless and uninformed. No wonder your boss fired you.  Probably for gross stupidity, laziness and incompetence.  First, look up the word "anecdotal" before you bother to abuse it again.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the only thing you found wrong with my post (one word), so how about the rest of it ?
> 
> You know I'm right on this stuff, as it takes no rocket scientist to understand what goes on, and have you forgotten why I was *layed off* or do you just ignore what one says in so that you can try and make up things in the ways that you want them to read or be read otherwise? Why so hostile, I mean are you a businessman who has been guilty of being greedy, and hoarding everything for yourself in life in which I figure if so, then you are probably the real lazy one who was just some how fortunate enough to have been in the right situation and at the right time in life.  I know people who have taken dirt and turned it into a fortune, but it was only because they were in a supply and demand chain that allowed it to turn out that way. There wasn't really much thought involved in it all, so it is amazing what can come from some of the most unsuspecting businesses that people can get into, but it is still no reason for them to be bad people if they are fortunate in life, so I see it as a character flaw really when they who are the guilty ones are bad, and in other situations there are trends that get started, and that are followed, where as it is supposed that you are a fool if you *treat your employee's as if they are somebody instead of idiots who can be duped easily.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?
Click to expand...


You're dealing with someone who, frankly, I doubt ever worked in a profit making environment.  He certainly shows no understanding of what it takes to run a business.  Someone who thinks advertising, R&D, taxes, rent, maintenance, and utilities are "anecdotal" (perhaps he mean incidental?) doesnt have the slightest fucking clue.


----------



## sameech

SmedlyButler said:


> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Futurists in the 60's and 70's were saying that in the 21st Century the average man would have so much leisure time he wouldn't know what to do with it all.
> Well through the 40yrs since then I've worked hundreds of 60+ hour weeks. I think the glitch they didn't anticipate was the reality that the working man in the affluent west
> would have to compete with the working man in the rising third world. They were often sweat shop labor. So even though our productivity rose signifigantly there has been that anchor holding back an equivalent rise in our standard of living.
> 
> I for one think it would be great if a person could afford to give more time to their familys or their art or volunteering, whatever, if that's what they chose. That would be a leap forward in *quality* of living as far as I'm concerned. There's no universal law that says a human being has to work 60 hrs or 40hrs. a week to earn his daily bread.
> 
> That time may come when the world's labor market levels out, and if everybody isn't actually strapped to the wheel by then.
Click to expand...


People need to find ways to decouple themselves from an hour's wage for an hour's work.   Progress has been made in that regards with 401K's, but even then it is largely voluntary and requires contributions employees elect not to make to have a few more dollars today.  My sister, for instance gets matching up to 5% so she does 5 and gets the 10%.  She said most people instead just like to complain about how broke they are instead of putting money in to get the extra amount.  At the rate she is going, she will be sitting on at least half a million bucks when she retires just by putting in 5% and probably closer to a million.


----------



## Skull Pilot

sameech said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Futurists in the 60's and 70's were saying that in the 21st Century the average man would have so much leisure time he wouldn't know what to do with it all.
> Well through the 40yrs since then I've worked hundreds of 60+ hour weeks. I think the glitch they didn't anticipate was the reality that the working man in the affluent west
> would have to compete with the working man in the rising third world. They were often sweat shop labor. So even though our productivity rose signifigantly there has been that anchor holding back an equivalent rise in our standard of living.
> 
> I for one think it would be great if a person could afford to give more time to their familys or their art or volunteering, whatever, if that's what they chose. That would be a leap forward in *quality* of living as far as I'm concerned. There's no universal law that says a human being has to work 60 hrs or 40hrs. a week to earn his daily bread.
> 
> That time may come when the world's labor market levels out, and if everybody isn't actually strapped to the wheel by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People need to find ways to decouple themselves from an hour's wage for an hour's work.   Progress has been made in that regards with 401K's, but even then it is largely voluntary and requires contributions employees elect not to make to have a few more dollars today.  My sister, for instance gets matching up to 5% so she does 5 and gets the 10%.  She said most people instead just like to complain about how broke they are instead of putting money in to get the extra amount.  At the rate she is going, she will be sitting on at least half a million bucks when she retires just by putting in 5% and probably closer to a million.
Click to expand...


401ks have a lot of drawbacks but if your employer matches you are a complete idiot if you don't max out the matching contributions.


----------



## sameech

Skull Pilot said:


> 401ks have a lot of drawbacks but if your employer matches you are a complete idiot if you don't max out the matching contributions.



Yep.  I worked at a place that did up to 5% on SEP-IRA.  Most people didn't contribute.  I just could not convince them to take the 5% and, if nothing else, draw it back out and pay the 10% penalty on it.  They still would have come out ahead, but nope.....that was beer money denied to tie up any of their coin.


----------



## Andylusion

Skull Pilot said:


> 401ks have a lot of drawbacks



Huh?   What are the drawbacks?

If I purchase $10,000 stocks, or any investment, and it triples in value, and I sell it, I have to pay $5,000 in taxes, eating up a good chunk of the increase.

If I put $10K in any investment through a 401K, and it triples in value, it grows in value tax free.... correct?

What is the drawback?   Explain please.  I don't understand.


----------



## initforme

Winning in life consists of being able to retire at the earliest possible age to get out of the god awful American rat race of working yourself to death.   Invest wisely, constantly be on the lookout for a better job sticking it to a lower paying employee, and getting post high school training in a field of high demand are all ways a worker who will never own his own business to get ahead in this messed up anxiety society.   If I would have known the popularity of anti anxiety meds and how many people are on them, I would have invested in them heavily.  Most everyone I know is on them.


----------



## boedicca

According to Vivek, we're headed to a 10-20 hour workweek for some, with many humans being obsolete in 15 years.

He predicts that The Idle will be free to focus on creativity and englightment.

Ha.   Considering how the idle spend their time these days, he's delusional.

_...In his debate with me, Kurzweil said: Automation always eliminates more jobs than it creates if you only look at the circumstances narrowly surrounding the automation. Thats what the Luddites saw in the early 19th century in the textile industry in England. The new jobs came from increased prosperity and new industries that were not seen. Kurzweils key argument was that just as we could not predict that types of jobs that were created, we cant predict what is to come.

Kurzweil is right, but the problem is that no matter what the jobs of the future are, they will surely require greater skill and educationrobots can do all the grunt work. Manufacturers who want to bring production back already complain that they cant find enough skilled workers in the U.S. for their automated factories. Technology companies that write the software also complain about shortages of workers with the skills that they need. We wont be able to retrain the majority of the workforce fast enough to take the new jobs in emerging industries. During the industrial revolution, it was the younger generations who were trainednot the older workers.

The only solution that I see is a shrinking work week. We may perhaps be working for 10 to 20 hours a week instead of the 40 for which we do today. And with the prices of necessities and of what we today consider luxury goods dropping exponentially, we may not need the entire population to be working. There is surely a possibility for social unrest because of this; but we could also create the utopian future we have long dreamed of, with a large part of humanity focused on creativity and enlightenment.

Regardless, at best we have another 10 to 15 years in which there is a role for humans...._

We?re heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does - The Washington Post


----------



## jwoodie

How about a 3 hour workweek and a 36 day weekend?


----------



## sameech

Androw said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 401ks have a lot of drawbacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?   What are the drawbacks?
> 
> If I purchase $10,000 stocks, or any investment, and it triples in value, and I sell it, I have to pay $5,000 in taxes, eating up a good chunk of the increase.
> 
> If I put $10K in any investment through a 401K, and it triples in value, it grows in value tax free.... correct?
> 
> What is the drawback?   Explain please.  I don't understand.
Click to expand...


It depends on a person's situation.  Some 401(k)'s are set up so that it is fairly easy to borrow against them without touching it directly, but apparently some are more of a PITA once you move outside your industry credit unions.  Likewise, there are the penalties if you have no choice but to touch it like to pay for some huge unexpected expense like a funeral, etc. 

I have no idea what they do in a situation like say you were 52 and had terminal cancer and needed to touch the money as far as penalties and such.  Like with my life insurance, if I have a terminal illness with 6 months or less expected to live, I can go ahead and collect up to half the money then if I wanted and leave the other half for when I am a goner.


----------



## dblack

The main thing is conformity. We must all march in lockstep for the greater glory of the fatherland!


----------



## Papageorgio

beagle9 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the mentality of a guy that does not get business. There are other expenses, there is labor, materials, utilities, equipment, building space, time spent dealing with government agencies, there are permits, licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, workman comp insurance, business insurance, building insurance, time spent selling, not to mention the businesses are charged more for sewer, water, electrical, internet access and a host of other costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All these things are anecdotal, where as they are figured in along with everything else when doing business, and it has nothing to do with how you pay your employee as based upon the supply and demand chain one might fine themselves in.  How do you think businessmen get so filthy rich then, I mean if they are so overwhelmed with debt, cost and all else that is dragging them down ? They know how to make a profit above and beyond of all the things you mention that's how, but for some reason even when they are in a supply and demand chain that ensures huge profits for them, they are greedy still, and worse disrespectful, and so they decide that they should have almost 300% instead of a little less so that their employee's might share in that success along with them better ( I mean why not they helped them make it also).
> 
> Why is this greed I wonder ? Is it because they unionize in their thinking at or near the top, and so they can't operate as corporate* individuals* in which is what they want to be called when it benefits them, but when it comes to their employee's they group themselves in with the others who cry and complain about this all of the time, and so they say that they are hurting all the time right, and so there is just no way that they can pay anymore at all to their employee's because they (these con men) are just hurting all the time as according to them right?
> 
> Then we all go and watch episodes of Epic homes and other shows like this on TV, but they couldn't afford to do people right in life, no there was just no way they could do nothing like that on their own now could they?...LOL
Click to expand...


Another person that is ignorant on how a business operates. 

They are all over the place.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## SmedlyButler

sameech said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the Futurists in the 60's and 70's were saying that in the 21st Century the average man would have so much leisure time he wouldn't know what to do with it all.
> Well through the 40yrs since then I've worked hundreds of 60+ hour weeks. I think the glitch they didn't anticipate was the reality that the working man in the affluent west
> would have to compete with the working man in the rising third world. They were often sweat shop labor. So even though our productivity rose signifigantly there has been that anchor holding back an equivalent rise in our standard of living.
> 
> I for one think it would be great if a person could afford to give more time to their familys or their art or volunteering, whatever, if that's what they chose. That would be a leap forward in *quality* of living as far as I'm concerned. There's no universal law that says a human being has to work 60 hrs or 40hrs. a week to earn his daily bread.
> 
> That time may come when the world's labor market levels out, and if everybody isn't actually strapped to the wheel by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People need to find ways to decouple themselves from an hour's wage for an hour's work.   Progress has been made in that regards with 401K's, but even then it is largely voluntary and requires contributions employees elect not to make to have a few more dollars today.  My sister, for instance gets matching up to 5% so she does 5 and gets the 10%.  She said most people instead just like to complain about how broke they are instead of putting money in to get the extra amount.  At the rate she is going, she will be sitting on at least half a million bucks when she retires just by putting in 5% and probably closer to a million.
Click to expand...


Even tho I had to retire a few years before I wanted to things have come together even better than I hoped. Doesn't have anything to do wth the OP tho.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Androw said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 401ks have a lot of drawbacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?   What are the drawbacks?
> 
> If I purchase $10,000 stocks, or any investment, and it triples in value, and I sell it, I have to pay $5,000 in taxes, eating up a good chunk of the increase.
> 
> If I put $10K in any investment through a 401K, and it triples in value, it grows in value tax free.... correct?
> 
> What is the drawback?   Explain please.  I don't understand.
Click to expand...


A 401 k is not tax free it is tax deferred
Look at the way your 401 is taxed when you take the money out.

ALL of the contributions and ALL of the gains are taxed as regular income.

The government forces you to take required minimum withdrawals every year.  If you do not take out the required amount you get heavy tax penalties.

Now compare that to a non qualified plan.

Your money is categorized as principle ( the after tax money used to purchase investments) and gains (the actual growth of your investments)

If you invested 100K and it grew to 1 million you would not be taxed on the 1ooK investment and the rest would be taxed at the lower capital gains rate of 15%

Now let's say you only need 40K to live on.  In a non qualified investment you only have to take out what you need and can leave the rest in to continue to grow thereby making your nest egg last longer.

In a 401 or other qualified plan the government would force you to take the required withdrawal even if it was more than you needed to cover your expenses and all of that withdrawal is taxed at the higher regular income tax rate.  So you pay more taxes than you have to and your nest egg will be depleted faster.

IMO those are significant drawbacks.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Sounds like a good idea  And as for the people making less than 100k/year = give them 10k in food stamps.

This would work well.


----------



## sameech

SmedlyButler said:


> Even tho I had to retire a few years before I wanted to things have come together even better than I hoped. Doesn't have anything to do wth the OP tho.



It is one of the ways of decoupling from hour work=hour wage.  People should buy stocks, start their own businesses on the side, grow more of their food, etc to be more self sufficient.  Reducing the work week will reduce people's incomes.  Just because you are not working the counter at McDonald's doesn't mean that someone else won't need to and if you are at home then they are going to be paying me to stand there in your place.


----------



## Andylusion

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely worthless and uninformed. No wonder your boss fired you.  Probably for gross stupidity, laziness and incompetence.  First, look up the word "anecdotal" before you bother to abuse it again.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the only thing you found wrong with my post (one word), so how about the rest of it ?
> 
> You know I'm right on this stuff, as it takes no rocket scientist to understand what goes on, and have you forgotten why I was *layed off* or do you just ignore what one says in so that you can try and make up things in the ways that you want them to read or be read otherwise? Why so hostile, I mean are you a businessman who has been guilty of being greedy, and hoarding everything for yourself in life in which I figure if so, then you are probably the real lazy one who was just some how fortunate enough to have been in the right situation and at the right time in life.  I know people who have taken dirt and turned it into a fortune, but it was only because they were in a supply and demand chain that allowed it to turn out that way. There wasn't really much thought involved in it all, so it is amazing what can come from some of the most unsuspecting businesses that people can get into, but it is still no reason for them to be bad people if they are fortunate in life, so I see it as a character flaw really when they who are the guilty ones are bad, and in other situations there are trends that get started, and that are followed, where as it is supposed that you are a fool if you *treat your employee's as if they are somebody instead of idiots who can be duped easily.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?
Click to expand...


Well, that basically is the view of the left.   Everyone is too stupid to live without us directing and controlling their lives.

I've actually had a job that paid, in my opinion, too little.   The solution was to get another job.

But the thing was, everyone at that job, said they loved it.  Were they stupid?   Or were they making a choice that the enjoyment of doing a job they liked, even for a lower wage than they could get elsewhere, was worth it?

Again, the leftist view is that people should not be allowed to make a choice, that they the wise sages of authoritarianism, do not approve of.

I sat my boss down, and had a talk with him about the pay, and he showed me that they couldn't increase their prices to the customer, in order to pay me more money, because their competition had similar pricing.    If they raise prices, they would lose business, and that would mean I'd end up not earning much either way.

I agreed, and started looking for other employment, and I found a job, and quit.   That's how that works.

The irony of the whole thing is, if employees would stop sitting around complaining they are victims, they could fix this whole thing.

If they simply got off their butts, and found alternative employment when they want to earn more, the act of them leaving those jobs, would drive up wages, by reducing availability of labor.    I always go back to McDonald's in Norway.   They have absolutely no McDs Union, and no minimum wage law, and the employees are paid a bit over $15/hr.

Why is McDonald's paying so much?   Because the general public tends to learn skills, or get education, to move on from low wage jobs, to higher wage jobs.   As a result, McDonald's has to pay more to keep employees.

The free-market system works, when people use it.   When you sit on your butt, and cry "wah wah empolyers are greedy wah wah wah", the result is you stay poor.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely worthless and uninformed. No wonder your boss fired you.  Probably for gross stupidity, laziness and incompetence.  First, look up the word "anecdotal" before you bother to abuse it again.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the only thing you found wrong with my post (one word), so how about the rest of it ?
> 
> You know I'm right on this stuff, as it takes no rocket scientist to understand what goes on, and have you forgotten why I was *layed off* or do you just ignore what one says in so that you can try and make up things in the ways that you want them to read or be read otherwise? Why so hostile, I mean are you a businessman who has been guilty of being greedy, and hoarding everything for yourself in life in which I figure if so, then you are probably the real lazy one who was just some how fortunate enough to have been in the right situation and at the right time in life.  I know people who have taken dirt and turned it into a fortune, but it was only because they were in a supply and demand chain that allowed it to turn out that way. There wasn't really much thought involved in it all, so it is amazing what can come from some of the most unsuspecting businesses that people can get into, but it is still no reason for them to be bad people if they are fortunate in life, so I see it as a character flaw really when they who are the guilty ones are bad, and in other situations there are trends that get started, and that are followed, where as it is supposed that you are a fool if you *treat your employee's as if they are somebody instead of idiots who can be duped easily.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?
Click to expand...

Duped because they got caught in a trap that the employers had carefully layed out for them, and when the economy crashed it just set it all on fire even worse. Who generally has the power, and who doesn't in todays bull crap monopoly riddled America ? Think about all the excuses that were made justifying slavery back in the day, as I bet it was just as good if not better than what you all are coming up with today.


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the only thing you found wrong with my post (one word), so how about the rest of it ?
> 
> You know I'm right on this stuff, as it takes no rocket scientist to understand what goes on, and have you forgotten why I was *layed off* or do you just ignore what one says in so that you can try and make up things in the ways that you want them to read or be read otherwise? Why so hostile, I mean are you a businessman who has been guilty of being greedy, and hoarding everything for yourself in life in which I figure if so, then you are probably the real lazy one who was just some how fortunate enough to have been in the right situation and at the right time in life.  I know people who have taken dirt and turned it into a fortune, but it was only because they were in a supply and demand chain that allowed it to turn out that way. There wasn't really much thought involved in it all, so it is amazing what can come from some of the most unsuspecting businesses that people can get into, but it is still no reason for them to be bad people if they are fortunate in life, so I see it as a character flaw really when they who are the guilty ones are bad, and in other situations there are trends that get started, and that are followed, where as it is supposed that you are a fool if you *treat your employee's as if they are somebody instead of idiots who can be duped easily.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duped because they got caught in a trap that the employers had carefully layed out for them, and when the economy crashed it just set it all on fire even worse. Who generally has the power, and who doesn't in todays bull crap monopoly riddled America ? Think about all the excuses that were made justifying slavery back in the day, as I bet it was just as good if not better than what you all are coming up with today.
Click to expand...


Employees are too stupid to see a trap, and once caught in it are too stupid to leave.
Do you actually believe this, or are you just projecting your own experiences?


----------



## Andylusion

Skull Pilot said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 401ks have a lot of drawbacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?   What are the drawbacks?
> 
> If I purchase $10,000 stocks, or any investment, and it triples in value, and I sell it, I have to pay $5,000 in taxes, eating up a good chunk of the increase.
> 
> If I put $10K in any investment through a 401K, and it triples in value, it grows in value tax free.... correct?
> 
> What is the drawback?   Explain please.  I don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 401 k is not tax free it is tax deferred
> Look at the way your 401 is taxed when you take the money out.
> 
> ALL of the contributions and ALL of the gains are taxed as regular income.
> 
> The government forces you to take required minimum withdrawals every year.  If you do not take out the required amount you get heavy tax penalties.
> 
> Now compare that to a non qualified plan.
> 
> Your money is categorized as principle ( the after tax money used to purchase investments) and gains (the actual growth of your investments)
> 
> If you invested 100K and it grew to 1 million you would not be taxed on the 1ooK investment and the rest would be taxed at the lower capital gains rate of 15%
> 
> Now let's say you only need 40K to live on.  In a non qualified investment you only have to take out what you need and can leave the rest in to continue to grow thereby making your nest egg last longer.
> 
> In a 401 or other qualified plan the government would force you to take the required withdrawal even if it was more than you needed to cover your expenses and all of that withdrawal is taxed at the higher regular income tax rate.  So you pay more taxes than you have to and your nest egg will be depleted faster.
> 
> IMO those are significant drawbacks.
Click to expand...


Roth 401K / IRA?    My understanding is that there is no minimum distribution in Roths.  Even so, the required distribution is fairly low, don't you think?   From what I've read, the RMD on a $500K traditional 401K, is about $18K.   At $18K a year, that would be 27 years, assuming that you picked such horrible funds, that there was zero increase for 27 years.  Not to mention the RMD doesn't start until you hit 70, which means that, again assume zero increase for 27 years, means you'll run out at 97 years old?

You have a point, you do... not sure it's that big of a deal.  It's more of a big deal because of the draconian taxes the tyrannical government imposes.   50% tax on every dollar you fail to withdraw.   That's unbelievable.

I guess where I got confused was this:

*If you invested 100K and it grew to 1 million you would not be taxed on the 1ooK investment and the rest would be taxed at the lower capital gains rate of 15%*

My understanding.... and I could be wrong... is that you have to pay taxes on the gain each year.   Which adds up to thousands on thousands of dollars.

If I put $100K in a bank savings account, I have to pay taxes on the gain of that account each year. 

Similarly, if I put that $100K into a mutual fund, and it gains 10% each year, every year I'll get hit with a capital gains tax of 15% on that gain, in addition to my regular income taxes.  By the time I save up $1 Million in my mutual fund, I'll be paying $15,000 a year in Capital Gains tax. 

If I work a $40K a year job, I could easily save up a Million dollars in a mutual fund.    But by the time I got to that point, outside of a 401K, by the time I reached that amount, I'd be paying $15K in capital gains, in addition to my regular income tax.

However, if I put the same $100K into a 401K mutual fund, and it gains 10% a year, I pay zero taxes.    When my mutual fund hits $1 Million, I'm still paying zero tax.   Then if I have a 401K, I pull it out at my tax rate.   If I have a Roth, I pull it out tax free.

I do grasp your point, that all things being equal, you would rather take the 15% capital gains rate, over the 35% income tax rate.   But there is no way that someone earning $40K a year, would be able to take the yearly capital gains hit of $15,000 in addition to normal income tax.    And if they sucked the yearly capital gains taxes, out of the mutual fund, they would never get even close to $1 Million saved up.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...ax-Benefits-of-Your-401-k--Plan/INF22614.html
Distributions and Taxes

I could be all wrong about all of this, but that was my understanding.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Androw said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?   What are the drawbacks?
> 
> If I purchase $10,000 stocks, or any investment, and it triples in value, and I sell it, I have to pay $5,000 in taxes, eating up a good chunk of the increase.
> 
> If I put $10K in any investment through a 401K, and it triples in value, it grows in value tax free.... correct?
> 
> What is the drawback?   Explain please.  I don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 401 k is not tax free it is tax deferred
> Look at the way your 401 is taxed when you take the money out.
> 
> ALL of the contributions and ALL of the gains are taxed as regular income.
> 
> The government forces you to take required minimum withdrawals every year.  If you do not take out the required amount you get heavy tax penalties.
> 
> Now compare that to a non qualified plan.
> 
> Your money is categorized as principle ( the after tax money used to purchase investments) and gains (the actual growth of your investments)
> 
> If you invested 100K and it grew to 1 million you would not be taxed on the 1ooK investment and the rest would be taxed at the lower capital gains rate of 15%
> 
> Now let's say you only need 40K to live on.  In a non qualified investment you only have to take out what you need and can leave the rest in to continue to grow thereby making your nest egg last longer.
> 
> In a 401 or other qualified plan the government would force you to take the required withdrawal even if it was more than you needed to cover your expenses and all of that withdrawal is taxed at the higher regular income tax rate.  So you pay more taxes than you have to and your nest egg will be depleted faster.
> 
> IMO those are significant drawbacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roth 401K / IRA?    My understanding is that there is no minimum distribution in Roths.  Even so, the required distribution is fairly low, don't you think?   From what I've read, the RMD on a $500K traditional 401K, is about $18K.   At $18K a year, that would be 27 years, assuming that you picked such horrible funds, that there was zero increase for 27 years.  Not to mention the RMD doesn't start until you hit 70, which means that, again assume zero increase for 27 years, means you'll run out at 97 years old?
Click to expand...


A Roth is an after tax investment. The gains are favorably treated but not everyone can contribute to a Roth IRA.  Very few 401 k plans offered by business are Roth plans



> You have a point, you do... not sure it's that big of a deal.  It's more of a big deal because of the draconian taxes the tyrannical government imposes.   50% tax on every dollar you fail to withdraw.   That's unbelievable.
> 
> I guess where I got confused was this:
> 
> *If you invested 100K and it grew to 1 million you would not be taxed on the 1ooK investment and the rest would be taxed at the lower capital gains rate of 15%*
> 
> My understanding.... and I could be wrong... is that you have to pay taxes on the gain each year.   Which adds up to thousands on thousands of dollars.



On any investment vehicle you only pay taxes on _realized_ gains.  So if you never cashed out stocks, bonds or mutual funds you would never pay taxes on them.


> If I put $100K in a bank savings account, I have to pay taxes on the gain of that account each year.
> Similarly, if I put that $100K into a mutual fund, and it gains 10% each year, every year I'll get hit with a capital gains tax of 15% on that gain, in addition to my regular income taxes.  By the time I save up $1 Million in my mutual fund, I'll be paying $15,000 a year in Capital Gains tax.
> 
> If I work a $40K a year job, I could easily save up a Million dollars in a mutual fund.    But by the time I got to that point, outside of a 401K, by the time I reached that amount, I'd be paying $15K in capital gains, in addition to my regular income tax.
> 
> However, if I put the same $100K into a 401K mutual fund, and it gains 10% a year, I pay zero taxes.    When my mutual fund hits $1 Million, I'm still paying zero tax.   Then if I have a 401K, I pull it out at my tax rate.   If I have a Roth, I pull it out tax free.
> 
> I do grasp your point, that all things being equal, you would rather take the 15% capital gains rate, over the 35% income tax rate.   But there is no way that someone earning $40K a year, would be able to take the yearly capital gains hit of $15,000 in addition to normal income tax.    And if they sucked the yearly capital gains taxes, out of the mutual fund, they would never get even close to $1 Million saved up.
> 
> https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...ax-Benefits-of-Your-401-k--Plan/INF22614.html
> Distributions and Taxes
> 
> I could be all wrong about all of this, but that was my understanding.




Simple interest is counted as income.  Appreciation in stock , bond or mutual fund shares is not.

If you saved 1 million dollars using after tax money in a private portfolio you would would not pay tax on the principle you withdraw only the gains and you would only pay that when you sold shares for cash.

Roth IRAs are a great tool and the best of the qualified plans IMO but if you leave a Roth to someone that person will be subject to required withdrawals.

In the long run 401 ks are actually better for the government than for the average Joe because the government gets more tax revenue out of them than any other type of investment.

So IMO if your employer offers a retirement plan with a match put in what you have to to max out all matching funds then invest in a Roth IRA if you qualify.m  If you want to invest more than the Roth limits open up an investment account with a self service broker.


----------



## Mathbud1

Androw said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the only thing you found wrong with my post (one word), so how about the rest of it ?
> 
> You know I'm right on this stuff, as it takes no rocket scientist to understand what goes on, and have you forgotten why I was *layed off* or do you just ignore what one says in so that you can try and make up things in the ways that you want them to read or be read otherwise? Why so hostile, I mean are you a businessman who has been guilty of being greedy, and hoarding everything for yourself in life in which I figure if so, then you are probably the real lazy one who was just some how fortunate enough to have been in the right situation and at the right time in life.  I know people who have taken dirt and turned it into a fortune, but it was only because they were in a supply and demand chain that allowed it to turn out that way. There wasn't really much thought involved in it all, so it is amazing what can come from some of the most unsuspecting businesses that people can get into, but it is still no reason for them to be bad people if they are fortunate in life, so I see it as a character flaw really when they who are the guilty ones are bad, and in other situations there are trends that get started, and that are followed, where as it is supposed that you are a fool if you *treat your employee's as if they are somebody instead of idiots who can be duped easily.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that basically is the view of the left.   Everyone is too stupid to live without us directing and controlling their lives.
> 
> I've actually had a job that paid, in my opinion, too little.   The solution was to get another job.
> 
> But the thing was, everyone at that job, said they loved it.  Were they stupid?   Or were they making a choice that the enjoyment of doing a job they liked, even for a lower wage than they could get elsewhere, was worth it?
> 
> Again, the leftist view is that people should not be allowed to make a choice, that they the wise sages of authoritarianism, do not approve of.
> 
> I sat my boss down, and had a talk with him about the pay, and he showed me that they couldn't increase their prices to the customer, in order to pay me more money, because their competition had similar pricing.    If they raise prices, they would lose business, and that would mean I'd end up not earning much either way.
> 
> I agreed, and started looking for other employment, and I found a job, and quit.   That's how that works.
> 
> The irony of the whole thing is, if employees would stop sitting around complaining they are victims, they could fix this whole thing.
> 
> If they simply got off their butts, and found alternative employment when they want to earn more, the act of them leaving those jobs, would drive up wages, by reducing availability of labor.    I always go back to McDonald's in Norway.   They have absolutely no McDs Union, and no minimum wage law, and the employees are paid a bit over $15/hr.
> 
> Why is McDonald's paying so much?   Because the general public tends to learn skills, or get education, to move on from low wage jobs, to higher wage jobs.   As a result, McDonald's has to pay more to keep employees.
> 
> The free-market system works, when people use it.   When you sit on your butt, and cry "wah wah empolyers are greedy wah wah wah", the result is you stay poor.
Click to expand...


It's also possible the other employees thought the wage was fair for their circumstances. That's something that a lot of wage talk ignores; everyone's circumstances are different. What is great pay for one person is lousy pay for another. Perception plays a big role in what we consider good pay. Perceptions that can include living circumstances, self-valuation of your skills and potential, ambition, etc.

A lot of people are stagnant in their jobs. My dad is an example. He worked for 20+ years for the phone company doing essentially the same work the whole time. Others are active in their careers. Being active means you are doing one or two things all the time:

a) You are looking for a job. (better than the one you have, or a first job period.)

b) You are working to improve your skills and/or knowledge. I'm not talking about just gaining experience from the work you do. I'm talking about an active plan of improvement. This means approaching your career as a project. You make plans, set goals, track progess. You have to hold yourself accountable to keep at it.

It is so easy to just fall into the grind of working. 9-5, go home. 9-5, repeat. When that happens you stagnate and unless you are extraordinarily lucky and an opportunity falls into your lap, you aren't going anywhere. My dad is an incredibly hard working man and one of the smartest people I know, but I know he regrets not being more active in directing his own career.


----------



## anotherlife

dblack said:


> The main thing is conformity. We must all march in lockstep for the greater glory of the fatherland!



Sieg Heil!  HEHEHE 

How long was the work week under the Nazis?  

I read somewhere that medieval workers had 5 day work weeks, Sunday being the Church day, and Monday being the sleep-off-Sunday-drinking day. 

Plus in winter time, rarely anyone worked, except own interest at own pace.  

Compare that to today's American stye bully-boy capitalism.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that basically is the view of the left.   Everyone is too stupid to live without us directing and controlling their lives.
> 
> I've actually had a job that paid, in my opinion, too little.   The solution was to get another job.
> 
> But the thing was, everyone at that job, said they loved it.  Were they stupid?   Or were they making a choice that the enjoyment of doing a job they liked, even for a lower wage than they could get elsewhere, was worth it?
> 
> Again, the leftist view is that people should not be allowed to make a choice, that they the wise sages of authoritarianism, do not approve of.
> 
> I sat my boss down, and had a talk with him about the pay, and he showed me that they couldn't increase their prices to the customer, in order to pay me more money, because their competition had similar pricing.    If they raise prices, they would lose business, and that would mean I'd end up not earning much either way.
> 
> I agreed, and started looking for other employment, and I found a job, and quit.   That's how that works.
> 
> The irony of the whole thing is, if employees would stop sitting around complaining they are victims, they could fix this whole thing.
> 
> If they simply got off their butts, and found alternative employment when they want to earn more, the act of them leaving those jobs, would drive up wages, by reducing availability of labor.    I always go back to McDonald's in Norway.   They have absolutely no McDs Union, and no minimum wage law, and the employees are paid a bit over $15/hr.
> 
> Why is McDonald's paying so much?   Because the general public tends to learn skills, or get education, to move on from low wage jobs, to higher wage jobs.   As a result, McDonald's has to pay more to keep employees.
> 
> The free-market system works, when people use it.   When you sit on your butt, and cry "wah wah empolyers are greedy wah wah wah", the result is you stay poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also possible the other employees thought the wage was fair for their circumstances. That's something that a lot of wage talk ignores; everyone's circumstances are different. What is great pay for one person is lousy pay for another. Perception plays a big role in what we consider good pay. Perceptions that can include living circumstances, self-valuation of your skills and potential, ambition, etc.
> 
> A lot of people are stagnant in their jobs. My dad is an example. He worked for 20+ years for the phone company doing essentially the same work the whole time. Others are active in their careers. Being active means you are doing one or two things all the time:
> 
> a) You are looking for a job. (better than the one you have, or a first job period.)
> 
> b) You are working to improve your skills and/or knowledge. I'm not talking about just gaining experience from the work you do. I'm talking about an active plan of improvement. This means approaching your career as a project. You make plans, set goals, track progess. You have to hold yourself accountable to keep at it.
> 
> It is so easy to just fall into the grind of working. 9-5, go home. 9-5, repeat. When that happens you stagnate and unless you are extraordinarily lucky and an opportunity falls into your lap, you aren't going anywhere. My dad is an incredibly hard working man and one of the smartest people I know, but I know he regrets not being more active in directing his own career.
Click to expand...



There was something that was instilled in people when they were young back in the day by their parents, and that was that you don't become a job jumper (especially in great local companies that would hire you on) and this was even though learning other things should have never stopped for you in your life.  It was that you tried to be the best at what you did, and this no matter what you did or who you did it for back then, and within trust there of.  Now just as so many have since testified to such as this in the past, where as they knew that it always paid off well for the employer, the employee and their families.  People didn't have to run around like whores or prostitutes trying to find their perfect masters like they do these days or like it is being suggested more and more of them to do so today, and so what has happened since ?  Now if you became a job jumper, then you were considered a risk that wasn't worth taking for a company once interviewed, and especially if being interviewed for a long term employee position that was always sought after big time back in the days of yester-year. Job stability meant American stability, and it still should mean that to this day. 
Now you see that this  was the norm back in the day, but now it's as if people have to became job jumping whores, and so they are being tuned into this way in so that they can be ready to dance for anyone and at anytime as their new pimps will pimp them out for a while or until another pimp takes them over shortly there after. 

This is a grave risk for the employee and their families in many cases as we have seen, but not so much for the employer who wants these job jumping whores today more than anything. Yep that's what they want instead of stable individuals who will add to the future of their country, community, and their families as a long term company employee, just as it were back in the more normal days of America. If you think these days are normal, then I wish you could go back in time to see America at it's finest hours, and even though flawed it was still better than it is now for the companies and their employee's in what we see now a days.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are being duped and they are not idiots, why are they being duped? Do you realize that your rant is just as much saying that EMPLOYEES are stupid for accepting crap wages as it is saying that EMPLOYERS are greedy for giving them?
> 
> 
> 
> Duped because they got caught in a trap that the employers had carefully layed out for them, and when the economy crashed it just set it all on fire even worse. Who generally has the power, and who doesn't in todays bull crap monopoly riddled America ? Think about all the excuses that were made justifying slavery back in the day, as I bet it was just as good if not better than what you all are coming up with today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employees are too stupid to see a trap, and once caught in it are too stupid to leave.
> Do you actually believe this, or are you just projecting your own experiences?
Click to expand...

Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duped because they got caught in a trap that the employers had carefully layed out for them, and when the economy crashed it just set it all on fire even worse. Who generally has the power, and who doesn't in todays bull crap monopoly riddled America ? Think about all the excuses that were made justifying slavery back in the day, as I bet it was just as good if not better than what you all are coming up with today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employees are too stupid to see a trap, and once caught in it are too stupid to leave.
> Do you actually believe this, or are you just projecting your own experiences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.
Click to expand...


Huh?


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duped because they got caught in a trap that the employers had carefully layed out for them, and when the economy crashed it just set it all on fire even worse. Who generally has the power, and who doesn't in todays bull crap monopoly riddled America ? Think about all the excuses that were made justifying slavery back in the day, as I bet it was just as good if not better than what you all are coming up with today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employees are too stupid to see a trap, and once caught in it are too stupid to leave.
> Do you actually believe this, or are you just projecting your own experiences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.
Click to expand...


So your position is that workers are too stupid to know what's good for them and need government?  I think you are projecting here.
Have you ever met someone who says "I'm getting screwed in my job but Im too stupid to do anything about it?  No, didnt think so.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employees are too stupid to see a trap, and once caught in it are too stupid to leave.
> Do you actually believe this, or are you just projecting your own experiences?
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your position is that workers are too stupid to know what's good for them and need government?  I think you are projecting here.
> Have you ever met someone who says "I'm getting screwed in my job but Im too stupid to do anything about it?  No, didnt think so.
Click to expand...

Either to stupid, or in some cases non-union, and/or in other cases hindered by mobility problems, or they were to illegal to do something about it. I've seen it all, and I've had sympathy for all, but yet it's all depending.


----------



## The Rabbi

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your position is that workers are too stupid to know what's good for them and need government?  I think you are projecting here.
> Have you ever met someone who says "I'm getting screwed in my job but Im too stupid to do anything about it?  No, didnt think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either to stupid, or in some cases non-union, and/or in other cases hindered by mobility problems, or they were to illegal to do something about it. I've seen it all, and I've had sympathy for all, but yet it's all depending.
Click to expand...

You didnt see any of those things.  You saw people who had the best situation they were likely to get but were still unhappy with some aspect.


----------



## AntiParty

Avorysuds said:


> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.



You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)


----------



## AntiParty

beagle9 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your position is that workers are too stupid to know what's good for them and need government?  I think you are projecting here.
> Have you ever met someone who says "I'm getting screwed in my job but Im too stupid to do anything about it?  No, didnt think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either to stupid, or in some cases non-union, and/or in other cases hindered by mobility problems, or they were to illegal to do something about it. I've seen it all, and I've had sympathy for all, but yet it's all depending.
Click to expand...


Your comment is funny. You call him stupid but then state that you have seen the situation...You know the word "stupid" doesn't win debates about politics correct?


----------



## The Rabbi

AntiParty said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
Click to expand...


It doesnt matter how hard someone works.  Roofers probably work harder than almost anyone else out there.  ANd while they make decent money, they certainly don't make what the inventor of the iPhone makes.


----------



## beagle9

AntiParty said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your position is that workers are too stupid to know what's good for them and need government?  I think you are projecting here.
> Have you ever met someone who says "I'm getting screwed in my job but Im too stupid to do anything about it?  No, didnt think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Either to stupid, or in some cases non-union, and/or in other cases hindered by mobility problems, or they were to illegal to do something about it. I've seen it all, and I've had sympathy for all, but yet it's all depending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is funny. You call him stupid but then state that you have seen the situation...You know the word "stupid" doesn't win debates about politics correct?
Click to expand...

No I wasn't saying that he was to stupid, but rather what I was saying is that some people are to stupid to realize when they are being duped, and that I have sympathy for them who are like this. Naive is a more appropriate word. I apologize for using the word stupid at all.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter how hard someone works.  Roofers probably work harder than almost anyone else out there.  ANd while they make decent money, they certainly don't make what the inventor of the iPhone makes.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that it should be that way either, but what they should be making is what that specific market will afford them to make at the structured pay grades in which they graduate to as they work there, and that they are not to be exploited by their owner who may instruct the management team to pay them as little as possible if it be the case.


----------



## beagle9

The Rabbi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your position is that workers are too stupid to know what's good for them and need government?  I think you are projecting here.
> Have you ever met someone who says "I'm getting screwed in my job but Im too stupid to do anything about it?  No, didnt think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Either to stupid, or in some cases non-union, and/or in other cases hindered by mobility problems, or they were to illegal to do something about it. I've seen it all, and I've had sympathy for all, but yet it's all depending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt see any of those things.  You saw people who had the best situation they were likely to get but were still unhappy with some aspect.
Click to expand...

Wow, now you know what I saw in my life, yet you know me not or what I saw in my life. That's an interesting statement by you, even bordering on desperation maybe?


----------



## Papageorgio

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employees are too stupid to see a trap, and once caught in it are too stupid to leave.
> Do you actually believe this, or are you just projecting your own experiences?
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


Glad I wasn't the only one.


----------



## beagle9

Papageorgio said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity is what is being bred today, and who is breeding these incompetents or low information voters that Rush and the gang like to refer to them as ?  I mean where on earth did the low information voter come from ? What are they a product of ? I know I know that you will say that they are the dependents of the democrats and their policies for free stuff yada yada yada, but what about the workers who work so hard, but aren't able to chase after the American dream anymore ? I ask now from whence do they come in from ? Oh that's right they are ignored as best as possible when they speak, because the picking and choosing of the biggest so called branded losers must be focused on in the political debates in which keep raging on and on and on these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad I wasn't the only one.
Click to expand...

Now rabbi started the stupidity stuff, and I got drawn into it, but really people aren't stupid at all. They just have different upbringing's that other people take advantage of or they are born with a condition that people try and take advantage of. It's liken to a creature one may come upon in the woods, and the person either see's the creature as something to abuse or exploit or they see it as one of God's creatures in which they are to respect and keep safe, otherwise if it is the case where they are faced with that choice they might have to make in such a case. I wonder which one the rabbi is  or what would he do ?


----------



## beagle9

AntiParty said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
Click to expand...

The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.

I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
Click to expand...


That isn't a very progressive attitude. What right do you have to report her for not meeting your standards? Doesn't she deserve a job despite her attitude?

(please note that I do not actually support the above.)


----------



## Papageorgio

beagle9 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
Click to expand...


I have that issue with almost every government employee I come in contact with, however, I have no choice but to work with them as they are a monopoly and most the workers are there to collect a paycheck, nothing else.


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
Click to expand...


That's not true at all.   And no, they couldn't be paying their people more, and it's not because of ideology, it's because of MATH.

Let's say that I open a store, and I'm making a mere $50,000 off my store.  Meanwhile my employees are earning average wages for that store.

Now I can't pay them more, without paying myself less, which I'm not going to do because I only earn $50,000.

But.... if I take my income, and invest it into opening a second store...  the economics, and wages, and income of the second store will be exactly the same, with one exception.   I can't be at both stores at the same time, so I have to hire a manager to run the second store.

So I hire a manager for $40,000, and that eats up all but $10,000 of what would be my profit.

Thus my income now is $60,000, and how much less must I pay my employees?   No less.   They don't have to earn a penny less than when I earned $50,000.

Say I open 50 stores.   Now my income is $550,000 a year.   How much less must I pay my employee?   No less.  Their wages do not have to fall at all, for my wages to go up.

Yes, my income is now several times larger than my lowest paid employees, but it's not because I'm working harder, it's because I invested more wisely.

MATH people.   Basic math tends to blow away all leftard crap.

*"Well if the CEO of Walmart was paid less, they could pay employees more!"*

Really?
C. Douglas McMillon CEO of Walmart will earn $25.2 Million.

$25.2 Million divided by 2.2 Million employees is....  $11.45.     That's per employee, per year.   $11.45.     That's one half of a penny per hour.

Yeah, that's going to change those employees lives, right?   Oh wait, here in leftard land, where we don't use math, cutting CEO pay really would fix everything, because we leftists are too stupid to use a calculator.

Donald Thompson, CEO of McDonald will earn $9.5 Million.

$9.5 Million divided by 1.8 Million employees is...  $5.27.  That's per employee, per year.  That's 1/4th of a penny per hour.

Again... leftists ideology is based on the inability of people to use a calculator.

*But it does not even end there.    That $25.2 and $9.5 Million dollar income, isn't even cash.    Most of that is stock options.*

Do you people understand how compensation through stocks is done?    The company doesn't pay you with money.  They pay you with stock.    You can then sell the stock on the open market.   When a company gives stocks to it's CEO, that stock doesn't cost the company anything.   That's why they do that.   The only one giving the CEO money, is the person on the market who buys the stock from the CEO, should the CEO choose to sell it.

Douglas McMillon got $23 Million all in stocks.
Donald Thompson got $6.5 Million all in stocks.

That doesn't cost the employee anything.   The employee is not earning $23 Million, to give to the CEO.  Nor could you pay employees with stocks, mainly because they wouldn't want them.   Do you want to end up with a paycheck of stocks, which you would then have to hire a stock broker to sell, which might end up being less on the market than how much your cash pay check was supposed to be?

Of course not.   So even if we did confiscate the stock compensation of the CEOs, the employees wouldn't want it.

Douglas McMillon got $2 Million in cash.
Donald Thompson got $3 Million in cash.

$2 Million divided by 2.2 Million Walmart employees is 90¢ per employee per year.
$3 Million divided by 1.8 Million McDonalds employees is $1.60 per employee per year.

The moment a leftist learns how to use a calculator, he'll grow out of being a moronic leftist.


----------



## Smilebong

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.



We were made to work 6 days and rest one.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.


----------



## Andylusion

R.C. Christian said:


> Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.



But I know people who love that shift.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.

See here's the problem.    We are not Communist Chinese.  You can pick whatever job you want.

Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?

I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.

No... the solution was.... I quit.  Found another job.   We have freedom here.   If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on.   But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight?   Maybe they like that shift?   I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts.  She loves it.  Works 3 days on, 4 days off.

Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?


----------



## dblack

Androw said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I know people who love that shit.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.
> 
> See here's the problem. We are not Communist Chinese. You can pick whatever job you want.    ...
Click to expand...

Oh gawd. You're not one of those "freeeedom" nitwits, are you?


----------



## Andylusion

dblack said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I know people who love that shift.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.
> 
> See here's the problem.     ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh gawd. You're not one of those "freeeedom" nitwits, are you?
Click to expand...


I know.... the horrors of promoting freedom.


----------



## dblack

Androw said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I know people who love that shift.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.
> 
> See here's the problem.     ...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gawd. You're not one of those "freeeedom" nitwits, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.... the horrors of promoting freedom.
Click to expand...


It's so twentieth century.


----------



## beagle9

Papageorgio said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
> 
> 
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have that issue with almost every government employee I come in contact with, however, I have no choice but to work with them as they are a monopoly and most the workers are there to collect a paycheck, nothing else.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of this stuff going on today, but whose fault is it really ?


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I know people who love that shift.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.
> 
> See here's the problem.    We are not Communist Chinese.  You can pick whatever job you want.
> 
> Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?
> 
> I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.
> 
> No... the solution was.... I quit.  Found another job.   We have freedom here.   If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on.   But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight?   Maybe they like that shift?   I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts.  She loves it.  Works 3 days on, 4 days off.
> 
> Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?
Click to expand...

You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.


----------



## beagle9

Smilebong said:


> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made to work 6 days and rest one.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation, but thank God you don't speak for everyone. Work may not mean working for the other man, but it may include other things like working at your home or charity work etc. He wasn't specific as to where you would be working in life, just as long as you take a day to rest no matter what you do in life.


----------



## Papageorgio

beagle9 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have that issue with almost every government employee I come in contact with, however, I have no choice but to work with them as they are a monopoly and most the workers are there to collect a paycheck, nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a lot of this stuff going on today, but whose fault is it really ?
Click to expand...


Can't help but wonder if the government employee is overpaid and if he really had to work to keep his job, maybe we would get better service for our tax dollars.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## AntiParty

beagle9 said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
Click to expand...


I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers  by accident or on purpose. 

THE MESSAGE.

They fire or lose  anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have that issue with almost every government employee I come in contact with, however, I have no choice but to work with them as they are a monopoly and most the workers are there to collect a paycheck, nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's a lot of this stuff going on today, but whose fault is it really ?
Click to expand...


Leftards.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I know people who love that shift.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.
> 
> See here's the problem.    We are not Communist Chinese.  You can pick whatever job you want.
> 
> Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?
> 
> I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.
> 
> No... the solution was.... I quit.  Found another job.   We have freedom here.   If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on.   But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight?   Maybe they like that shift?   I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts.  She loves it.  Works 3 days on, 4 days off.
> 
> Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.
Click to expand...


I'm suggesting that maybe the person with the job, knows more about what they want, than some mindless leftist in government, or an Ivory tower somewhere.


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
> 
> 
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers  by accident or on purpose.
> 
> THE MESSAGE.
> 
> They fire or lose  anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.
Click to expand...


Both of these two prior comments, are the absolute most stupid comments I've read for a while now.

The only fact we have right now, is that a Cici's Pizza hired a bad employee.

From that, 'large corporations' must intentionally hire lousy employees.

What the heck is wrong with leftists?    How people can say stuff like this, and not hurt themselves getting out of bed in the morning, is beyond me.

Listen up sparky.....   Most chain stores, are Franchises.   The bad employee at Cici's, was never interviewed by a Corporate employee.  He was likely interviewed and hired by either the owner of the Franchise, or the manager the owner put in charge of the franchise.  And sometimes even that manager delegates hiring to a shift manager.

"Large Corporations", many times offer free training to become managers.   Walmart even offers management training that is accredited, and qualify as college credit towards a business degree.

Does that sound like they are trying to prevent people from being aware of self-worth?

When I worked at the parts store, there was a guy there who went through the management training, and was working as Assistant Store Manager.   Today he runs his own store.   Good thing they prevented him from being aware of his self worth.

You people are a joke.  You have no idea what you are talking about.   The left claims to be against prejudice, and yet you do it all the time from a position of complete and total ignorance.

You do know that out of all McDonald's Franchises, 75% are owned and operated by people who started off as minimum wage crew members?   Boy, McDonald's better step up their efforts of keeping employees from being aware of their self worth, because that's an awful lot of 6 Figure Incomes for people they wanted held down.

The dumbest things said on this forum sometimes.   You need to sit down before you break something.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?


----------



## Andylusion

WheelieAddict said:


> Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?
> 
> Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube



The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.

Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive.   The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.

That would be great.    But we all know how these things go.  Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.

So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.

To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax.   If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good.  But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.

This is why I am against both.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Androw said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?
> 
> Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.
> 
> Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive.   The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.
> 
> That would be great.    But we all know how these things go.  Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.
> 
> So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.
> 
> To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax.   If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good.  But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.
> 
> This is why I am against both.
Click to expand...


Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.


I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase? 

To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The daughter went into Little Caesars Pizza, and she encountered a bad employee that she figured either didn't want to be there or her corp was just hiring the cheapest person they could find to work that counter is what she figured might be the case. Anyway this person caused the franchise to lose a customer, and no telling how many others were lost as well. Next my wife went there to get the grand daughter a pizza, and she encountered this same person working. The same attitude was present, and the same result came afterwards where as the wife or daughter will not go back there until this person is gone from there.
> 
> I can't help but wonder though, if the worker is there because she is cheap help (not a part of the team), and so the corp figures that they can get by with her (or) if she is just bad and they haven't figured her out yet. We are going to report her, so we shall see what happens next. Then the truth will or might be known if they keep her around or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers  by accident or on purpose.
> 
> THE MESSAGE.
> 
> They fire or lose  anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of these two prior comments, are the absolute most stupid comments I've read for a while now.
> 
> The only fact we have right now, is that a Cici's Pizza hired a bad employee.
> 
> From that, 'large corporations' must intentionally hire lousy employees.
> 
> What the heck is wrong with leftists?    How people can say stuff like this, and not hurt themselves getting out of bed in the morning, is beyond me.
> 
> Listen up sparky.....   Most chain stores, are Franchises.   The bad employee at Cici's, was never interviewed by a Corporate employee.  He was likely interviewed and hired by either the owner of the Franchise, or the manager the owner put in charge of the franchise.  And sometimes even that manager delegates hiring to a shift manager.
> 
> "Large Corporations", many times offer free training to become managers.   Walmart even offers management training that is accredited, and qualify as college credit towards a business degree.
> 
> Does that sound like they are trying to prevent people from being aware of self-worth?
> 
> When I worked at the parts store, there was a guy there who went through the management training, and was working as Assistant Store Manager.   Today he runs his own store.   Good thing they prevented him from being aware of his self worth.
> 
> You people are a joke.  You have no idea what you are talking about.   The left claims to be against prejudice, and yet you do it all the time from a position of complete and total ignorance.
> 
> You do know that out of all McDonald's Franchises, 75% are owned and operated by people who started off as minimum wage crew members?   Boy, McDonald's better step up their efforts of keeping employees from being aware of their self worth, because that's an awful lot of 6 Figure Incomes for people they wanted held down.
> 
> The dumbest things said on this forum sometimes.   You need to sit down before you break something.
Click to expand...

How can anyone take you serious when you mix comments and issues together in which don't go together, and then you take things in and out of context just to make a point that you create by constantly moving the goal post ?  Then you fail at making your point stick because people can see right through such bull crap when you do this type stuff in which you do. I just shake my head when reading your post or responses, because I can see the game, your defenses, your biases, and your leanings that your have running all of the time.

Oh and it's Little Cesar's, and not Cici's Pizza that had the bad employee.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans work too hard for mere scraps. 13 hour days are hell. I used to work that shift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I know people who love that shift.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.
> 
> See here's the problem.    We are not Communist Chinese.  You can pick whatever job you want.
> 
> Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?
> 
> I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.
> 
> No... the solution was.... I quit.  Found another job.   We have freedom here.   If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on.   But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight?   Maybe they like that shift?   I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts.  She loves it.  Works 3 days on, 4 days off.
> 
> Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.
Click to expand...


I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?


----------



## Andylusion

WheelieAddict said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thread and good conversation all around. To make this thread even better.......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?
> 
> Milton Friedman - The Negative Income Tax - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.
> 
> Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive.   The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.
> 
> That would be great.    But we all know how these things go.  Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.
> 
> So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.
> 
> To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax.   If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good.  But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.
> 
> This is why I am against both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.
> 
> 
> I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase?
> 
> To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.
Click to expand...


Like I said... it would work... if they did it exactly as planned.

But how many times have we heard this before?  If we do plan X, then we can eliminate plan Y.     So the implement plan X, and start to phase out plan Y... and then they extend Y another few months.... then extend it another year.... then extend it 4 years.....

Then you end up with the infamous 1898 'temporary' 3% luxury tax on phones to pay for the Spanish American war, which was promptly ended in... 2006?

Do we trust that if we give government yet another hand out program, that they will eliminate all the other hand outs... and just as importantly, not bring the other handouts back?

I just don't know.

If you are simply asking whether the Friedman system would be better... then yes.  I believe it would be better.

The question is, will the government, and the public, be willing to accept such a system, without all the other handouts?   I just don't think so.  I think even if we passed a bill to eliminate all the others, I think that would last 2 years, and the Democraps would get back the congress, and slowly bring all those programs back.

The only way it would really work, is if there was a fiscal crisis.   When we have a 'near-Greece' experience, and government really grasps that money isn't an endless pool, that might be the time to try this.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your confusion. You wonder if Large Corporations with massive profits employ terrible workers  by accident or on purpose.
> 
> THE MESSAGE.
> 
> They fire or lose  anyone that becomes efficient because they Eventually start to know their own self worth. And when people LEARN and become aware of self worth, it's bad for certain industries. It's why there is an attack on education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both of these two prior comments, are the absolute most stupid comments I've read for a while now.
> 
> The only fact we have right now, is that a Cici's Pizza hired a bad employee.
> 
> From that, 'large corporations' must intentionally hire lousy employees.
> 
> What the heck is wrong with leftists?    How people can say stuff like this, and not hurt themselves getting out of bed in the morning, is beyond me.
> 
> Listen up sparky.....   Most chain stores, are Franchises.   The bad employee at Cici's, was never interviewed by a Corporate employee.  He was likely interviewed and hired by either the owner of the Franchise, or the manager the owner put in charge of the franchise.  And sometimes even that manager delegates hiring to a shift manager.
> 
> "Large Corporations", many times offer free training to become managers.   Walmart even offers management training that is accredited, and qualify as college credit towards a business degree.
> 
> Does that sound like they are trying to prevent people from being aware of self-worth?
> 
> When I worked at the parts store, there was a guy there who went through the management training, and was working as Assistant Store Manager.   Today he runs his own store.   Good thing they prevented him from being aware of his self worth.
> 
> You people are a joke.  You have no idea what you are talking about.   The left claims to be against prejudice, and yet you do it all the time from a position of complete and total ignorance.
> 
> You do know that out of all McDonald's Franchises, 75% are owned and operated by people who started off as minimum wage crew members?   Boy, McDonald's better step up their efforts of keeping employees from being aware of their self worth, because that's an awful lot of 6 Figure Incomes for people they wanted held down.
> 
> The dumbest things said on this forum sometimes.   You need to sit down before you break something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can anyone take you serious when you mix comments and issues together in which don't go together, and then you take things in and out of context just to make a point that you create by constantly moving the goal post ?  Then you fail at making your point stick because people can see right through such bull crap when you do this type stuff in which you do. I just shake my head when reading your post or responses, because I can see the game, your defenses, your biases, and your leanings that your have running all of the time.
> 
> Oh and it's Little Cesar's, and not Cici's Pizza that had the bad employee.
Click to expand...


The difference is, I've lived this.   I've worked at these places, and I know how the system works.  I'm still friends with a manager at a Wendy's, who I worked for back in the 90s.   

You just make up crap.   The only fact that you have presented, was a business hired a bad employee.

You know nothing about why, or how.   You make up, just completely fabricate all the fake reasons you want, to fit with your ideology.

But you don't actually know ANYTHING about why that guy is there, or what corporate knows, or doesn't know about that employee.

You are just prejudice. You pre-judge companies, on situations you know NOTHING about.

Btw, thanks for the laugh about "how can anyone take you seriously".   Coming from you, that's hilarious.    Out of everyone on this forum... you are commenting on others taking someone seriously.   You know the only reason I have not put you on my ignore list, is specifically because you make hilarious comments like that.   I haven't seen a thread yet, that you have commented on, in which people were not just outright laughing at you, and then you want to question how people can take me seriously?

Oh that's a riot.   Please continue.  Go on.


----------



## EverCurious

WheelieAddict said:


> .......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?



I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from? 

To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippi&#8217;s Poor Can Afford Houses!"] 

Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?

Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details I&#8217;ve contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation&#8230;


----------



## TGN

We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices. 

Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day


----------



## dblack

TGN said:


> We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices. [/url]



Exactly. Why would we want to eliminate any of those choices?


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with all such programs is that it would not end up being a replacement, but an addition.
> 
> Such programs can only work, if there is an economic motive.   The Friedman plan will in fact work, *IF* it replaces all the other welfare programs.
> 
> That would be great.    But we all know how these things go.  Everyone would be in favor of it, until they got to the "and now we cut welfare", and then everyone would start screaming about how we can't just throw single mothers and children out on the street to instantly die of starvation.
> 
> So a politically viable compromise would happen, where this program, and welfare, and food stamps, and subsidized housing, and it would end up being just another government handout in addition to all the other handouts.
> 
> To me it's the same problem as the national sales tax, or value added tax.   If that tax were to actually replace other taxes, that would be good.  But from history, we know that every country that either tried, or even succeeded in replacing income tax with VAT, the result has always been that they all ended up with both the income tax, and the VAT.
> 
> This is why I am against both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.
> 
> 
> I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase?
> 
> To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said... it would work... if they did it exactly as planned.
> 
> But how many times have we heard this before?  If we do plan X, then we can eliminate plan Y.     So the implement plan X, and start to phase out plan Y... and then they extend Y another few months.... then extend it another year.... then extend it 4 years.....
> 
> Then you end up with the infamous 1898 'temporary' 3% luxury tax on phones to pay for the Spanish American war, which was promptly ended in... 2006?
> 
> Do we trust that if we give government yet another hand out program, that they will eliminate all the other hand outs... and just as importantly, not bring the other handouts back?
> 
> I just don't know.
> 
> If you are simply asking whether the Friedman system would be better... then yes.  I believe it would be better.
> 
> The question is, will the government, and the public, be willing to accept such a system, without all the other handouts?   I just don't think so.  I think even if we passed a bill to eliminate all the others, I think that would last 2 years, and the Democraps would get back the congress, and slowly bring all those programs back.
> 
> *The only way it would really work, is if there was a fiscal crisis.   When we have a 'near-Greece' experience, and government really grasps that money isn't an endless pool, that might be the time to try this.*
Click to expand...


Wow do we have another Rom Emanuel on our hands here ? Isn't this what they claimed Rom was saying to Obama about a crisis, and how it is that one "should never let a good one go to waste' ?

Be careful or those democraps in which you call them, because they just might call you out on being a hypocrite with speak such as this in which you had wrote above.


----------



## beagle9

TGN said:


> We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.
> 
> Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day


The best one I think is the 4 day work week @ 40 hours a week, 10 hours a day. If anyone wants to *volunteer* for overtime up to 50 hours by working Friday, then so be it. This has already been proven to be a winner in so many ways if it works for the type of company that could employ this schedule as their standard operational procedure. It saves on gas, tires, the environment among many other positives that go along with it. Families spend more time getting to know one another again, companies keep their revenues up and so on and so forth. The power company I use to work for went to this schedule, and it works very well for them. Imagine the savings in it all. Aside from being greedy, it is a very nice schedule for construction, and any other that would take interest or try such a thing. Companies whom want to work more hours could create another part time shift in which would create more jobs in a job starved economy. It's time we get away from trying to work 1 person where 2 or even 3 should be or used to be once upon a time, and that is what I see in it all. I remember when my area supervisor stopped by our crew one day, and at this time they figured they could almost run the crew with two people instead of the four which was the norm, and he said " what are they going to do next, try to see if the truck can run itself " ??? I said " It looks that way doesn't it "? This was in the mid 90's when we started seeing some bad things coming down the pipe. It has gotten way worse since, and even up to and finally the economy collapsing. So many golden parachutes just flew away into the clouds, as we were all left to deal with the outcomes of it all.


----------



## dblack

Again, why does this need to be standardized?


----------



## Andylusion

EverCurious said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from?
> 
> To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippis Poor Can Afford Houses!"]
> 
> Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?
> 
> Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details Ive contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation
Click to expand...


Actually if you watched the video, he covered that.

He suggested a 50% tax on the negative income, based on the standard deduction.

So you have the standard deduction, which is $12,000 for Married filing jointly.

You have an income of $7,000.

You take the standard deduction on your taxes, of $12K, which gives you a negative income of $5,000.

With the negative income tax at 50%, that would be $2,500.  The government would send you a check for $2,500, bringing your income up to $9,500 for the year.

If your income was zero, and got the standard deduction of $12K, then you would have a tax rate of 50%, getting you a check for $6,000.

Now what this eliminates, is the current system where there is zero benefit for working.   Under the current system, if you don't work, you get X amount of welfare.   For every dollar you earn, you lose one dollar of welfare.   Until your income surpasses the max amount of welfare, you are no better off fiscally, than if you had not worked at all.    Which of course is exactly what people do.

Under the negative income tax system, for every dollar you earn, your welfare check is only decreased by 50¢.    Thus every dollar you earn, increases your income.  Your negative tax income, will decrease by 50¢ on the dollar until it no longer exists.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the point is remove all welfare programs and spend the dollars on the negative income tax instead, i could be issued weekly to cut down on waste by those that cant handle their money. Those deemed mentally unstable, the money could go to payment at a group home. I don't understand why it would be an addition if the most costly existing welfare bureaucracies are eliminated to pay for this basic plan. It could save money eliminating extra govt. jobs. The states can also have their own plans to supplement or not if not needed, and their is also charity that will continue of course.
> 
> 
> I see your point and admit that would be an issue if everyone voted for more spending. Perhaps it could be set at a steady rate that isn't easy to change somehow. States could have their own programs or not. Do you get to easily vote for social security to increase?
> 
> To me this is a win/win. Less govt. and those in need get assistance without spending a penny more than what is already. Also, everyone would get the same allotment-rich or poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said... it would work... if they did it exactly as planned.
> 
> But how many times have we heard this before?  If we do plan X, then we can eliminate plan Y.     So the implement plan X, and start to phase out plan Y... and then they extend Y another few months.... then extend it another year.... then extend it 4 years.....
> 
> Then you end up with the infamous 1898 'temporary' 3% luxury tax on phones to pay for the Spanish American war, which was promptly ended in... 2006?
> 
> Do we trust that if we give government yet another hand out program, that they will eliminate all the other hand outs... and just as importantly, not bring the other handouts back?
> 
> I just don't know.
> 
> If you are simply asking whether the Friedman system would be better... then yes.  I believe it would be better.
> 
> The question is, will the government, and the public, be willing to accept such a system, without all the other handouts?   I just don't think so.  I think even if we passed a bill to eliminate all the others, I think that would last 2 years, and the Democraps would get back the congress, and slowly bring all those programs back.
> 
> *The only way it would really work, is if there was a fiscal crisis.   When we have a 'near-Greece' experience, and government really grasps that money isn't an endless pool, that might be the time to try this.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow do we have another Rom Emanuel on our hands here ? Isn't this what they claimed Rom was saying to Obama about a crisis, and how it is that one "should never let a good one go to waste' ?
> 
> Be careful or those democraps in which you call them, because they just might call you out on being a hypocrite with speak such as this in which you had wrote above.
Click to expand...


The difference is, I don't actually *want* a crisis.  I just don't see fundamental changes for the good being done without one.   The public wants their freebies and programs and handouts.   The left has in fact, won successfully implemented the self-centered view of society, where everyone demands everything they can get from mommy and daddy government.

And unlike the claims by the left, 2008 was not a crisis.   The played it up as a crisis to push through tons of bad policies.

If the banks that failed, had been allowed to fail without government bailouts, and without stimulus packages that didn't work, and without endless useless regulations that accomplished nothing..... life would have continued.   The "ENTIRE WORLD FINANCIAL MARKET!!!" would not have crashed.

The banks would have simply failed without sucking billions of dollars down the drain.   That's all.  In fact, it might have caused the economy to recover much faster, as we saw in Iceland, and Estonia.

The point of the "don't let a good crisis go to waste", was simply the Democraps wanted to shove a bunch of crap down the publics throat, and this fabricated panic and crisis, was a great way to "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".


----------



## EverCurious

AntiParty said:


> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)



There are a few flaws in your assumptive logic. Im not sure if you have ever owned a business or not, but if you havent, then I think it needs to be understood that businesses are not mere objects to the owners as your argument implies. I can maybe buy a primarily profit driven argument for investor run companies. Still though, the truth is that the vast majority of companies actually care about their product and their business on a deeper level than just profit alone.

Let us look at your assumption from the top down: 

Do you believe that Bill Gates doesnt care about Microsoft? Do you believe that Bill Gates wants for anything material? Now what is his supposed motivation for profit that would necessitate him to convince people that they need to work for less? I cant really come up with anything but hatred or greed either, but Im reasonable enough to dig a little further than mere presumption before I  presume to know what motivates his pay rate system. 

Now let us examine the biggest company in the world: General Electric. Its a conglomerate (basically a collection of investors that bought up a bunch of smaller companies, for those who dont know) so one can easily argue they are purely profit driven, but I debate that profit driven equals the type of greed and hatred youve implied in your assessment of capitalism. 

Put it this way: when H&R Block makes suggestions that would lower your taxes, or increase your refund, and you follow the suggestions. Were you driven by hatred and greed, or simply making a reasonable and logical decision? Id presume the former, but by your argument asserts the latter - that you were maliciously withholding money from someone else.

But let us step down a level to the CEO now. 

It is not just a matter of how much _actual_ work said CEO does that determines his pay scale. CEO(s) have the trust of the company [be that the owner or the investors] that they are going to put as much of themselves into running that company as the owner/investors would themselves. This 'trust' does not come without substantial risks, a CEO has the power to completely destroy a company on almost every level.

Here are just a couple examples of CEOs destroying a company [literally taken from the first 10 fount in a List of Corporate Scandals on Wikipedia, there are thousands more Im sure]:

Qintex: CEO Christopher Skase was found to have improperly used his position to obtain management fees prior to the $1.5 billion collapse of Qintex including $700m unpaid debts.

Polly Peck: After a raid by the UK Serious Fraud Office in September 1990, the share price collapsed. The CEO Asil Nadir was convicted of stealing the company's money.


'Buying' this kind of 'trust assurance' is just the tip of the iceberg though. There is a long, often sordid, list of things that have to be considered when hiring a CEO, vs hiring an average Joe worker; ranging from protecting the companys public image, to their experience, company loyalty, honor, dedication, and finally their raw talent performing the job itself. Let us consider some scenarios to clarify my point:

What can happen to a company if a CEO has an affair with his secretary?  PR mess and possible abuse of position lawsuit. 

What can happen if a company CEO is caught expressing racism, opinions toward a specific sexual orientation, or opinions on specific religions?  PR nightmare and [likely] one or more anti-discrimination lawsuits from any <insert race/gender/religion/sexual orientation offended by CEO> that has been fired since the beginning of that CEO's hiring. 

What can happen if a companys CEO simply gets lazy and complacent [aka stops caring]?  In the best case, hes chosen good employees under him that can maintain function, but hes no longer pulling for the team so there is a loss of potential income. In the worst case, the company starts failing. If the company's owner/investors catch it quick enough, they can let him go and "invest" in hiring a new one [while likely facing some media scrutiny.] If they dont catch it in time they could fairly easily lose everything. 

So, no, on the second count of your argument: a CEO de facto 'works' 24/7. While average Joe worker is free to express their opinions, beliefs, etc. anywhere, anytime, a good CEO is a) seeking a PR assessment boards _approval _before expressing any personal opinions, or b) actually giving up their right to express their opinion for the good of the company. While average Joe worker is enjoying some mindless TV at home, CEO is on the other side of the planet in a lonely hotel room stressing about a merger meeting that could make or break the entire company. And so on. 

There are way too many additional reasons for CEO pay rates for me to put in this already fairly long posting, so Im just going to toss out a quickie on some of those. 

There are not a lot of CEOs out there and the raw truth is that is not some CEO degree out there that brings in a glut of new CEO's to pick and choose from. Most CEOs started at the bottom and have worked their way up the ladder, thus acquiring experience and knowledge that you cannot get in any other way. Because of that, there is also competition between companies for CEO's that drives up their pay scale; you dont want your CEOs getting lured to a rival company because they will pay him better, for example. This means the pay rate you offer has to remain competitive in an already limited candidate pool. 


Ultimately it behooves a company to pay their CEOs a lot more _because_ they are NOT average Joe employees. Good grief, just look at the number of average Joes that are working for mega company's, its *millions* in some cases and then theres that one CEO who is responsible, and held accountable, for the entire lot of it Damn skippy the CEO makes a lot more than your dime a dozen average Joe workers who are, bluntly, readily available and far easier to replace. 


You think CEO pay is outrageous and the income gap is too big now? Heh Wait and see what happens as previous generations CEOs retire and these companies start seriously fighting over the almost non-existent competence the current generation puts into the CEO pool. Sub-par education system, a piss poor attitude toward the company, poor work ethics, a sense of entitlement, *AND* have an impression that CEOs work less... mmm maybe I should apply myself and shoot for a small moon as a perk


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Again, why does this need to be standardized?


It doesn't really, but what people want is a way to combat greed, and that is why people begin looking for alternatives that may help the nation combat the greedy who have gone wild on them.


----------



## beagle9

EverCurious said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are Libertarians so I'll be easy on you and tell you that this scenario already exists, only backwards. The average CEO is paid 331 times as much as the worker. 774 times as much as a minimum wage worker. Do you think that a CEO works 774 times harder at work? Or have you figured out that Capitalism relies on convincing people that they need to work for less. If you haven't figured out that Wal-Mart and McDonalds could be paying their team more by now, you are bias and will never learn. (Note, this doesn't mean we should raise minimum wage, just means Corporations should see workers as part of the team that earn their profit.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few flaws in your assumptive logic. I&#8217;m not sure if you have ever owned a business or not, but if you haven&#8217;t, then I think it needs to be understood that businesses are not mere &#8220;objects&#8221; to the owners as your argument implies. I can maybe buy a primarily &#8220;profit driven&#8221; argument for investor run companies. Still though, the truth is that the vast majority of companies actually care about their product and their business on a deeper level than just profit alone.
> 
> Let us look at your assumption from the top down:
> 
> Do you believe that Bill Gates doesn&#8217;t &#8216;care&#8217; about Microsoft? Do you believe that Bill Gates wants for anything material? Now what is his supposed motivation for profit that would necessitate him to &#8220;convince people that they need to work for less&#8221;? I can&#8217;t really come up with anything but hatred or greed either, but I&#8217;m reasonable enough to dig a little further than mere presumption before I  presume to know what motivates his pay rate system.
> 
> Now let us examine the biggest company in the world: General Electric. It&#8217;s a conglomerate (basically a collection of investors that bought up a bunch of smaller companies, for those who don&#8217;t know) so one can easily argue they are purely profit driven, but I debate that &#8220;profit driven&#8221; equals the type of greed and hatred you&#8217;ve implied in your assessment of capitalism.
> 
> Put it this way: when H&R Block makes suggestions that would lower your taxes, or increase your refund, and you follow the suggestions. Were you driven by hatred and greed, or simply making a reasonable and logical decision? I&#8217;d presume the former, but by your argument asserts the latter - that you were maliciously withholding money from someone else.
> 
> But let us step down a level to the CEO now.
> 
> It is not just a matter of how much _actual_ work said CEO does that determines his pay scale. CEO(s) have the trust of the &#8216;company&#8217; [be that the owner or the investors] that they are going to put as much of themselves into running that company as the owner/investors would themselves. This 'trust' does not come without substantial risks, a CEO has the power to completely destroy a company on almost every level.
> 
> Here are just a couple examples of CEO&#8217;s destroying a company [literally taken from the first 10 fount in a &#8220;List of Corporate Scandals&#8221; on Wikipedia, there are thousands more I&#8217;m sure]:
> 
> Qintex: CEO Christopher Skase was found to have improperly used his position to obtain management fees prior to the $1.5 billion collapse of Qintex including $700m unpaid debts.
> 
> Polly Peck: After a raid by the UK Serious Fraud Office in September 1990, the share price collapsed. The CEO Asil Nadir was convicted of stealing the company's money.
> 
> 
> 'Buying' this kind of 'trust assurance' is just the tip of the iceberg though. There is a long, often sordid, list of things that have to be considered when hiring a CEO, vs hiring an average Joe worker; ranging from protecting the company&#8217;s public image, to their experience, company loyalty, honor, dedication, and finally their raw talent performing the job itself. Let us consider some scenarios to clarify my point:
> 
> What can happen to a company if a CEO has an affair with his secretary? &#8211; PR mess and possible &#8220;abuse of position&#8221; lawsuit.
> 
> What can happen if a company CEO is caught expressing racism, opinions toward a specific sexual orientation, or opinions on specific religions? &#8211; PR nightmare and [likely] one or more &#8220;anti-discrimination&#8221; lawsuits from any <insert race/gender/religion/sexual orientation offended by CEO> that has been fired since the beginning of that CEO's hiring.
> 
> What can happen if a company&#8217;s CEO simply gets lazy and complacent [aka stops caring]? &#8211; In the best case, he&#8217;s chosen good employees under him that can maintain function, but he&#8217;s no longer &#8216;pulling for the team&#8217; so there is a loss of potential income. In the worst case, the company starts failing. If the company's owner/investors catch it quick enough, they can let him go and "invest" in hiring a new one [while likely facing some media scrutiny.] If they don&#8217;t catch it in time they could fairly easily lose everything.
> 
> So, no, on the second count of your argument: a CEO de facto 'works' 24/7. While average Joe worker is free to express their opinions, beliefs, etc. anywhere, anytime, a good CEO is a) seeking a PR assessment board&#8217;s _approval _before expressing any personal opinions, or b) actually giving up their right to express their opinion for the good of the company. While average Joe worker is enjoying some mindless TV at home, CEO is on the other side of the planet in a lonely hotel room stressing about a merger meeting that could make or break the entire company. And so on.
> 
> There are way too many additional reasons for CEO pay rates for me to put in this already fairly long posting, so I&#8217;m just going to toss out a quickie on some of those.
> 
> There are not a lot of CEO&#8217;s out there and the raw truth is that is not some CEO degree out there that brings in a glut of new CEO's to pick and choose from. Most CEO&#8217;s started at the bottom and have worked their way up the ladder, thus acquiring experience and knowledge that you cannot get in any other way. Because of that, there is also competition between companies for CEO's that drives up their pay scale; you don&#8217;t want your CEO&#8217;s getting lured to a rival company because they will pay him better, for example. This means the pay rate you offer has to remain competitive in an already limited candidate pool.
> 
> 
> Ultimately it behooves a company to pay their CEO&#8217;s a lot more _because_ they are NOT average Joe employees. Good grief, just look at the number of average Joe&#8217;s that are working for mega company's, its *millions* in some cases&#8230; and then there&#8217;s that one CEO who is responsible, and held accountable, for the entire lot of it&#8230; Damn skippy the CEO makes a lot more than your dime a dozen average Joe workers who are, bluntly, readily available and far easier to replace.
> 
> 
> You think CEO pay is outrageous and the income gap is too big now? Heh&#8230; Wait and see what happens as previous generation&#8217;s CEO&#8217;s retire and these companies start seriously fighting over the almost non-existent competence the current generation puts into the CEO pool. Sub-par education system, a piss poor attitude toward the company, poor work ethics, a sense of entitlement, *AND* have an impression that CEOs work less... mmm maybe I should apply myself and shoot for a small moon as a perk
Click to expand...

You yourself have assigned his argument to a lot  of things in order to set up your attack, but what he targets within his arguments are the guilty, and not the innocent.  All the things in which you imply here are created and/or set up straw men, and you have done this all for the purpose of taking what he has said. and to roll off of it in defense of, even though it may not apply at all in the way that you have made it appear in a blanketed way. I don't think anyone here actually targets the innocent, but it is the guilty they are after always.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I know people who love that shift.   Literally, they specifically picked the job they had, because of that shift.
> 
> See here's the problem.    We are not Communist Chinese.  You can pick whatever job you want.
> 
> Why is it, that people today think it's their job to determine how everyone else works?
> 
> I had a job I hated (couple actually), and the solution wasn't to complain, or demand new labor laws, or start voting for some idiot that says he'll stop the evil greedy companies.
> 
> No... the solution was.... I quit.  Found another job.   We have freedom here.   If you don't like a 13 hour shift, move on.   But who are you to say other people shouldn't work 13 hours straight?   Maybe they like that shift?   I know a girl right now, that works 14 hour shifts.  She loves it.  Works 3 days on, 4 days off.
> 
> Why should she be denied a job she likes, because you don't?
> 
> 
> 
> You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?
Click to expand...

Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try and suggest here that people would prefer a 13 hour shift as opposed to an 8 hour shift, and this where as they could make the same money in 8 hours if the company would set it up this way, but they would choose the 13 hour shift instead ? Now the three days on and 4 days off sounds cool enough, and I bet the company found that it worked better than other methods of working people, so they used it and it worked.. Nothing wrong with trying to make everyone happier if can, so good for your friend who is happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.
Click to expand...


Guilty? What do you mean?


----------



## Slyhunter

Androw said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......thoughts on basic income or a negative income tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from?
> 
> To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippi&#8217;s Poor Can Afford Houses!"]
> 
> Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?
> 
> Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details I&#8217;ve contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation&#8230;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually if you watched the video, he covered that.
> 
> He suggested a 50% tax on the negative income, based on the standard deduction.
> 
> So you have the standard deduction, which is $12,000 for Married filing jointly.
> 
> You have an income of $7,000.
> 
> You take the standard deduction on your taxes, of $12K, which gives you a negative income of $5,000.
> 
> With the negative income tax at 50%, that would be $2,500.  The government would send you a check for $2,500, bringing your income up to $9,500 for the year.
> 
> If your income was zero, and got the standard deduction of $12K, then you would have a tax rate of 50%, getting you a check for $6,000.
> 
> Now what this eliminates, is the current system where there is zero benefit for working.   Under the current system, if you don't work, you get X amount of welfare.   For every dollar you earn, you lose one dollar of welfare.   Until your income surpasses the max amount of welfare, you are no better off fiscally, than if you had not worked at all.    Which of course is exactly what people do.
> 
> Under the negative income tax system, for every dollar you earn, your welfare check is only decreased by 50¢.    Thus every dollar you earn, increases your income.  Your negative tax income, will decrease by 50¢ on the dollar until it no longer exists.
Click to expand...


I like it. When you going to pass it?

Now is this gross income or taxable income after write offs?


----------



## EverCurious

beagle9 said:


> You yourself have assigned his argument to a lot of things in order to set up your attack, but what he targets within his arguments are the guilty, and not the innocent. All the things in which you imply here are created and/or set up straw men, and you have done this all for the purpose of taking what he has said. and to roll off of it in defense of, even though it may not apply at all in the way that you have made it appear in a blanketed way. I don't think anyone here actually targets the innocent, but it is the guilty they are after always.



 Is that so?  Well based on the above "argument only applies to the presumed guilty" claim: I will retract and agree instead that any company which remains in business to amass such vast wealth, must inherently have a good CEO who falls into the presumed "innocent" of the crime of capitalism and is therefore already doing right by the employees beneath him.  Therefore, it can easily be seen that said CEO possesses a very rare skillset and well deser- BUHAHAHAAHAHA.... Sorry couldn't do it... *Composes herself*  

 Amusement aside, yea I am going to take a demerit/hit for editing fail on that one.  I was hybrid responding to the overall vein of the thread as a whole with specific points of refute to specific flawed assumptions, but in the process of cutting out meat to save space/minds I muddled it all together.  { meh, two hours of sleep in the past 48 hours - down rep me or w/e its called. }  

 I stand behind the bones of my argument for inequitable pay scales.


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the idea of negative income taxes intriguing but I see a major flaw in it. How does one determine the tax rate? In order to satisfy, and thus eliminate the welfare side of things, one would need to come to a dollar amount that is "enough" to incentive them to work, but enough to afford the necessities. So where do we arrive at that 'amount' from?
> 
> To base it on the Federal poverty rate is folly because cost of living varies widely across the country. For example, the COA in Alaska is high, but the COA of say Kansas is much lower, those dollars are going to go a lot further in Kansas than in Alaska - so you could have 'poor' folks in Kansas living like Kings while those in Alaska are barely getting by. Which would bring us back to the whole income inequality debate would it not? [I have to admit that the headline that flashed into my head at this thought greatly amused me: "California's Poor Riot: Mississippis Poor Can Afford Houses!"]
> 
> Anyway, you'd have to take that amount down to at least the state level, and honestly, even that's not enough cause the cost of living from city to city within a state varies as well. But setting that aside to continue, our 'federal' taxes would then be calculated based upon individual states? Or would all of it be put upon the 'states' themselves to deal with and there would be an additional tax on top of that to pay for the Military and what not?
> 
> Regardless of what level of COA tax rate adjustment you go with, I see potential for a continuous destabilization cycle if families and businesses began to migrate around the country; be it for the lowest taxes, or for getting the most of their money. I will refrain from getting into the web of intricate details Ive contemplated and simply say that I see high potential for a number of troubling problems. Just to name a few of the major potential snarls; state economies, stability, schooling, segregation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you watched the video, he covered that.
> 
> He suggested a 50% tax on the negative income, based on the standard deduction.
> 
> So you have the standard deduction, which is $12,000 for Married filing jointly.
> 
> You have an income of $7,000.
> 
> You take the standard deduction on your taxes, of $12K, which gives you a negative income of $5,000.
> 
> With the negative income tax at 50%, that would be $2,500.  The government would send you a check for $2,500, bringing your income up to $9,500 for the year.
> 
> If your income was zero, and got the standard deduction of $12K, then you would have a tax rate of 50%, getting you a check for $6,000.
> 
> Now what this eliminates, is the current system where there is zero benefit for working.   Under the current system, if you don't work, you get X amount of welfare.   For every dollar you earn, you lose one dollar of welfare.   Until your income surpasses the max amount of welfare, you are no better off fiscally, than if you had not worked at all.    Which of course is exactly what people do.
> 
> Under the negative income tax system, for every dollar you earn, your welfare check is only decreased by 50¢.    Thus every dollar you earn, increases your income.  Your negative tax income, will decrease by 50¢ on the dollar until it no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like it. When you going to pass it?
> 
> Now is this gross income or taxable income after write offs?
Click to expand...


It would be after all deductions.  After all, you can't really get to a negative income without deductions.

As it is, it's not likely to be passed.   If it is passed, I would be willing to bet, it will just be an additional giveaway.

The economic incentive only works, if the lifestyle is sufficiently uncomfortable to motivate change.

If we leave all the existing programs in place, which many are already willing to live in such fiscal situations, then the negative income tax, will only serve as yet another source of welfare dependency.

But currently there simply isn't the political will to eliminate these handouts.


----------



## Mathbud1

TGN said:


> We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.
> 
> Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day



The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)


----------



## Andylusion

Mathbud1 said:


> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.
> 
> Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)
Click to expand...


It doesn't even end there.   Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.

When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours.   So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.

So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.

And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?

Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty? What do you mean?
Click to expand...

In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."

The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.

These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also. 

I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right?   I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives. 

I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TGN said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.
> 
> Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't even end there.   Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.
> 
> When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours.   So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.
> 
> So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.
> 
> And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?
> 
> Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.
Click to expand...

The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.


----------



## candycorn

TGN said:


> We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.
> 
> Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.



Not sure of why the hostility to the self-evident truths pointed out in the OP.  Equally not sure what the OP's thesis is.  

So, from my point of view, I have never...or should I say seldom...had a job where I was constantly busy for 40 solid hours during a week.  There is always down time to get some coffee, joke around/gossip with co-workers, call home, etc...  I understand not everyone has been as fortunate as I am but I tend to think those people are the exception and not the rule.  

So I think it is high time we consider alternate work schedules.  I believe it's the 8X5 formula that keeps businesses from changing since the formula is a proven winner and a supervisor need not worry about who is there and who isn't. If it's M-F 8-5; Robin is at her desk or Jim is in the warehouse or Kathryn is in the lab.  I certainly would be open to the idea of working 32-40 hours per week instead of the 40 I'm scheduled.  At this point in my life, I have enough money and really do not need to get 40 hours to pay my bills.  

Thank you Dave Ramsey.  

I think many 30-40 somethings are in the same boat.  I would like to head out to the coast twice a month instead of once a month or up to the mountains or go skiing over in Santa Fe or Taos.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty? What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."
> 
> The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.
> 
> These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also.
> 
> I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right?   I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives.
> 
> I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty? What do you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."
> 
> The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.
> 
> These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also.
> 
> I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right?   I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives.
> 
> I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->
Click to expand...

I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."
> 
> The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.
> 
> These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also.
> 
> I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right?   I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives.
> 
> I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?
Click to expand...


Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.


----------



## EverCurious

As far as working alternate hours, I'd suggest talking to your boss and see how he/she feels about it. Because of the SLFA mandates we end up overlapping shifts. For example, say we're open 7-7-7 that ends up being 84 hours a week total. We have to split up the days into two shifts dictated by 8h from either end (7a-4p and 10a-7p - w/hour lunch,) because most folks want a 40h week, we can usually scrape up a couple-few folks for a 32-36h/w and use them to fill in 'missed' shifts but we still end up overlapping them cause most won't take less than 32/h a week. Bottom line is that we end up overlapping employees quite often, regardless of if it's actually required to accomplish the job or not. Though on the plus side, this does help cover employee breaks, on the job texting, and employees just in general not being where they are needed when they are needed there. heh 

So if you want less hours a week, or less hours a day with more days a week, and could be flexible with your scheduled times - it might be something your boss would appreciate since it could actually help them out too.


With an over 8h/d with OT to equal a 40h/w pay idea, there's a couple things you can run into. You can run into issues with corporate operations if the company/division policy is no OT - some division managers even get docked pay if they end up with "excessive" employee OT. (I believe corporate started it in an attempt to get division managers to hire more efficient workers, but I might be wrong.) I was also once told that in some industries both the employee & employer have to pay higher taxes on overtime. -- I am not sure if I believe that as I've never run into it in all the places I've worked, but I 'could' see some state/union/muni throwing it down on the books to protect workers from 'slave hours' or something like that. 

That said, you had better be a damn good employee because you'd basically be doing 'less' for the employee - aka giving your employer 36 hours of work but making 40 hours a week pay. Plus in order for the math to work out for said pay, you end up with a pretty odd schedule like 2 10h days, 1 9h day, and 1 8h day. That might sound easy enough on paper, but try to fit that around my other employees schedules, who generally like consistency in 'their' work hours heh


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->
> 
> 
> 
> I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.
Click to expand...

Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?
Click to expand...


Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement
Click to expand...

And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?


----------



## EverCurious

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?
Click to expand...


Unions, as a matter of policy, fight to keep people hired regardless. There was a situation where one employee was chronically negligent in his position, the company couldn't fire him because of unions - even after the guys negligence killed another employee, a fellow union member. The oil company basically stuffed the 'offending' guy into a BS position (where he couldn't do any harm) and have to continue paying him even though the guy is useless to them as a company. -- Agreeably that's an exceptional case, but the point here is that the unions are not working for an individual worker himself per say, they are working for a general cause.

That said, I do not believe unions "started" the 40h work week. If I remember right it was more a universal call from employees in general who, for example, didn't want to work 10-5's and what have you, been around since the like 1800s if I remember. France even had a slogan: "8 hours work, 8 hours play, 8 hours sleep" because they felt that was the best division of the day (which works out to, you guessed it, 40 hours in the old standard M-F week.) Further on though, sometime in the 1930's the US gov. passed the SFLA to mandate OT for over 8h/day and 40h/week and businesses had no choice but to adapt to the new law.

Unions typically fight for things like work place safety, pay rate, and benefits on TOP of the 40h week because that was the cry for fairness in past generations. I'm not so sure they would be keen to attempt any alteration the 40h week standard because a) its what the employee wanted historically, and b) it's kind of dictated by the US gov and therefore rather non negotiable for an employer. I'm not too sure that unions would be to keen on taking up a voice for any schedule that involved mandatory OT as, at least in so much as the ones I've dealt with, they have historically fought against it. Though it's entirely possible that might just be specific to unions where I am because of our geographical location.


----------



## Politico

alanbmx123 said:


> What is stopping Google from doing this on its own?  Cut top executive salaries, boost the lower level employees and cut back to 20-30 hours a week and see.  Or do they not practice what they preach
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Which one of your grandmas basements have you been living in lol? Most of their jobs are part time.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't even end there.   Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.
> 
> When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours.   So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.
> 
> So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.
> 
> And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?
> 
> Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.
Click to expand...

You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?


----------



## Slyhunter

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't even end there.   Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.
> 
> When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours.   So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.
> 
> So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.
> 
> And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?
> 
> Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.
> 
> 
> 
> The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?
Click to expand...


I worked 12 on 12 off when I was in the army 3 day, 3 night, 3 days off a 9 day work week. Where there is a will there is a way.


----------



## gallantwarrior

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You want a four day work week? Work four tens.
> I loved it!! Three day weekends every four days is kick ass!!



That's a fact.  I negotiated a 4/10 shift with my employer and neither of us have ever regretted that choice.  I still have my 40 hr work week and three-day weekends.  An added bonus: I work the shift of my choice (graves) and the days off I have allow me to hold my part-time teaching job!


----------



## Mathbud1

Slyhunter said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I worked 12 on 12 off when I was in the army 3 day, 3 night, 3 days off a 9 day work week. Where there is a will there is a way.
Click to expand...


Which in essence means that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach that covers every possibility.


----------



## beagle9

EverCurious said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unions, as a matter of policy, fight to keep people hired regardless. There was a situation where one employee was chronically negligent in his position, the company couldn't fire him because of unions - even after the guys negligence killed another employee, a fellow union member. The oil company basically stuffed the 'offending' guy into a BS position (where he couldn't do any harm) and have to continue paying him even though the guy is useless to them as a company. -- Agreeably that's an exceptional case, but the point here is that the unions are not working for an individual worker himself per say, they are working for a general cause.*
> 
> That said, I do not believe unions "started" the 40h work week. If I remember right it was more a universal call from employees in general who, for example, didn't want to work 10-5's and what have you, been around since the like 1800s if I remember. France even had a slogan: "8 hours work, 8 hours play, 8 hours sleep" because they felt that was the best division of the day (which works out to, you guessed it, 40 hours in the old standard M-F week.) Further on though, sometime in the 1930's the US gov. passed the SFLA to mandate OT for over 8h/day and 40h/week and businesses had no choice but to adapt to the new law.
> 
> Unions typically fight for things like work place safety, pay rate, and benefits on TOP of the 40h week because that was the cry for fairness in past generations. I'm not so sure they would be keen to attempt any alteration the 40h week standard because a) its what the employee wanted historically, and b) it's kind of dictated by the US gov and therefore rather non negotiable for an employer. I'm not too sure that unions would be to keen on taking up a voice for any schedule that involved mandatory OT as, at least in so much as the ones I've dealt with, they have historically fought against it. Though it's entirely possible that might just be specific to unions where I am because of our geographical location.
Click to expand...


Replace the word Union in the embolded above with "Government", now what's the difference in the read ? There is none...


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't even end there.   Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.
> 
> When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours.   So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.
> 
> So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.
> 
> And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?
> 
> Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.
> 
> 
> 
> The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?
Click to expand...

Easy - 10 hours a day for 4 days a week for one group of employee's who are full time, then the part timers shift comes in and finishes up the hours that are left (28) and finally the week.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?
Click to expand...


Of course. I have no problem with unions and strikes. Labor law is another matter, which for the most part takes away universal rights and replaces them with interest group privilege.


----------



## gallantwarrior

guno said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
Click to expand...


Yes.  That's the reason the boss invested his time and money establishing and building the business to make pens.  The worker extracts the benefit of having a job.  If the worker is dissatisfied with his "cut" of the "surplus value" of the pen's price, that worker is certainly welcome to establish his own pen-making business and hire his own pen-maker.  Maybe then he could undercut the sales price of his former boss by selling his pens for, say...$19.  Of course, the new business owner, being cognizant of how unfair it is to pay his employees only $3 out of the price of the pen, will no doubt split the profit ($9), keeping $4.50 for himself and paying $4.50 to his pen-making employee.  Better yet, since the new business owner recognizes the efforts of his pen-maker as being the source of his income, he will pay the entire sum realized by the sale of the pen, minus overhead and other related costs.  $10 to the business owner, $9 to the pen-making employee.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unions, as a matter of policy, fight to keep people hired regardless. There was a situation where one employee was chronically negligent in his position, the company couldn't fire him because of unions - even after the guys negligence killed another employee, a fellow union member. The oil company basically stuffed the 'offending' guy into a BS position (where he couldn't do any harm) and have to continue paying him even though the guy is useless to them as a company. -- Agreeably that's an exceptional case, but the point here is that the unions are not working for an individual worker himself per say, they are working for a general cause.*
> 
> That said, I do not believe unions "started" the 40h work week. If I remember right it was more a universal call from employees in general who, for example, didn't want to work 10-5's and what have you, been around since the like 1800s if I remember. France even had a slogan: "8 hours work, 8 hours play, 8 hours sleep" because they felt that was the best division of the day (which works out to, you guessed it, 40 hours in the old standard M-F week.) Further on though, sometime in the 1930's the US gov. passed the SFLA to mandate OT for over 8h/day and 40h/week and businesses had no choice but to adapt to the new law.
> 
> Unions typically fight for things like work place safety, pay rate, and benefits on TOP of the 40h week because that was the cry for fairness in past generations. I'm not so sure they would be keen to attempt any alteration the 40h week standard because a) its what the employee wanted historically, and b) it's kind of dictated by the US gov and therefore rather non negotiable for an employer. I'm not too sure that unions would be to keen on taking up a voice for any schedule that involved mandatory OT as, at least in so much as the ones I've dealt with, they have historically fought against it. Though it's entirely possible that might just be specific to unions where I am because of our geographical location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace the word Union in the embolded above with "Government", now what's the difference in the read ? There is none...
Click to expand...


Nominally, unions don't have the power to legislate and enforce laws. I say "nominally", because in the corporatist era, that essentially what they've been granted. They've been bought off by perks and privilege and now are primarily defending their own power rather than the rights of workers in general.


----------



## gallantwarrior

beagle9 said:


> Smashy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to have a 40 hour work week instead of my usual 50.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has become a problem for many, where as the work week has expanded in hours for the investors to make more and more money, while the wages went stagnant for to many years in all of it. I remember in construction, most all were working a 40 hour work week that consisted of 10 hours a day 4 days a week. This worked well for the workers who most were from out of town working their specialty talent in that industry. This allowed them to get back home on Friday evening, and spend Saturday and Sunday with their families. This was a good thing, but greed began spreading as hours increased all the way to Saturday, where as threats were issued next that if the workers didn't like it, then they could just find them something else to do. Then the illegals or migrants were used as leverage to change the system and replace those Americans who wanted to have a decent job in life, and a better balance of their family life in the situation as well. This is also where the lies were told that the Americans wouldn't work, and these illegals or migrants were just doing the job's that Americans won't do. Greed has changed everything, and it has just about destroyed the American construction worker families in America.
Click to expand...


There is also the disincentive to work when one is confident that someone else will be required to pay for their food, shelter, and whatnot.  If welfare and other social "safety net" programs did not exist, many Americans would be more than motivated to take those "undesirable" jobs are told are peopled by foreigners.


----------



## Slyhunter

gallantwarrior said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smashy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to have a 40 hour work week instead of my usual 50.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has become a problem for many, where as the work week has expanded in hours for the investors to make more and more money, while the wages went stagnant for to many years in all of it. I remember in construction, most all were working a 40 hour work week that consisted of 10 hours a day 4 days a week. This worked well for the workers who most were from out of town working their specialty talent in that industry. This allowed them to get back home on Friday evening, and spend Saturday and Sunday with their families. This was a good thing, but greed began spreading as hours increased all the way to Saturday, where as threats were issued next that if the workers didn't like it, then they could just find them something else to do. Then the illegals or migrants were used as leverage to change the system and replace those Americans who wanted to have a decent job in life, and a better balance of their family life in the situation as well. This is also where the lies were told that the Americans wouldn't work, and these illegals or migrants were just doing the job's that Americans won't do. Greed has changed everything, and it has just about destroyed the American construction worker families in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also the disincentive to work when one is confident that someone else will be required to pay for their food, shelter, and whatnot.  If welfare and other social "safety net" programs did not exist, many Americans would be more than motivated to take those "undesirable" jobs are told are peopled by foreigners.
Click to expand...


slave labor out of need.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Slyhunter said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they steal the jobs from the Americans you ask ? Well they didn't, but what happened was this, where as it was the American businessmen who set the whole thing up, and to replace the Americans with them because they would work for what they could pay them under the table, meanwhile they got government assistance and free schooling while here, and yes it was all off of the taxpayers dime as a subsidy for them. Wow what a set up that was..wow..... The Americans even if they wanted to work couldn't beat that system of doing things, so it was see ya and wouldn't want to be ya to the American workers. There are countless news reports and claims on this situation, but I bet many hope time erases the knowledge of it all soon. This way people can claim it was all a myth in what people are claiming now, just like you who deny the whole thing by claiming ignorance to these things. In the situation it mattered not how smarter or harder you worked, because you were about to be replaced regardless of these things you speak of, and especially if thinking about asking for a raise in such a rigged game as it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this anectdotal? Do you have some personal experience with this?
> 
> How were these illegals getting government assistance and free schooling?
> 
> In essence, are you saying that the illegals were able to underprice the American workers out of work because they were able to accept lower wages than the Americans could?
> 
> I'm not trying to deny anything, and I cannot claim ignorance as ignorance is what I have about these events regardless of any claim. I'm not particularly aged, there was no mention of this in the AP American History course I took in High School, I haven't had any other American History classes since, and I haven't heard anyone talk about American business owners rigging the system to oust the American worker outside of this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone gets free schooling whether they are citizens or not.
> Everyone who has a kid born in America gets food stamps and assistance whether they themselves are citizens or not.
> Illegals/immigrants are able to underprice the American workers because they are willing to live like animals with barely enough room to lay down and sleep they stuff their homes with so many people. Do you want Americans to live like that because they have to bid down the wages to get a job?
> 
> In Hong Kong the "working poor" live in cages in hostels. In Japan, the working poor live in coffin size hotels. In Cambodia, they live in the streets or in bamboo huts with no running water, and no electric, the working poor. Doesn't American's working poor deserve better than that?
Click to expand...


Most of America's "working poor" do live a helluva lot better, thanks to the taxpayer supported, government administered social welfare programs that subsidize them.


----------



## initforme

There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.


----------



## initforme

Undesirable jobs should pay more than desirable ones.


----------



## gallantwarrior

beagle9 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the mentality of a guy that does not get business. There are other expenses, there is labor, materials, utilities, equipment, building space, time spent dealing with government agencies, there are permits, licenses, taxes, unemployment insurance, workman comp insurance, business insurance, building insurance, time spent selling, not to mention the businesses are charged more for sewer, water, electrical, internet access and a host of other costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All these things are anecdotal, where as they are figured in along with everything else when doing business, and it has nothing to do with how you pay your employee as based upon the supply and demand chain one might fine themselves in.  How do you think businessmen get so filthy rich then, I mean if they are so overwhelmed with debt, cost and all else that is dragging them down ? They know how to make a profit above and beyond of all the things you mention that's how, but for some reason even when they are in a supply and demand chain that ensures huge profits for them, they are greedy still, and worse disrespectful, and so they decide that they should have almost 300% instead of a little less so that their employee's might share in that success along with them better ( I mean why not they helped them make it also).
> 
> Why is this greed I wonder ? Is it because they unionize in their thinking at or near the top, and so they can't operate as corporate* individuals* in which is what they want to be called when it benefits them, but when it comes to their employee's they group themselves in with the others who cry and complain about this all of the time, and so they say that they are hurting all the time right, and so there is just no way that they can pay anymore at all to their employee's because they (these con men) are just hurting all the time as according to them right?
> 
> Then we all go and watch episodes of Epic homes and other shows like this on TV, but they couldn't afford to do people right in life, no there was just no way they could do nothing like that on their own now could they?...LOL
Click to expand...


You watch too much TV.
That said, the greater majority of business owners are anything but "filthy rich" and invest enormous amounts of time and money making their business work.


----------



## Samson

initforme said:


> Undesirable jobs should pay more than desirable ones.



The stupid should get paid much less than the smart.


----------



## initforme

Nobody should do the undesirable jobs.  Leave them unfilled and undone.


----------



## Samson

initforme said:


> Nobody should do the undesirable jobs.  Leave them unfilled and undone.



Meh...there will always be someone willing to prositute themself.

Oldest profession.


----------



## initforme

Marry money.  The realistic way one can get ahead.


----------



## hadit

initforme said:


> Marry money.  The realistic way one can get ahead.



It worked for John Kerry.


----------



## beagle9

gallantwarrior said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.
> 
> 2 people
> 
> person 1 makes 100$ a day
> person 2 makes 1,000$ a day
> 
> Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That's the reason the boss invested his time and money establishing and building the business to make pens.  The worker extracts the benefit of having a job.  If the worker is dissatisfied with his "cut" of the "surplus value" of the pen's price, that worker is certainly welcome to establish his own pen-making business and hire his own pen-maker.  Maybe then he could undercut the sales price of his former boss by selling his pens for, say...$19.  Of course, the new business owner, being cognizant of how unfair it is to pay his employees only $3 out of the price of the pen, will no doubt split the profit ($9), keeping $4.50 for himself and paying $4.50 to his pen-making employee.  Better yet, since the new business owner recognizes the efforts of his pen-maker as being the source of his income, he will pay the entire sum realized by the sale of the pen, minus overhead and other related costs.  $10 to the business owner, $9 to the pen-making employee.
Click to expand...

Very simplistic view, but where does the supply and demand of it all come in, and for what it can do for the entire operation ? When demand picks up to a level that is overwhelming, then this is when the employee feels they should succeed in life or to grow with the company just as well as the employer is succeeding and growing in life. The problem comes when the employee doesn't get to grow with the company, but is instead held back while the management and owners reap the benefits of their labor, and sadly in disrespect of that labor.


----------



## beagle9

Samson said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Undesirable jobs should pay more than desirable ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupid should get paid much less than the smart.
Click to expand...

Hey I left a job one time that took some smarts to do the job, but I left the job for a more undesirable job in the construction industry. It still required some smarts in the job that I took, and the job was way, way harder, but what it did was pay way way more because of the undesirable aspect of it. I see his point.


----------



## Shanty

Toro said:


> It didn't work in France.  It won't work in America.


France has higher growth than most of the rest of the EU. And the thing holding the EU back is the euro.


----------



## Toro

bump


----------



## Papageorgio

Shanty said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't work in France.  It won't work in America.
> 
> 
> 
> France has higher growth than most of the rest of the EU. And the thing holding the EU back is the euro.
Click to expand...


So, does Europe have a shrinking economy?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?
Click to expand...

You have a twisted view of businesses that doesn't fit with any of the companies I've worked for.

The majority of people, at least around here, are pretty decent. That includes management, workers, VPs, everyone.


----------



## dblack

initforme said:


> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.



Seriously? Even if they're working full time on something no one wants or needs?


----------



## Politico

Growth is not the point. Their unemployment rate is over 10%. And like here that does include the huge amount of underemployed or the 1.4 million in the halo who aren't counted in the numbers.


----------



## Andylusion

Papageorgio said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't work in France.  It won't work in America.
> 
> 
> 
> France has higher growth than most of the rest of the EU. And the thing holding the EU back is the euro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, does Europe have a shrinking economy?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.
Click to expand...


You can in fact have a growing economy, even while the standard of living is dropping.

China proved that by having a growing economy, even while 63% of it's population lived below the poverty level of $2 a day.


----------



## Andylusion

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement
> 
> 
> 
> And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a twisted view of businesses that doesn't fit with any of the companies I've worked for.
> 
> The majority of people, at least around here, are pretty decent. That includes management, workers, VPs, everyone.
Click to expand...


That has been my experience too.   I can count on one hand, the number of truly bad management I've had.   Normally it's the employees that are terrible.


----------



## Andylusion

initforme said:


> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.



So if I work really really hard, at digging holes in my yard, then I should make $100,000 a year?   Who is going to pay me to dig pointless holes?


----------



## Andylusion

Politico said:


> Growth is not the point. Their unemployment rate is over 10%. And like here that does include the huge amount of underemployed or the 1.4 million in the halo who aren't counted in the numbers.



Speaking of France, and Socialism....   This was just released.



> French President Francois Hollandes government may have made a housing slump worse, pushing the construction market to its lowest in more than 15 years.
> 
> Housing starts fell 19 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, and permits -- a gauge of future construction -- dropped 13 percent, the French Housing Ministry said yesterday.
> 
> The rout stems from a law this year that seeks to make housing more affordable by capping rents in expensive neighborhoods. To protect home buyers, the law also boosted the number of documents that must be provided by sellers, leading to a decline in home sales and longer transaction times. While the government is now adjusting the rules, the damage is done, threatening Frances anemic recovery thats already lagging behind those of the U.K. and Germany.
> 
> Construction is in total meltdown, said Dominique Barbet, an economist at BNP Paribas in Paris. Its difficult to see how the new housing law is not to blame.


Housing Market in France in ?Meltdown? After Hollande Rent Caps - Bloomberg

In order to help the public afford housing, the Socialist run government pushed rent control laws.

Shockingly, the entire industry is in free fall.   Arn't you shocked?  Because I'm shocked.  Totally shocked.   You mean socialism didn't work?  AGAIN?   Wow... shocked I say.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement
> 
> 
> 
> And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a twisted view of businesses that doesn't fit with any of the companies I've worked for.
> 
> The majority of people, at least around here, are pretty decent. That includes management, workers, VPs, everyone.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are from, but yes I have worked for companies that were straight out corrupt in their management teams, and in their structural ways of doing things, and I have seen some companies and people who worked in high positions do some bad stuff in my time. In fact I was called on to be a Federal witness in a case against corrupt individuals in my time (not by my choice, but by being in the wrong place, and many of us seeing the wrong things in which we didn't want to see or here but did). Twisted Views is what you call it, but I call it big time reality checks in life. The innocence was now gone, and the real world became clearer to me and others as we witnessed what corrupt men are capable of in life. 

The men in the case that I mention *plead guilty *, and it was due to the overwhelming circumstances along with the evidence in which the FBI had mounted against them over a long investigation period. This happened without me even having to take the stand nor did anyone else for that matter in which we would have been called in as witnesses to these men's characters, and/or their actions taken. Me and the others were just workers who saw many things while working that had us scratching our heads big time, and when the feds investigated these guy's due to their own slip ups, then the feds began looking all around for potential witnesses to help them out. I was called in as were others who may had been close enough to the defendants in the work place to maybe know something, or had seen something.  I was reluctant to want anything to do with such stuff as this in life, but I felt I had a duty to do the right thing if I was asked too. Lucky for me I didn't know enough to be that much of a help to them or that I was that important to them, but they kept my name available if they needed me in the case. The day I was thought to have been called upon as a witness to corruption, just like the others were, well they (the corrupt) plead guilty. I was relieved as so were the other workers who didn't need such stress or aggravation as this was in their life.

So I guess American greed is a made up show, and Occupy Wall Street was a made up story, and Bernie Madoff was a fictional character, and on and on it all went or goes right ?

Good for you that you have worked for great and decent people throughout time, and I just wish that I could say the same in life also. Now it is true that all shouldn't be thought of as bad or as corrupt just because they have money or own a business in life, but what people should always recognize, is when it all goes wrong, then who exactly is behind that wrong?


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?
> 
> 
> 
> You have a twisted view of businesses that doesn't fit with any of the companies I've worked for.
> 
> The majority of people, at least around here, are pretty decent. That includes management, workers, VPs, everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure where you are from, but yes I have worked for companies that were straight out corrupt in their management teams, and in their structural ways of doing things, and I have seen some companies and people who worked in high positions do some bad stuff in my time. In fact I was called on to be a Federal witness in a case against corrupt individuals in my time (not by my choice, but by being in the wrong place, and many of us seeing the wrong things in which we didn't want to see or here but did). Twisted Views is what you call it, but I call it big time reality checks in life. The innocence was now gone, and the real world became clearer to me and others as we witnessed what corrupt men are capable of in life.
> 
> The men in the case that I mention *plead guilty *, and it was due to the overwhelming circumstances along with the evidence in which the FBI had mounted against them over a long investigation period. This happened without me even having to take the stand nor did anyone else for that matter in which we would have been called in as witnesses to these men's characters, and/or their actions taken. Me and the others were just workers who saw many things while working that had us scratching our heads big time, and when the feds investigated these guy's due to their own slip ups, then the feds began looking all around for potential witnesses to help them out. I was called in as were others who may had been close enough to the defendants in the work place to maybe know something, or had seen something.  I was reluctant to want anything to do with such stuff as this in life, but I felt I had a duty to do the right thing if I was asked too. Lucky for me I didn't know enough to be that much of a help to them or that I was that important to them, but they kept my name available if they needed me in the case. The day I was thought to have been called upon as a witness to corruption, just like the others were, well they (the corrupt) plead guilty. I was relieved as so were the other workers who didn't need such stress or aggravation as this was in their life.
> 
> So I guess American greed is a made up show, and Occupy Wall Street was a made up story, and Bernie Madoff was a fictional character, and on and on it all went or goes right ?
> 
> Good for you that you have worked for great and decent people throughout time, and I just wish that I could say the same in life also. Now it is true that all shouldn't be thought of as bad or as corrupt just because they have money or own a business in life, but what people should always recognize, is when it all goes wrong, then who exactly is behind that wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you had such troubling experiences. And I don't doubt for a moment that there is corruption in the world. I do doubt that that corruption is so widespread that every worker in America would be directly affected by it.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Not sure where you are from, but yes I have worked for companies that were straight out corrupt in their management teams, and in their structural ways of doing things, and I have seen some companies and people who worked in high positions do some bad stuff in my time. In fact I was called on to be a Federal witness in a case against corrupt individuals in my time (not by my choice, but by being in the wrong place, and many of us seeing the wrong things in which we didn't want to see or here but did). Twisted Views is what you call it, but I call it big time reality checks in life. The innocence was now gone, and the real world became clearer to me and others as we witnessed what corrupt men are capable of in life.
> 
> The men in the case that I mention *plead guilty *, and it was due to the overwhelming circumstances along with the evidence in which the FBI had mounted against them over a long investigation period. This happened without me even having to take the stand nor did anyone else for that matter in which we would have been called in as witnesses to these men's characters, and/or their actions taken. Me and the others were just workers who saw many things while working that had us scratching our heads big time, and when the feds investigated these guy's due to their own slip ups, then the feds began looking all around for potential witnesses to help them out. I was called in as were others who may had been close enough to the defendants in the work place to maybe know something, or had seen something.  I was reluctant to want anything to do with such stuff as this in life, but I felt I had a duty to do the right thing if I was asked too. Lucky for me I didn't know enough to be that much of a help to them or that I was that important to them, but they kept my name available if they needed me in the case. The day I was thought to have been called upon as a witness to corruption, just like the others were, well they (the corrupt) plead guilty. I was relieved as so were the other workers who didn't need such stress or aggravation as this was in their life.
> 
> So I guess American greed is a made up show, and Occupy Wall Street was a made up story, and Bernie Madoff was a fictional character, and on and on it all went or goes right ?
> 
> Good for you that you have worked for great and decent people throughout time, and I just wish that I could say the same in life also. Now it is true that all shouldn't be thought of as bad or as corrupt just because they have money or own a business in life, but what people should always recognize, is when it all goes wrong, then who exactly is behind that wrong?



No, Occupy Wall Street was real, but they were idiots.  You think smashing windows, and pooping in a park, is what you want to stand for?

Yes, greed is real.  It's most real in government, where politicians shake down companies for money.   Stop voting for those politicians.

See here's the difference between me and you....  and how we view the world...

You went in under some strange illusion that somehow there was no corruption in the world, and then were shocked and "The innocence was now gone".   Since when have humans ever had 'innocence'?

I have never been under that illusion, so the fact you found some corruption is not shocking at all, nor would it be a 'wake up call'.

But more than that, when I read your entire experience, my first thought was.... This is great!    They were found out, the government enforced justice, the criminals were caught, Captialism works!

You realize that under a socialized system, they never would have been caught.... right?

Perfect example from France's health care, was a company that produced a 'sugar pill' called (roughly translated) "Fatty Legs".  It was a like a mid-night cable TV diet pill, for women with 'fatty legs'.      The Government, which pays for, and has to approve all drugs, granted this company a contract, worth billions of dollars, and last I checked (which has been awhile) they are STILL selling it.  It does.... NOTHING.   Complete fraud.  Does not help anyone, and costs the tax payers of France millions every year.   Total corrupt of the highest level.

Now tell me... you think the government of France is going to investigate that company?    Of course not.  THEY APPROVED THE DRUG.    After 20 or 30 years of a known 'sugar pill' paid for and approved by the French government, there is no way that the government is going to investigate that company, and condemn themselves in the process.   So... the drug is still on the market, still helping no one, and still costing millions every year in tax money.

That's the difference.  I *WANT* government and business to be against each other.  I *WANT* Enron CEO Skillings in prison.   I want Madoff in prison.

Your experience in my book, is a positive thing!   The did wrong, government caught it, and they were punished.   How is that a bad for the American system?


----------



## TGN

> No, Occupy Wall Street was real, but they were idiots.  You think smashing windows, and pooping in a park, is what you want to stand for?



No those aren't the things they stood for. And they were successful in bringing "1%" and the "99%" into the popular lexicon as well as forcing wealth inequality back into the discourse. AND IT'S NOT GOING AWAY! 

But when you can't argue against the other side's position, I guess resorting to broad fantasy stereotypes or fixating on isolated base-level examples is all you have.


----------



## Politico

Bahaha. They couldn't even say what they stood for. That's why the only thing anyone remembers is a bunch of hippies who crapped on cop cars and bailed the minute it got cold and their donated gluten free pizza ran out.


----------



## Andylusion

TGN said:


> No, Occupy Wall Street was real, but they were idiots.  You think smashing windows, and pooping in a park, is what you want to stand for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No those aren't the things they stood for. And they were successful in bringing "1%" and the "99%" into the popular lexicon as well as forcing wealth inequality back into the discourse. AND IT'S NOT GOING AWAY!
> 
> But when you can't argue against the other side's position, I guess resorting to broad fantasy stereotypes or fixating on isolated base-level examples is all you have.
Click to expand...


What you just said, is that they stood for nothing.   Bringing "1% and 99%" into the popular lexicon, is nothing.   You just said they stood for nothing.

First off, most of them are themselves the 1%.   If you make over $30K a year, you ARE the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

Second, class-warfare has always existed, long before OWS existed, long before "1% and 99%" existed.     I can remember these exact arguments being used back in the 90s, and the class warfare mantra.   Different decade, different spoiled brats, different 'lexicon', same tired old repetitive arguments.

Third, wealth inequality is also nothing new, nothing that hasn't been heard a million times.   It too, is a none argument.  You can't change wealth inequality, at least not without harming the lower and middle class the most.

So if this is all the OWS stands for, then pooping in the park and smashing windows, is pretty much all there is.  You have nothing.  It's nothing.   Bunch of spoiled brats complaining that life isn't easy.  Well duh.  

"We're not going away!"

Now there's a shocker.   I learned a long long time ago, that stupid people never go away.  They either grow up, and grow a brain, and become conservatives (which is what happened to me), or they just sit there and remain noisy and stupid for the rest of their lives.  You can't 'fix' stupid.  You just have to defeat it, and ignore it.

So yeah, I know you people are never going away.    But this is not new, or not something that started with OWS.


----------



## alanbmx123

^^^^Yawn....  No one cares but hipsters that will grow up at some point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## alanbmx123

initforme said:


> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.




The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> So I guess American greed is a made up show, and Occupy Wall Street was a made up story, and Bernie Madoff was a fictional character, and on and on it all went or goes right ?



Not at all. But greed isn't the problem. Greed is just a powerful desire for wealth. As long as it's bound by a sound morality, it's a productive force in society. 



> ... people should always recognize, is when it all goes wrong, then who exactly is behind that wrong?



Totally agree. That's why these debates between conservatives and liberals are so excruciating. Liberals railing about income inequality, as though anyone with the nerve amass wealth is inherently evil. And conservatives reflexively defending obvious corruption and graft as though wealth is a symbol of moral perfection. If both sides would simply focus on going after the bad actors, on creating laws that punish wrong-doers rather than manipulating society for some "greater good", we might find some real consensus.


----------



## Andylusion

initforme said:


> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.



This exactly true.   In 2012, I earned a taxable income of only $12,000.   That was it.  Yet I managed to eat, managed to pay my bills.

Now was it easy? Of course not!  But that doesn't mean 'little man can't get ahead'.  I was not stuck.   After 2012, I realized I wasn't making it at that job, and did something absolutely unbelievable....    I got.... another job.

At one of the places I worked, a guy there was working for $10/hr, and he decided to re-tile his Kitchen.     Well a friend came over, and was amazed at the quality of his work.  He asked him to re-floor his kitchen.   Soon he had a bunch of people asking for his work.   He got this one job, and when he finished, the guy asked him if he could do his restaurant.   Unknown to him, the guy whose house he just finished flooring, was the owner of a restaurant.   Next thing he knows, Wendy's and other store chains are calling him up to do their flooring too.

By the time I left that job, he was making more money working one day a week, Saturday, than he was working 40 hours at his regular job.   He was planning on quitting and doing flooring full time.

Now do that math on that....  1 day = 40 hours at $10.   If he quits his regular job, and works a full 5 day week flooring, that would be $100K.

Flooring isn't hard.   It's not Ph.D required job.   Flooring doesn't take super skills.   Can you cut tile?  Can you measure?   Can you fit squares together?   Can you put glue on the ground?

But people don't want to do it.   It's hard work.   It takes effort, and patients, and you have to be willing to get the job done, when it needs done.   Wendy's doesn't give you a week to put in the floor.  The usually give you ONE day.   Why?  Because the guys with the grills and friers are showing up tomorrow.    So if you have problems, you stay there till 3 AM to finish the floor, or you won't be doing flooring anymore.

But people simply don't want to put in that effort.  This is why people come here from other countries, and end up wealthy, while lazy butt Americans whine about the minimum wage.



alanbmx123 said:


> The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
> All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap



Exactly!   If they canceled their 4G LTE, Max coverage unlimited data smart phone, and their high speed internet, and their premium package cable TV, with the Playboy channel, you know what they would have?   MONEY.

But they buy all these TV dinners, and frozen pizza, and have all these services and luxury items, and then complain they are the working poor.

Bull.



dblack said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess American greed is a made up show, and Occupy Wall Street was a made up story, and Bernie Madoff was a fictional character, and on and on it all went or goes right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But greed isn't the problem. Greed is just a powerful desire for wealth. As long as it's bound by a sound morality, it's a productive force in society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... people should always recognize, is when it all goes wrong, then who exactly is behind that wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally agree. That's why these debates between conservatives and liberals are so excruciating. Liberals railing about income inequality, as though anyone with the nerve amass wealth is inherently evil. And conservatives reflexively defending obvious corruption and graft as though wealth is a symbol of moral perfection. If both sides would simply focus on going after the bad actors, on creating laws that punish wrong-doers rather than manipulating society for some "greater good", we might find some real consensus.
Click to expand...


No, this is what makes debates so excruciating.

I have been on forums, for 20 years.   I was on forums on Bulletin Board Systems, that you had to dial into with a 'modem'.   Most of you likely don't even know what a BBS is.

To this date......   In 20 years of being on forums, I have never once seen a conservative, or right-wing person claim that "wealth is a symbol of moral perfection".

In 20 years, I have never heard a conservative "reflexively defending obvious corruption".

This is the difference.



> Liberals railing about income inequality, as though anyone with the nerve amass wealth is inherently evil



This statement here.... is true.   You can find threads on this forum RIGHT NOW, that have this statement AS THE THREAD TITLE.

This statement has been true ever since I've been on forums, and likely centuries before I've been on forums.



> And conservatives reflexively defending obvious corruption and graft as though wealth is a symbol of moral perfection



Now you show me where people are openly defending obvious corruption?  Show me the thread titled "Madoff: False trumped up charges!"?   Show me the thread "wealth is a symbol of moral perfection"?  Show me the thread "Jeff Skilling is innocent!"?

Where are the people defending obvious corruption?   Where are the people claiming wealth is a symbol of anything?

You can't.    Because it's not true.

The reason you people make up crap like this, is because we dare to disagree on topics.   You extrapolate that if we dare.... DARE to suggest a different view, then you just assume we defend corruption, and think wealth equals moral perfection.

Well... you are wrong, and so are all the other leftards that think the same.


----------



## dblack

Androw said:


> To this date......   In 20 years of being on forums, I have never once seen a conservative, or right-wing person claim that "wealth is a symbol of moral perfection".
> 
> In 20 years, I have never heard a conservative "reflexively defending obvious corruption".
> 
> This is the difference.



Okay. But I have. I see it on here all the time. To be fair, they're usually responding to equally inane charges in the other direction, but it does happen. We push each other into ridiculous corners and make claims we think are protecting our position, when in fact they just make it seem unreasonably biased.


----------



## jasonnfree

alanbmx123 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
> All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


How do you know so much about the non working poor or the working poor?  Do you go around questioning them?  If so, ever get knocked on your butt?  Same with illegals, you question them or is this what you pay them?


----------



## beagle9

alanbmx123 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
> *All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap *
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart,  and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> alanbmx123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
> *All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap *
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart,  and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?
Click to expand...


First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.

Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com

The lowest earns $35K.

We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online

If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You are not poor.   Sorry.  You are disqualified from that label.







This is 'poor' in America.

Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?   






That's poor the rest of the world knows.   That's northern India I believe.

Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?   

Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'. 

If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'.   By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.


----------



## Desperado

The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend
It is already here, many hospitals have their staff on this type of schedule.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alanbmx123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
> *All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap *
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart,  and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.
> 
> Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com
> 
> The lowest earns $35K.
> 
> We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online
> 
> If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You are not poor.   Sorry.  You are disqualified from that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 'poor' in America.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's poor the rest of the world knows.   That's northern India I believe.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.
> 
> If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'.   By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.
Click to expand...

Now why would you make a claim that you know what the average truck driver makes,  and this especially if you are an advocate of the free market system ? You see if the free market system was running independently and great just as it is supposed to be, then you wouldn't be able to make such a claim as this would you, and why is this, because it wouldn't be true would it? Example if a truck driver worked for FedEx, and another truck driver worked for J.B Hunt, do you think that the two would average out to your theory of a truck driver making on average $42,000 dollars a year ? To be able to come up with such numbers like you do, means it doesn't fit well with the free market system does it, and it doesn't fit well with it operating free and independently like it is supposed to be, so who is in favor of rate controls here for all drivers regardless of their companies worked for, is it you or is it me ?  If a certified truck driver lived in your first picture, then who would have caused that to happen ? I bet you could come up with a million excuses as to why it would be the driver that caused it, and not you and your way of thinking about what he or she should be making, and this regardless of their company worked for.. Will the real socialist/communist please stand up.


----------



## beagle9

Desperado said:


> The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend
> It is already here, many hospitals have their staff on this type of schedule.


Wow, unbelievable... Now how will they ever make that rich man quota, and make it to the finish line for him by the weekend? No way if they are working like that anymore now is there? 

They are going to come up a few million dollars short for him aren't they ? 

You mean to tell me that he will have to postpone that birthday present he promised his spoiled rotten kid, for whom is twenty eight and still living at home on what he wanted ? You know that new Ferrari ? Well I'm just torn about all of this now.. LOL


----------



## Andylusion

dblack said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> To this date......   In 20 years of being on forums, I have never once seen a conservative, or right-wing person claim that "wealth is a symbol of moral perfection".
> 
> In 20 years, I have never heard a conservative "reflexively defending obvious corruption".
> 
> This is the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. But I have. I see it on here all the time. To be fair, they're usually responding to equally inane charges in the other direction, but it does happen. We push each other into ridiculous corners and make claims we think are protecting our position, when in fact they just make it seem unreasonably biased.
Click to expand...


You must be talking about the fruity fringe.   I exclude those people on both sides.  There is always some quack somewhere saying something, not because they are actually believer in some cause, but just to freak people out.  

On the other hand, if you are referring to two people who just start spewing at each other, and in their spit exchange, they become more outlandish, I get you there.   But that's just because they are in a slug fest, and usually one is just being absurd to mock the other.

In both cases, I tend to just move on, and find more rational discussions.

I would maintain that what you described as outlandish on the left, is actually normal.    I've been in, where the other side wasn't being a troll, and wasn't in a slug fest, and they truly were advocating that if a CEO makes a million bucks, then he is a cruel slave master stealing from his employees.   They honestly believe, as a normal part of their ideology, that being wealthy in and of itself, means you are a thief.

I've never seen the opposite claim, that wealth is a symbol of purity or anything.   Never seen it.


----------



## Slyhunter

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alanbmx123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
> *All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap *
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart,  and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.
> 
> Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com
> 
> The lowest earns $35K.
> 
> We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online
> 
> If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You are not poor.   Sorry.  You are disqualified from that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 'poor' in America.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's poor the rest of the world knows.   That's northern India I believe.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.
> 
> If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'.   By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.
Click to expand...

We are not a third world country.
Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart,  and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.
> 
> Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com
> 
> The lowest earns $35K.
> 
> We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online
> 
> If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You are not poor.   Sorry.  You are disqualified from that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 'poor' in America.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's poor the rest of the world knows.   That's northern India I believe.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.
> 
> If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'.   By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now why would you make a claim that you know what the average truck driver makes,  and this especially if you are an advocate of the free market system ? You see if the free market system was running independently and great just as it is supposed to be, then you wouldn't be able to make such a claim as this would you, and why is this, because it wouldn't be true would it? Example if a truck driver worked for FedEx, and another truck driver worked for J.B Hunt, do you think that the two would average out to your theory of a truck driver making on average $42,000 dollars a year ? To be able to come up with such numbers like you do, means it doesn't fit well with the free market system does it, and it doesn't fit well with it operating free and independently like it is supposed to be, so who is in favor of rate controls here for all drivers regardless of their companies worked for, is it you or is it me ?  If a certified truck driver lived in your first picture, then who would have caused that to happen ? I bet you could come up with a million excuses as to why it would be the driver that caused it, and not you and your way of thinking about what he or she should be making, and this regardless of their company worked for.. Will the real socialist/communist please stand up.
Click to expand...


Well... given that I drove an 18-wheeler back in 2008, for Swift Transportation...  yeah I kinda do know what the average truck driver makes given I was one.  

Your argument is incoherent, or it is not being described well enough for me to follow.   I'm not sure which.

*How would I know what an average truck driver makes if I am an advocate of the free-market?*

What does one have to do with the other?   In a socialized system, you would find the average the same way.  You add together the wages of all in a given employment, and divide by the number in the given employment.

This basic mathematical formula is not changed based on economic system.

*If a truck driver worked for FedEx, and another truck driver worked for J.B Hunt, do you think that the two would average out to your theory of a truck driver making on average $42,000 dollars a year ?*

Well obviously, if you look at two specific individuals, you tend to get outliers, rather than averages.   The whole point of an average, is to get a birds eye look, rather than an individual wage.

That said, I punched in JB Hunt salary, and FedEx Salary.  JB Hunt, the average Driver earns $40.2K a year.   FedEx, the average over-the-road driver earns $22/hr, which is roughly $45K.

So to answer your question, yes, I think it would be close to the average.

*I bet you could come up with a million excuses as to why it would be the driver that caused it*

Well... yeah.  I learned a long time ago, that where you are in life, and what situation you are in, is nearly entirely due to the choices that *YOU* make.

And, I have discovered in my own life, that generally this is true.  There are exceptions, and things you have zero control over, but even then, how you react to the things you can't change, also determine your ultimate outcome.


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart,  and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.
> 
> Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com
> 
> The lowest earns $35K.
> 
> We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online
> 
> If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You are not poor.   Sorry.  You are disqualified from that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 'poor' in America.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's poor the rest of the world knows.   That's northern India I believe.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.
> 
> If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'.   By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not a third world country.
> Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
> If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.
Click to expand...


That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.

I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life.   At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.

That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me.  You should be ashamed of yourself.   What you just said was disgusting.


----------



## sameech

initforme said:


> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.



I disagree.  We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes.  People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise.  It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others.  Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to.  That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.


----------



## Slyhunter

Androw said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.
> 
> Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com
> 
> The lowest earns $35K.
> 
> We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online
> 
> If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You are not poor.   Sorry.  You are disqualified from that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is 'poor' in America.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's poor the rest of the world knows.   That's northern India I believe.
> 
> Notice the power lines?   The Air Conditioning?   The Car?  The plethora of clothes?   The Satellite TV?   The Telephone wires?
> 
> Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.
> 
> If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'.   By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not a third world country.
> Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
> If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.
> 
> I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life.   At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.
> 
> That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me.  You should be ashamed of yourself.   What you just said was disgusting.
Click to expand...


If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.


----------



## Slyhunter

sameech said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes.  People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise.  It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others.  Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to.  That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.
Click to expand...


What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.


----------



## sameech

Slyhunter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no such thing as working poor,  If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family.  That's the way it should be.  The so called American dream is empty margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes.  People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise.  It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others.  Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to.  That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.
Click to expand...


Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not a third world country.
> Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
> If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.
> 
> I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life.   At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.
> 
> That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me.  You should be ashamed of yourself.   What you just said was disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.
Click to expand...


The rich can't help the poor regardless.  That's a myth.

What allows a person to be a leech, is society giving them stuff, which allows them to remain a leech.

The solution is not to say "You should be allowed to live"... the solution is simply to not give them stuff, and encourage them to work for a living.


----------



## Slyhunter

sameech said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes.  People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise.  It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others.  Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to.  That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.
Click to expand...

You are doing something, you are taking a job a working. The minimum anyone should get for working any job is a living wage. Otherwise you might as well not work at all. If you want more than that then you improve yourself.


----------



## Slyhunter

Androw said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.
> 
> I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life.   At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.
> 
> That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me.  You should be ashamed of yourself.   What you just said was disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich can't help the poor regardless.  That's a myth.
> 
> What allows a person to be a leech, is society giving them stuff, which allows them to remain a leech.
> 
> The solution is not to say "You should be allowed to live"... the solution is simply to not give them stuff, and encourage them to work for a living.
Click to expand...


Let them stave.
Let them die.


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are doing something, you are taking a job a working. The minimum anyone should get for working any job is a living wage. Otherwise you might as well not work at all. If you want more than that then you improve yourself.
Click to expand...


Gah.    Two problems, and we've covered this a hundred times.

First...  a living wage, is exclusively dependent on the individual.   If you buy a new car, buy expensive phones with massive plans, and cable TV, and this and that and go out to eat every day, and drink beer, and smoke, and on and on and on.......

$50,000K might not be a 'living wage'.

On the other hand, I've seen people, and I myself, have lived on the minimum wage.   In 2011, had a taxable income of just $12,000.... I lived.

Second... and I don't understand why you people don't get this.   Decades ago, $5/hr, was "the living wage" people were aiming for.   They got it, and the result was the new "living wage" was $7/hr.   Now they have that.    Now the new "living wage" is $10/hr?  $15/hr?

Have you not noticed how every single time we raise the minimum wage, suddenly the "living wage" goes up?

What part this are not grasping?    Every single time you raise the minimum wage, the ability to live on that wage goes down.

Why?  Because the minimum wage causes inflation.

If the cost of labor goes up, that cost is passed right on to customers.   The rising prices, make it so that even the higher wage is less 'livable'.

Additionally, raising the minimum wage kills jobs.   So now they have a new higher wage, and unemployed.   Sorta defeats the purpose.


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich can't help the poor regardless.  That's a myth.
> 
> What allows a person to be a leech, is society giving them stuff, which allows them to remain a leech.
> 
> The solution is not to say "You should be allowed to live"... the solution is simply to not give them stuff, and encourage them to work for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let them stave.
> Let them die.
Click to expand...


I didn't die.  I didn't starve.   Don't be an idiot.

Back in the 90s, the left said the same thing.  We can't cut welfare and food stamps, people will die, people will starve.

Oops.... they got off their butts, and got jobs, just like the rest of us.

Show me the lines of people in the 90s that starved.  Show me the dying people in the streets during the 90s.

In the 90s, welfare rolls dropped by not quite half.  From just under 30K, to just over 15K.

They didn't die.  They didn't starve.   They got to work, and became productive members of society.

I don't where you people come up with this fabricated crap, but it's not true.   People don't just die, if you kick them off handouts.    Work or starve, is oddly a good motivator.


----------



## beagle9

sameech said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes.  People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise.  It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others.  Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to.  That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.
Click to expand...


 How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.

If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool. 

Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.


----------



## sameech

beagle9 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
Click to expand...


"Fair" is subjective and meaningless.  The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform.  I started off making minimum wage.  Some of the people I worked with still work there.  They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make.  Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer?  They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.


----------



## Slyhunter

sameech said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fair" is subjective and meaningless.  The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform.  I started off making minimum wage.  Some of the people I worked with still work there.  They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make.  Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer?  They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.
Click to expand...

People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair" is subjective and meaningless.  The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform.  I started off making minimum wage.  Some of the people I worked with still work there.  They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make.  Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer?  They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.
Click to expand...


I suppose they should. Is it the responsibility of government to ensure these outcomes?


----------



## sameech

Slyhunter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair" is subjective and meaningless.  The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform.  I started off making minimum wage.  Some of the people I worked with still work there.  They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make.  Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer?  They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.
Click to expand...


sure because an 18 year old should at least be paid enough to mow grass to be able to afford a house in the suburbs, a new Volvo, and have enough left over to support a family of 4 just because somewhere some former Hostess factory worker now mows grass for a living 

Give me a break.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
Click to expand...


"A good day's work".

You can work really hard at something, and still earn nothing.

"Working" done not mean your work has value.

Who determines the value?   The customer does.

How much the customer is willing to pay, determines how much the work is worth.

"A good day's work", does not have a pre-determined value.

It is incumbent on the worker, to move from doing work that has a low value, to work that has a higher value.

When you demand that people are paid more money, than the value of their work, one of three things will happen.

One:  The customers refuse to pay for the higher labor costs, and the store or business closes.

Two:  The business replaces the high cost labor, with low cost machines.

Three:  The cost is passed on to consumers, the resulting inflation makes those with higher wages, just as poor as before.


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair" is subjective and meaningless.  The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform.  I started off making minimum wage.  Some of the people I worked with still work there.  They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make.  Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer?  They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.
Click to expand...


While that sounds good and logical, it's not actually true.

Unless you assume that what employers want is a "degree".  But no employer wants a degree.   They want people who can perform the job.   Getting a degree doesn't actually proven anything.

The best answer to that I have heard yet, was an employer who said 'Your raise is effective, when you are'.

Meaning, when you are effective at your job, you'll get a raise for it.

I've seen people who were self taught, who had more experience, expertise, and quality of work, than a dozen college graduates combined.

Additionally, there are other aspects of working, that go beyond merely 'doing my job'.   Your attitude for example, is extremely important.   You might be the best worker in the company, but if you complain and b!tch and moan the whole day, you are not getting a raise.

When you treat other people like crap, or have a super arrogant demeanor, or if you are always all up in other people's business "Well Jim shouldn't have done X, and I can't believe he left work early on Friday"....  you are not getting raise, and shouldn't be surprised when you are the least paid person in the place.

At my company, we have people upfront, with all the engineers and such, and production in the back.  If a position opens up, in the front area, and they need someone to fill that position, who are they going to pick from production, to move up front?   Someone with a good attitude, that doesn't talk bad about the CEO.  Because see, now they have to deal with that person every day.

You have two people, both working in production, and one is b!tching all the time... do they want that guy up front where they have hear him b!tch all day long?  No.    B!tching whiny complainy people don't get raises.

Bob is never getting a promotion, because Bob spends all day talking about how great he is.  No one wants to be around Bob.

Or Dan smells.  Dan is always complaining that he never is involved with projects.   Well heck no, Dan doesn't use deodorant.  No one wants to be in a project with Dan.

*All of these aspects, make people not worth as much money.   When you complain about a living wage, generally, there are reason why people are not paid as much.*

I'm sorry, but just showing up, and working for 8 hours, does not entitle you to the ever ambiguous, ever changing, "living wage".

You want to be paid more?   Change what you do, to something that has more value.  Change your attitude, to something people actually want to be around.    Change your hygiene, so that people don't keep you away from you.

We have a software engineer in our company, that is paid barely $30K.   He is constantly complaining.    But he stinks so bad, no one wants to work with him.    They give him little projects that he can do on his own.

If the dude just had a shower every morning, he could double his income.

The same is true at McDonald's.   If you have a burger flipper who smells, and you are the Store Manager, are you going to promote Stinking Sam to shift manager, so that you have to work in the office with him every day?  No.  He's going to stay flipping burgers.

Again, it's incumbent on the worker, to make themselves more valuable.  Not the company.


----------



## Slyhunter

sameech said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair" is subjective and meaningless.  The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform.  I started off making minimum wage.  Some of the people I worked with still work there.  They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make.  Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer?  They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure because an 18 year old should at least be paid enough to mow grass to be able to afford a house in the suburbs, a new Volvo, and have enough left over to support a family of 4 just because somewhere some former Hostess factory worker now mows grass for a living
> 
> Give me a break.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what I mean when I say a living wage.
A living wage for one, not a family of 4.
about 575 a month in rent another 500 or so for utilities. Car payment to get to work. About $2000 in the State of Florida is what I would consider a living wage.
If he wants to support a family then he needs better job skills.


----------



## Slyhunter

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts.  Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage?  Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A good day's work".
> 
> You can work really hard at something, and still earn nothing.
> 
> "Working" done not mean your work has value.
> 
> Who determines the value?   The customer does.
> 
> How much the customer is willing to pay, determines how much the work is worth.
> 
> "A good day's work", does not have a pre-determined value.
> 
> It is incumbent on the worker, to move from doing work that has a low value, to work that has a higher value.
> 
> When you demand that people are paid more money, than the value of their work, one of three things will happen.
> 
> One:  The customers refuse to pay for the higher labor costs, and the store or business closes.
> 
> Two:  The business replaces the high cost labor, with low cost machines.
> 
> Three:  The cost is passed on to consumers, the resulting inflation makes those with higher wages, just as poor as before.
Click to expand...


A good days work deserves a good days pay.
Enough for a place to sleep and food to eat. A car to drive.
I'm not talking --
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




You'd smell too if you had to live like this.


----------



## dblack

Slyhunter said:


> A good days work deserves a good days pay.



This is a nice slogan, but the real question is who gets to decide what a 'good days pay' is? Should it be a private matter, or should government make the call?


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A good day's work".
> 
> You can work really hard at something, and still earn nothing.
> 
> "Working" done not mean your work has value.
> 
> Who determines the value?   The customer does.
> 
> How much the customer is willing to pay, determines how much the work is worth.
> 
> "A good day's work", does not have a pre-determined value.
> 
> It is incumbent on the worker, to move from doing work that has a low value, to work that has a higher value.
> 
> When you demand that people are paid more money, than the value of their work, one of three things will happen.
> 
> One:  The customers refuse to pay for the higher labor costs, and the store or business closes.
> 
> Two:  The business replaces the high cost labor, with low cost machines.
> 
> Three:  The cost is passed on to consumers, the resulting inflation makes those with higher wages, just as poor as before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good days work deserves a good days pay.
> Enough for a place to sleep and food to eat. A car to drive.
> 
> You'd smell too if you had to live like this.
Click to expand...


Again.... you can't pay more than how much the customer is willing to pay for the work.

If I want someone to mow my lawn, and you have a lawn mowing company, and I call you up, and offer to pay you $40 to mow my lawn, you can't pay an employee to $50 to mow my lawn.

"But car!"

Doesn't matter.

"But place to live, and food to eat!"

It's called math dude.   You can't pay him more than how much the customer is willing to pay.   Unless you actually WANT to go out of business and end up bankrupt.   But most employers are smarter than that.


----------



## Andylusion

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good days work deserves a good days pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice slogan, but the real question is who gets to decide what a 'good days pay' is? Should it be a private matter, or should government make the call?
Click to expand...


Well, he says 'car to drive, food to eat, and place to live'.

But even then....  I bought a car for $3,000 bucks.   Nothing to look at, but it gets me around.  You can buy a car for $500 bucks.     Food, same thing.  Chicken and rice, is $50 a month.  I know, I eat that.  Place to live.... but what kind of place to live?    I know studio apartments for $300 a month.

You can get all that stuff he wants, for minimum, and still have money left over.   I know.... I've done it.

"well I want a 2 bedroom apartment, with cable TV, and a late model with low mileage, and I want to go out to eat every other day, at an at least decent place with steak..."

Yeah, you can't do that on minimum wage.

"Living Wage" is a purely arbitrary number pulled out of someone's butt, and presented as 'fact'.


----------



## dblack

Androw said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good days work deserves a good days pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice slogan, but the real question is who gets to decide what a 'good days pay' is? Should it be a private matter, or should government make the call?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, he says 'car to drive, food to eat, and place to live'.
> 
> But even then....  I bought a car for $3,000 bucks.   Nothing to look at, but it gets me around.  You can buy a car for $500 bucks.     Food, same thing.  Chicken and rice, is $50 a month.  I know, I eat that.  Place to live.... but what kind of place to live?    I know studio apartments for $300 a month.
> 
> You can get all that stuff he wants, for minimum, and still have money left over.   I know.... I've done it.
> 
> "well I want a 2 bedroom apartment, with cable TV, and a late model with low mileage, and I want to go out to eat every other day, at an at least decent place with steak..."
> 
> Yeah, you can't do that on minimum wage.
> 
> "Living Wage" is a purely arbitrary number pulled out of someone's butt, and presented as 'fact'.
Click to expand...


Right, it's just a question of whether we work out what our wages through voluntary agreement, or via government mandate.


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure because an 18 year old should at least be paid enough to mow grass to be able to afford a house in the suburbs, a new Volvo, and have enough left over to support a family of 4 just because somewhere some former Hostess factory worker now mows grass for a living
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand what I mean when I say a living wage.
> A living wage for one, not a family of 4.
> about 575 a month in rent another 500 or so for utilities. Car payment to get to work. About $2000 in the State of Florida is what I would consider a living wage.
> If he wants to support a family then he needs better job skills.
Click to expand...


Ok, so Florida ups their minimum wage to $12.5/hr.

The first thing that is going to happen, is a bunch of people lose their jobs.

The second thing that is going to happen, is the prices of food, and prices of rent, are going to go up.

That is exactly what happened in the 90s, and what happened in 2009.

Rental prices have gone up, did you not notice that in 2010?

Think about it.....   All those people who didn't lose their jobs, had a raise from $5.25, to $7.25.     Suddenly thousands of people who were not able to afford apartments before, can now afford apartments.

Supply and demand.   Supply of housing doesn't change that quickly.  But the Demand drastically increased very quickly.

Demand up, supply is steady.  What happens to price?  It went up.

The same thing will happen if you bump up minimum wage from $8 in Florida, to $12.5.     That would likely have an even larger dramatic effect of driving up rental prices.    The only offset to that, would be how many people lost their jobs, and then earned zero.

So if the minimum wage kills the economy enough, you might not see a huge price spike.   Not sure if that's a better trade off though.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good days work deserves a good days pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice slogan, but the real question is who gets to decide what a 'good days pay' is? Should it be a private matter, or should government make the call?
Click to expand...

Well it sure shouldn't be a greedy no good corrupt individual, for whom by some weird chance or way in life, he some how ended up with a company that just so happens to depend on employee's in order to make the company what it is capable of making. Sadly in the process of things, he decides not to pay what he can pay in which would be fair, but instead pay's as less as he can just because he is a greedy bad person in life. The other sad thing, is that we are all different in our ways, and we are different in our personalities and/or characters, and sadly there are those who are vulnerable due to their kindness and meekness in life, yet they are not to be mistreated according to the word of God himself. The story of Job tells us about this in the Bible, and the Book of Job is a great one. 

Now just because the people are this way in many ways, doesn't mean they are ripe to be exploited or to be cheated in life, but some how when it is being done to them, there are those who will say or do anything to justify it all.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A good day's work".
> 
> You can work really hard at something, and still earn nothing.
> 
> "Working" done not mean your work has value.
> 
> Who determines the value?   The customer does.
> 
> How much the customer is willing to pay, determines how much the work is worth.
> 
> "A good day's work", does not have a pre-determined value.
> 
> It is incumbent on the worker, to move from doing work that has a low value, to work that has a higher value.
> 
> When you demand that people are paid more money, than the value of their work, one of three things will happen.
> 
> One:  The customers refuse to pay for the higher labor costs, and the store or business closes.
> 
> Two:  The business replaces the high cost labor, with low cost machines.
> 
> Three:  The cost is passed on to consumers, the resulting inflation makes those with higher wages, just as poor as before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good days work deserves a good days pay.
> Enough for a place to sleep and food to eat. A car to drive.
> 
> You'd smell too if you had to live like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.... you can't pay more than how much the customer is willing to pay for the work.
> 
> If I want someone to mow my lawn, and you have a lawn mowing company, and I call you up, and offer to pay you $40 to mow my lawn, you can't pay an employee to $50 to mow my lawn.
> 
> "But car!"
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> "But place to live, and food to eat!"
> 
> It's called math dude.   You can't pay him more than how much the customer is willing to pay.   Unless you actually WANT to go out of business and end up bankrupt.   But most employers are smarter than that.
Click to expand...

There is about a million different angles being presented in this conversation, and it causes the main jest of the conversation to get lost in the mix of it all. This thing keeps bouncing around like a rubber ball back and forth, and durring this dribbling the goal post or basket keeps getting moved.


----------



## Slyhunter

Androw said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure because an 18 year old should at least be paid enough to mow grass to be able to afford a house in the suburbs, a new Volvo, and have enough left over to support a family of 4 just because somewhere some former Hostess factory worker now mows grass for a living
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand what I mean when I say a living wage.
> A living wage for one, not a family of 4.
> about 575 a month in rent another 500 or so for utilities. Car payment to get to work. About $2000 in the State of Florida is what I would consider a living wage.
> If he wants to support a family then he needs better job skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so Florida ups their minimum wage to $12.5/hr.
> 
> The first thing that is going to happen, is a bunch of people lose their jobs.
> 
> The second thing that is going to happen, is the prices of food, and prices of rent, are going to go up.
> 
> That is exactly what happened in the 90s, and what happened in 2009.
> 
> Rental prices have gone up, did you not notice that in 2010?
> 
> Think about it.....   All those people who didn't lose their jobs, had a raise from $5.25, to $7.25.     Suddenly thousands of people who were not able to afford apartments before, can now afford apartments.
> 
> Supply and demand.   Supply of housing doesn't change that quickly.  But the Demand drastically increased very quickly.
> 
> Demand up, supply is steady.  What happens to price?  It went up.
> 
> The same thing will happen if you bump up minimum wage from $8 in Florida, to $12.5.     That would likely have an even larger dramatic effect of driving up rental prices.    The only offset to that, would be how many people lost their jobs, and then earned zero.
> 
> So if the minimum wage kills the economy enough, you might not see a huge price spike.   Not sure if that's a better trade off though.
Click to expand...

Link the minimum wage to cost of living.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good days work deserves a good days pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice slogan, but the real question is who gets to decide what a 'good days pay' is? Should it be a private matter, or should government make the call?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it sure shouldn't be a greedy no good corrupt individual, for whom by some weird chance or way in life, he some how ended up with a company that just so happens to depend on employee's in order to make the company what it is capable of making. Sadly in the process of things, he decides not to pay what he can pay in which would be fair, but instead pay's as less as he can just because he is a greedy bad person in life. The other sad thing, is that we are all different in our ways, and we are different in our personalities and/or characters, and sadly there are those who are vulnerable due to their kindness and meekness in life, yet they are not to be mistreated according to the word of God himself. The story of Job tells us about this in the Bible, and the Book of Job is a great one.
> 
> Now just because the people are this way in many ways, doesn't mean they are ripe to be exploited or to be cheated in life, but some how when it is being done to them, there are those who will say or do anything to justify it all.
Click to expand...


Well I can just make up stuff too.   But that doesn't mean that your invented reality, is actually true.

Take your first claim.......

*Well it sure shouldn't be a greedy no good corrupt individual, for whom by some weird chance or way in life, he some how ended up with a company*

Just some weird chance?  Just some random accident, he just 'happened' to some how end up with a company?

Chris Gardner was homeless.  He worked his butt off, while sometimes sleeping in bathrooms at the subway station.    He was ironing his shirt, so he could go to work, at a men's homeless shelter.

Now Chris Gardner, after working for Dean Witter Reynolds as a trainee, and then full time employee, opened his own company, and today is a multi-millionaire.

That 'just happened'?   That was a 'weird chance' in your world?

Brian Scudamore, was sitting in line at a McDonalds, when he notices a beat up pickup truck, with a sign saying junk removal.     Scudamore thought he could do that to pay for college.  So he used up all the money he had, $700, to buy used pickup truck, and painted a sign "We'll Stash, Your Trash", and called his business "The Rubbish Boys".     He drove around the city looking for junk, and trash the city wouldn't pick up, knocking on doors to drum up business.

Scudamore is now a multi-millionaire, with 1-800-GOT-JUNK? operating in Canada, the US, and Australia.

That 'just happened'?   That was a 'weird chance' in your world?

Phil Alexander Robertson, was a drunk, working at a bar, who happened to like duck hunting.   Fed up with lousy duck callers that never worked well, he started whittling his own duck caller on the back porch of his house.     Finally coming up with one that worked, he drove around to stores, asking if they would sell his duck caller.     He was rejected, and even laughed at, while being escorted to the door.

Now, Robertson is a multi-millionaire with a massive corporation, and his own TV show.

That 'just happened'?   That was a 'weird chance' in your world?

Alyssa Smith, loved jewelry, but getting out of college, she was broke.  She got a retail job at a Jewelry store, and learned everything she could about the business.   After saving up some money, and doing some flee market selling, she purchased the materials to make her first collection of Jewelry.

Alyssa Smith Jewellery (British spelling), is now an internationally seller of hand crafted jewelry.
Alyssa Smith - International jewellery designer

That 'just happened'?   That was a 'weird chance' in your world?

Doug McMillon, current CEO of Walmart.... started out in 1984, working as a low wage employee, moving skids out of trucks at a Distribution center for Walmart.    Minimum wage, summer employee.   He worked two summers there.   After getting a college degree, he applied for, and got a position in Walmarts Buyer Trainee.  That would be $30K a year job in today's money.   He worked a dozen positions after completing the training, from buyer for food, apparel, and sporting goods, to general merchandise manager, to over a dozen different positions, until he was finally given a position in 2006, as CEO of Sam's Club, and now of the entire company of Walmart.

That 'just happened'?   That was a 'weird chance' in your world?
*
The vast majority of the people who make it to high level position, or have built their own company.... they are there because they worked their butts off.*

It didn't 'just happen'.  It wasn't some 'weird chance'.   It was hard work, effort, and patience.

Nick Woodman loved to snap pictures of his adventures, but was frustrated difficulty holding the camera, or having it damaged in the action.   He, and his girlfriend, sold shell necklaces, to raise the money to build his prototype cameras.    Once he had the cameras, and some additional money from his parents, he hoped in his VW Mini Bus, traveling up and down California, selling his cameras to surf shops.  He often slept in the VW Bus, at the surf shops, in order to make sales.

Now GoPro is an international company selling billions.

It didn't 'just happen'.  It wasn't some 'weird chance'.   It was hard work, effort, and patience.

You need to grow up a little.  Not trying to be insulting.  This is how most successful people, end up successful.     A group of college friends making Sports shirts, sleeping in their cars at the factory, because they didn't even have money for rent.

The owner of my company, spent 20 years working as a low level engineer.  When the company CEO announced he wanted out of the business, he mortgaged his house, and his father in law, mortgaged his house, to buy the business... and then worked to get the business profitable again, before they went bankrupt, lost both their homes in foreclosure, and ended up with nothing.

Massive risk.  Massive work.  Long long hours.     It wasn't some 'weird chance'.   It was hard work, and effort.

Stop living in your leftist mythical reality, where all the rich people, are only rich by some magic.   Yeah, it makes you feel better about yourself, because then you can just blame your lack of success on magic, instead of you lack of effort.   But it's not true.  And you are only harming yourself, by giving yourself an excuse to not try.   Why try in life, if all the successful people are only successful by some "weird chance" that 'just happened'?  Right?   But it's not true.  Grow up.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good days work deserves a good days pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice slogan, but the real question is who gets to decide what a 'good days pay' is? Should it be a private matter, or should government make the call?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it sure shouldn't be a greedy no good corrupt individual, for whom by some weird chance or way in life, he some how ended up with a company that just so happens to depend on employee's in order to make the company what it is capable of making. Sadly in the process of things, he decides not to pay what he can pay in which would be fair, but instead pay's as less as he can just because he is a greedy bad person in life. The other sad thing, is that we are all different in our ways, and we are different in our personalities and/or characters, and sadly there are those who are vulnerable due to their kindness and meekness in life, yet they are not to be mistreated according to the word of God himself. The story of Job tells us about this in the Bible, and the Book of Job is a great one.
> 
> Now just because the people are this way in many ways, doesn't mean they are ripe to be exploited or to be cheated in life, but some how when it is being done to them, there are those who will say or do anything to justify it all.
Click to expand...


How about leaving the decision up to the person who has to actually do the work?


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Now why would you make a claim that you know what the average truck driver makes,  and this especially if you are an advocate of the free market system ? You see if the free market system was running independently and great just as it is supposed to be, then you wouldn't be able to make such a claim as this would you, and why is this, because it wouldn't be true would it? Example if a truck driver worked for FedEx, and another truck driver worked for J.B Hunt, do you think that the two would average out to your theory of a truck driver making on average $42,000 dollars a year ? To be able to come up with such numbers like you do, means it doesn't fit well with the free market system does it, and it doesn't fit well with it operating free and independently like it is supposed to be, so who is in favor of rate controls here for all drivers regardless of their companies worked for, is it you or is it me ?  If a certified truck driver lived in your first picture, then who would have caused that to happen ? I bet you could come up with a million excuses as to why it would be the driver that caused it, and not you and your way of thinking about what he or she should be making, and this regardless of their company worked for.. Will the real socialist/communist please stand up.


I just gotta say, "what!?"


----------



## Mathbud1

Slyhunter said:


> What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.


The problem with the whole "living wage" imaginary thing is it doesn't work out the way you plan for it to work. By raising the wages you increase the incentive for people who don't need a job to go get one because with the higher wage it is suddenly worth it to get some cash. These people mostly come from the middle class. Teenagers looking for some "fun money." Parents looking to get more breathing room in their budget by getting a second job.

When you get these clean, sharp dressed, well-spoken people coming in to interview along side dirty, or uneducated, or shabbily dressed people, who do you think is going to get the job?

What you'll see when you raise the min wage enough is more middle class people entering the workforce or getting second jobs and pushing out the less well-off people who simply can't afford to, don't know how to, or don't care to, take care of themselves as well.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.
> 
> If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.
> 
> Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.


What's fair? What's a fair wage for a fair day's work? How much work do you have to accomplish to say that you worked a fair day? Who determines if the work you accomplished is a fair day's labor? Do we base what this fair labor is on each individual's ability and effort?

Or did you really mean, "you show up for eight hours and you deserve an arbitrarily set amount that is in no way tied to the amount of work you accomplish or the value of that work to the company by which you are employed."


----------



## Mathbud1

Slyhunter said:


> People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.


And where does the money come from to pay the mythical "living wage" to the low skilled while still maintaining an incentive pay increase for those higher skilled workers? The massive profits of the huge corporations? The outrageous pay of the CEO's of the huge corporations? That's all well and good if the huge corporations can manage that, but what about the smaller companies that don't make billions in profits every year? Want to make it easier for the massive guys to kill off the last of the mom and pops out there? This sounds like a fantastic way to do it.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> There is about a million different angles being presented in this conversation, and it causes the main jest of the conversation to get lost in the mix of it all. This thing keeps bouncing around like a rubber ball back and forth, and durring this dribbling the goal post or basket keeps getting moved.


The "jest" of the conversation is right. It's a joke to imagine the government can waive the magic minimum wage wand and make poverty disappear. It's not a very funny joke that there are this many people who buy in to that.


----------



## AntiParty

norwegen said:


> Why do we even have a 40-hour work week?  Whatever happened to the idea that employers and employees can draft the terms of a two-party contract?


........Unions. You can't just use sweat shops anymore kiddo. Sorry.

36 reasons why you should thank a union

Perhaps this will give you some insight into unions CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE.  Unions can get out of control just like the government CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE. (Well, not as much after Citizens United)


----------



## Andylusion

Slyhunter said:


> Link the minimum wage to cost of living.



Terrible idea.   Again, when you increase the minimum wage, the cost of living goes up.

In 2006, the cost of a burrito at Chipotle, was $5.25, now it's $6.50.  That's a huge increase.   What happened since 2006?   The Minimum wage in Ohio, went from $5.25 to now $7.90.

So you increase the minimum wage, which increases the cost of living, which triggers an increase in the minimum wage, which increases the cost of living, and the cycle continues, while jobs are lost throughout the economy.

Greece tried this.  Their minimum wage was tied to the cost of living.   It continually increased, until 2010, when the economy was so devastated, and the negative aspects of the minimum wage were so obvious to everyone, that the government cut the minimum wage, and eliminated the cost of living increase.    Suddenly, employment increased.  What a shock.

If my goal was to ruin this country, and I needed to do it in one policy, tying the minimum wage to cost of living, is exactly what I would do.


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> ........Unions. You can't just use sweat shops anymore kiddo. Sorry.
> 
> 36 reasons why you should thank a union
> 
> Perhaps this will give you some insight into unions CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE.  Unions can get out of control just like the government CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE. (Well, not as much after Citizens United)



Yeah, I remember working with people who had 3 different jobs, because thanks to Unions, they were unable to work more hours at one single job.   That's not a plus.  That's a negative.


----------



## AntiParty

Androw said:


> Yeah, I remember working with people who had 3 different jobs, because thanks to Unions, they were unable to work more hours at one single job.   That's not a plus.  That's a negative.


Your education of unions is minimal and possibly zero.

Unions like Government can get out of control when unchecked. If this situation you speak of actually happened it was probably in the last few months and it's not surprising that you remember it...

The attack on Unions and Corporations and Government are all EQUAL. All have abused their systems because the small minds in America have let them. The instant people end the bias in their brain they will start to learn more about all things politics related.

Unions, Corporations and Government have all done good things and are all necessary in America. Abuse should be what the people are looking for..............To counter, I'd like you to post a thread about America without one of the three.

If you don't allow people to unite, "United We Stand" is gone and the single person with the $$ owns you.


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> Unions like Government can get out of control when unchecked. If this situation you speak of actually happened it was probably in the last few months and it's not surprising that you remember it...
> 
> The attack on Unions and Corporations and Government are all EQUAL. All have abused their systems because the small minds in America have let them. The instant people end the bias in their brain they will start to learn more about all things politics related.
> 
> Unions, Corporations and Government have all done good things and are all necessary in America. Abuse should be what the people are looking for..............To counter, I'd like you to post a thread about America without one of the three.
> 
> If you don't allow people to unite, "United We Stand" is gone and the single person with the $$ owns you.



I don't believe that at all.  No one owns me, and I have never been a part of a Union.

Unions served a specific purpose for a specific situation, that no longer exists in America today.

There was a time when mining companies, and similar, would build mining towns, and build a rail road to the town.   Then recruit people to work at the mine, pay for a ticket to the mine, and build them a home.

The problem was, they paid them in company dollars only redeemable at the company store.  They couldn't get a horse or cart, couldn't buy a ticket out of town, and any money they saved was all company dollars useless anywhere else.    They were literally trapped.

The Unions served a purpose, to save those people from a trap.
Is anyone today paid in company dollars?  Is anyone trapped at a remote mining town, or anything similar?

I have quit several jobs, and nothing has happened to me.   I literally walked off two jobs, because the boss wasn't treating me well.  Nothing happened.  No one could stop me.

This isn't Pre-78 China, where the boss actually does own you.  The communist party says you work at X place.  If you don't show up, the boss sends a note to government, and they come and drag you back to your job.

We don't live there.   In America, my next door neighbor was working for Honda.   He decided he was going to start his own business, less they paid home more.   They give him a little raise, he said it wasn't enough, they refused, he quit and started his own company.   Now as a private contractor, he earns whatever he wants, and vacations whenever he wants.

That's America.   The boss doesn't "own" you, unless *YOU* decide you are owned.  The people who are trapped, are trapped because they choose to be trapped.   And that's all there is too it.


----------



## dblack

AntiParty said:


> If you don't allow people to unite, "United We Stand" is gone and the single person with the $$ owns you.



This is the predominant ethos of corporatism.


----------



## beagle9

Yo


Androw said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unions like Government can get out of control when unchecked. If this situation you speak of actually happened it was probably in the last few months and it's not surprising that you remember it...
> 
> The attack on Unions and Corporations and Government are all EQUAL. All have abused their systems because the small minds in America have let them. The instant people end the bias in their brain they will start to learn more about all things politics related.
> 
> Unions, Corporations and Government have all done good things and are all necessary in America. Abuse should be what the people are looking for..............To counter, I'd like you to post a thread about America without one of the three.
> 
> If you don't allow people to unite, "United We Stand" is gone and the single person with the $$ owns you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all.  No one owns me, and I have never been a part of a Union.
> 
> Unions served a specific purpose for a specific situation, that no longer exists in America today.
> 
> There was a time when mining companies, and similar, would build mining towns, and build a rail road to the town.   Then recruit people to work at the mine, pay for a ticket to the mine, and build them a home.
> 
> The problem was, they paid them in company dollars only redeemable at the company store.  They couldn't get a horse or cart, couldn't buy a ticket out of town, and any money they saved was all company dollars useless anywhere else.    They were literally trapped.
> 
> The Unions served a purpose, to save those people from a trap.
> Is anyone today paid in company dollars?  Is anyone trapped at a remote mining town, or anything similar?
> 
> I have quit several jobs, and nothing has happened to me.   I literally walked off two jobs, because the boss wasn't treating me well.  Nothing happened.  No one could stop me.
> 
> This isn't Pre-78 China, where the boss actually does own you.  The communist party says you work at X place.  If you don't show up, the boss sends a note to government, and they come and drag you back to your job.
> 
> We don't live there.   In America, my next door neighbor was working for Honda.   He decided he was going to start his own business, less they paid home more.   They give him a little raise, he said it wasn't enough, they refused, he quit and started his own company.   Now as a private contractor, he earns whatever he wants, and vacations whenever he wants.
> 
> That's America.   The boss doesn't "own" you, unless *YOU* decide you are owned.  The people who are trapped, are trapped because they choose to be trapped.   And that's all there is too it.
Click to expand...

We speak in ways that illustrate the situation or the characters talked about best. Why you may ask ? It's because knowing a man's character first is the most important thing, then you will understand and know his actions afterwards. Sometimes companies understand that if they can keep their people economically dependent, then they can keep them from being able to make a move without it being devastating on them (the employee) for doing so if need too. They look for weaknesses in many ways, and these weaknesses can cause a person to be stuck if they are not careful in life. The more dependent you are, the more they love it. This is how they get people over time to hang around and put up with their bull crap, because an employee is actually to poor to leave or even to poor to attempt to leave, and so they just stay to the employers delight.  This happens a lot in peoples lives, and that is sad.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Yo
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all.  No one owns me, and I have never been a part of a Union.
> 
> Unions served a specific purpose for a specific situation, that no longer exists in America today.
> 
> There was a time when mining companies, and similar, would build mining towns, and build a rail road to the town.   Then recruit people to work at the mine, pay for a ticket to the mine, and build them a home.
> 
> The problem was, they paid them in company dollars only redeemable at the company store.  They couldn't get a horse or cart, couldn't buy a ticket out of town, and any money they saved was all company dollars useless anywhere else.    They were literally trapped.
> 
> The Unions served a purpose, to save those people from a trap.
> Is anyone today paid in company dollars?  Is anyone trapped at a remote mining town, or anything similar?
> 
> I have quit several jobs, and nothing has happened to me.   I literally walked off two jobs, because the boss wasn't treating me well.  Nothing happened.  No one could stop me.
> 
> This isn't Pre-78 China, where the boss actually does own you.  The communist party says you work at X place.  If you don't show up, the boss sends a note to government, and they come and drag you back to your job.
> 
> We don't live there.   In America, my next door neighbor was working for Honda.   He decided he was going to start his own business, less they paid home more.   They give him a little raise, he said it wasn't enough, they refused, he quit and started his own company.   Now as a private contractor, he earns whatever he wants, and vacations whenever he wants.
> 
> That's America.   The boss doesn't "own" you, unless *YOU* decide you are owned.  The people who are trapped, are trapped because they choose to be trapped.   And that's all there is too it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes companies understand that if they can keep their people economically dependent, then they can keep them from being able to make a move without it being devastating on them (the employee) for doing so if need too. They look for weaknesses in many ways, and these weaknesses can cause a person to be stuck if they are not careful in life. The more dependent you are, the more they love it. This is how they get people over time to hang around and put up with their bull crap, because an employee is actually to poor to leave or even to poor to attempt to leave, and so they just stay to the employers delight.  This happens a lot in peoples lives, and that is sad.
Click to expand...


But that's my point.  There is no such thing as economic dependency.  Chris Gardener was HOMELESS. 

According to you, his corporate job, should have kept him 'economically' dependent, and left him a low wage worker for life.

Instead he runs his own company now, and is a multi-millionaire.

Douglas Mcmillon, CEO of Walmart, started off minimum wage unloading trucks at a Walmart distribution center as a part time summer job.

According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished forever.

Instead he is now CEO of the company.

David Abney, first person in his family to ever go to college, did so by working at UPS for minimum wage, at night unloading trucks.  Poor, he couldn't afford to live in the dorm at his college, and instead slept on the couch of the Student Union building.

According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished.

Abney is now CEO of UPS.

James Skinner, CEO of McDonald's, started off as a Assistant Manager Trainee.   That's about $2/hr in 1971.

Dan Rather, worked as a minimum wage CBS radio affiliate.

Oprah Winfrey's first job was entry level news reader at a radio station.   To this day, such a position pays $20K entry level.

Carol Bartz, worked for 75¢ an hour, as a bank teller.  She's now CEO of Yahoo.

Brad Pitt, dressed in a chicken suit for a restaurant after dropping out of college.  I'm sure that was a 'living wage' job.

Cory Monteith, (Glee TV series) worked as a Walmart greeter.

Madonna worked at Dunken Doughnuts.

Jerry Seinfeld was a telemarketer.

Kanye West did retail at The Gap.

Ursula Burns, started off as an Intern at Xerox.  The average starting wage of a Xerox intern today is $10 to $15 an hour.    Burns is now CEO.

There are literally hundreds of examples.   Hundreds.   And that's just the ones we know about.  I have about a dozen from my own life, that I could tell you about.

The point is this.... according to your belief system, none of these people could have ever been successful.   All of them should have been 'economically dependent', unable to leave their low wage job.

Yet it's simply isn't true.  Just flat out, you are wrong.   They can.   And they do.    That's all there is too it.

You are only economically dependent, if *YOU* make the choice to be so.   If you don't want to work, if you don't want to learn something new, if you don't want to strive to improve yourself, if you don't want to take the extra time, if you want to rather spend your time watching TV, playing video games, or just complaining on a forum somewhere.... yeah, you are stuck.  But it's not the employers fault, it's yours.


----------



## AntiParty

They see Christy Walton and think "good for her" when she is worth $36.7Billion. They never do research and wonder why Wal-Mart managers are asked to hand out information on welfare when someone asks for a raise. Do you really think Christy "earns" all of that on her own or do you think she has a team that earns that for her? Are you stating that Corporations shouldn't pay the teams that earn that profit and we should keep giving them welfare so 1 (or a few)can get Ultra/uber/mega/beyond life rich?

You know that the owner of Wal-Mart and McDonalds will still be MEGA rich if they pay their employee's a better salary correct? Minimal research will show you that...........but most let Fox News do the research for them....


----------



## Esmeralda

I once had a 40 hour work week with a 3 day weekend: 4 days of 10 hours each, then 3 days off.  Loved it.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all.  No one owns me, and I have never been a part of a Union.
> 
> Unions served a specific purpose for a specific situation, that no longer exists in America today.
> 
> There was a time when mining companies, and similar, would build mining towns, and build a rail road to the town.   Then recruit people to work at the mine, pay for a ticket to the mine, and build them a home.
> 
> The problem was, they paid them in company dollars only redeemable at the company store.  They couldn't get a horse or cart, couldn't buy a ticket out of town, and any money they saved was all company dollars useless anywhere else.    They were literally trapped.
> 
> The Unions served a purpose, to save those people from a trap.
> Is anyone today paid in company dollars?  Is anyone trapped at a remote mining town, or anything similar?
> 
> I have quit several jobs, and nothing has happened to me.   I literally walked off two jobs, because the boss wasn't treating me well.  Nothing happened.  No one could stop me.
> 
> This isn't Pre-78 China, where the boss actually does own you.  The communist party says you work at X place.  If you don't show up, the boss sends a note to government, and they come and drag you back to your job.
> 
> We don't live there.   In America, my next door neighbor was working for Honda.   He decided he was going to start his own business, less they paid home more.   They give him a little raise, he said it wasn't enough, they refused, he quit and started his own company.   Now as a private contractor, he earns whatever he wants, and vacations whenever he wants.
> 
> That's America.   The boss doesn't "own" you, unless *YOU* decide you are owned.  The people who are trapped, are trapped because they choose to be trapped.   And that's all there is too it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes companies understand that if they can keep their people economically dependent, then they can keep them from being able to make a move without it being devastating on them (the employee) for doing so if need too. They look for weaknesses in many ways, and these weaknesses can cause a person to be stuck if they are not careful in life. The more dependent you are, the more they love it. This is how they get people over time to hang around and put up with their bull crap, because an employee is actually to poor to leave or even to poor to attempt to leave, and so they just stay to the employers delight.  This happens a lot in peoples lives, and that is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's my point.  There is no such thing as economic dependency.  Chris Gardener was HOMELESS.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job, should have kept him 'economically' dependent, and left him a low wage worker for life.
> 
> Instead he runs his own company now, and is a multi-millionaire.
> 
> Douglas Mcmillon, CEO of Walmart, started off minimum wage unloading trucks at a Walmart distribution center as a part time summer job.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished forever.
> 
> Instead he is now CEO of the company.
> 
> David Abney, first person in his family to ever go to college, did so by working at UPS for minimum wage, at night unloading trucks.  Poor, he couldn't afford to live in the dorm at his college, and instead slept on the couch of the Student Union building.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished.
> 
> Abney is now CEO of UPS.
> 
> James Skinner, CEO of McDonald's, started off as a Assistant Manager Trainee.   That's about $2/hr in 1971.
> 
> Dan Rather, worked as a minimum wage CBS radio affiliate.
> 
> Oprah Winfrey's first job was entry level news reader at a radio station.   To this day, such a position pays $20K entry level.
> 
> Carol Bartz, worked for 75¢ an hour, as a bank teller.  She's now CEO of Yahoo.
> 
> Brad Pitt, dressed in a chicken suit for a restaurant after dropping out of college.  I'm sure that was a 'living wage' job.
> 
> Cory Monteith, (Glee TV series) worked as a Walmart greeter.
> 
> Madonna worked at Dunken Doughnuts.
> 
> Jerry Seinfeld was a telemarketer.
> 
> Kanye West did retail at The Gap.
> 
> Ursula Burns, started off as an Intern at Xerox.  The average starting wage of a Xerox intern today is $10 to $15 an hour.    Burns is now CEO.
> 
> There are literally hundreds of examples.   Hundreds.   And that's just the ones we know about.  I have about a dozen from my own life, that I could tell you about.
> 
> The point is this.... according to your belief system, none of these people could have ever been successful.   All of them should have been 'economically dependent', unable to leave their low wage job.
> 
> Yet it's simply isn't true.  Just flat out, you are wrong.   They can.   And they do.    That's all there is too it.
> 
> You are only economically dependent, if *YOU* make the choice to be so.   If you don't want to work, if you don't want to learn something new, if you don't want to strive to improve yourself, if you don't want to take the extra time, if you want to rather spend your time watching TV, playing video games, or just complaining on a forum somewhere.... yeah, you are stuck.  But it's not the employers fault, it's yours.
Click to expand...


I agree with you that people can break free from the grip, but like I said it is a mental sort of Jim Jones thing they pull on people, and sadly there are many who fall for it and think they are stuck for a while all depending. They finally break free as you say, but how long did it take before they realized they could ? If they felt trapped for say 5 years before they were finally free, then the corporation thinks well lets find another mullet and move on, but don't you know that he or she was an idiot, but we won't say that is what they say? Then they think man if we had about 300 more like that one, who are idiots just like the government is, well we would be filthy rich in a lot less time... How about the CEO's taking it upon themselves to do the right thing, and this instead of playing the economic dependency game for even one day against an employee ? Just do what is right, is it so hard to do anymore ?


----------



## dblack

The main thing we have to understand, re: the OP, is that it's absolutely vital that we all agree on the optimal number of hours to work each week and then pass laws to ensure that everyone falls in line.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

I put about 2/3 of the front office on 4 day/10 hr work weeks.
Productivity went up - overtime went down. People got more work done, and it cost the company less money to do so.
It is win-win


----------



## Mathbud1

AntiParty said:


> They see Christy Walton and think "good for her" when she is worth $36.7Billion. They never do research and wonder why Wal-Mart managers are asked to hand out information on welfare when someone asks for a raise. Do you really think Christy "earns" all of that on her own or do you think she has a team that earns that for her? Are you stating that Corporations shouldn't pay the teams that earn that profit and we should keep giving them welfare so 1 (or a few)can get Ultra/uber/mega/beyond life rich?
> 
> You know that the owner of Wal-Mart and McDonalds will still be MEGA rich if they pay their employee's a better salary correct? Minimal research will show you that...........but most let Fox News do the research for them....


You do know that Wal-Mart and McDonald's don't exist in a vacuum don't you? If mega-sized corporations can afford to pay a higher wage, that means all companies can? Or is it that we don't care if smaller companies can afford it as long as we stick it to the CEO of Wal-Mart?


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> They see Christy Walton and think "good for her" when she is worth $36.7Billion. They never do research and wonder why Wal-Mart managers are asked to hand out information on welfare when someone asks for a raise. Do you really think Christy "earns" all of that on her own or do you think she has a team that earns that for her? Are you stating that Corporations shouldn't pay the teams that earn that profit and we should keep giving them welfare so 1 (or a few)can get Ultra/uber/mega/beyond life rich?
> 
> You know that the owner of Wal-Mart and McDonalds will still be MEGA rich if they pay their employee's a better salary correct? Minimal research will show you that...........but most let Fox News do the research for them....



The implication here, is that it's someone else's job to make you successful.

It's not.   No one 'owes' you anything.    The reason Walmart hands out information on welfare, is because people want it, and it's available to them.

I worked at a place, where the day they hired me, they told me to get whatever government assistance, I could get.   It was a small mom&pop shop.

You leftists, are oblivious.   You compare Walmart to any Mom&pop shop, their wages are always higher at Walmart.

So when Walmart does it, paying a higher wage, well that's bad.   When a mom&pop shop does it, with a much lower wage, well that's ok, because they are not evil Walmart.  Idiots.
*
You know that the owner of Wal-Mart and McDonalds will still be MEGA rich if they pay their employee's a better salary correct?*

How many times have we been over this?   Do you people have no memory?

If you confiscated the entire compensation package of the CEO of Walmart, or McDonalds, and distributed it to the employees, it would not even be 1/2 of a CENT per hour.

Has public education fallen so far, that you people can't even use a Calculator?

CEO of Walmart, $20.7 Million compensation, divided by 2.2 Million employees.  That's $9.40 A YEAR.  That's 0.49¢ an hour.  0.49¢... that's a little less than HALF OF A CENT, per hour.   Oh that'll change people's lives....

HELLO!  That $20.7, isn't even cash.   Most of it is stock options.  You can't pay employees with stocks.   CEO of Walmart actual Cash pay $2 Million.    Divided by 2.2 Million employees. 90¢ per employee PER YEAR.   0.04¢ an hour.

Can't you people do math?   Gah.... mindless people on here.


----------



## Andylusion

Esmeralda said:


> I once had a 40 hour work week with a 3 day weekend: 4 days of 10 hours each, then 3 days off.  Loved it.



I'm doing that right now... but I don't love it so much.   I'm so tired by the time I get home, I usually go to bed pretty quick.  As soon as I wake up in the morning, it's time to go back.    Do you just like it because of the 3 days off?   Or do you actually enjoy the seeming non-stop rat race through the week?


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all.  No one owns me, and I have never been a part of a Union.
> 
> Unions served a specific purpose for a specific situation, that no longer exists in America today.
> 
> There was a time when mining companies, and similar, would build mining towns, and build a rail road to the town.   Then recruit people to work at the mine, pay for a ticket to the mine, and build them a home.
> 
> The problem was, they paid them in company dollars only redeemable at the company store.  They couldn't get a horse or cart, couldn't buy a ticket out of town, and any money they saved was all company dollars useless anywhere else.    They were literally trapped.
> 
> The Unions served a purpose, to save those people from a trap.
> Is anyone today paid in company dollars?  Is anyone trapped at a remote mining town, or anything similar?
> 
> I have quit several jobs, and nothing has happened to me.   I literally walked off two jobs, because the boss wasn't treating me well.  Nothing happened.  No one could stop me.
> 
> This isn't Pre-78 China, where the boss actually does own you.  The communist party says you work at X place.  If you don't show up, the boss sends a note to government, and they come and drag you back to your job.
> 
> We don't live there.   In America, my next door neighbor was working for Honda.   He decided he was going to start his own business, less they paid home more.   They give him a little raise, he said it wasn't enough, they refused, he quit and started his own company.   Now as a private contractor, he earns whatever he wants, and vacations whenever he wants.
> 
> That's America.   The boss doesn't "own" you, unless *YOU* decide you are owned.  The people who are trapped, are trapped because they choose to be trapped.   And that's all there is too it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes companies understand that if they can keep their people economically dependent, then they can keep them from being able to make a move without it being devastating on them (the employee) for doing so if need too. They look for weaknesses in many ways, and these weaknesses can cause a person to be stuck if they are not careful in life. The more dependent you are, the more they love it. This is how they get people over time to hang around and put up with their bull crap, because an employee is actually to poor to leave or even to poor to attempt to leave, and so they just stay to the employers delight.  This happens a lot in peoples lives, and that is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's my point.  There is no such thing as economic dependency.  Chris Gardener was HOMELESS.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job, should have kept him 'economically' dependent, and left him a low wage worker for life.
> 
> Instead he runs his own company now, and is a multi-millionaire.
> 
> Douglas Mcmillon, CEO of Walmart, started off minimum wage unloading trucks at a Walmart distribution center as a part time summer job.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished forever.
> 
> Instead he is now CEO of the company.
> 
> David Abney, first person in his family to ever go to college, did so by working at UPS for minimum wage, at night unloading trucks.  Poor, he couldn't afford to live in the dorm at his college, and instead slept on the couch of the Student Union building.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished.
> 
> Abney is now CEO of UPS.
> 
> James Skinner, CEO of McDonald's, started off as a Assistant Manager Trainee.   That's about $2/hr in 1971.
> 
> Dan Rather, worked as a minimum wage CBS radio affiliate.
> 
> Oprah Winfrey's first job was entry level news reader at a radio station.   To this day, such a position pays $20K entry level.
> 
> Carol Bartz, worked for 75¢ an hour, as a bank teller.  She's now CEO of Yahoo.
> 
> Brad Pitt, dressed in a chicken suit for a restaurant after dropping out of college.  I'm sure that was a 'living wage' job.
> 
> Cory Monteith, (Glee TV series) worked as a Walmart greeter.
> 
> Madonna worked at Dunken Doughnuts.
> 
> Jerry Seinfeld was a telemarketer.
> 
> Kanye West did retail at The Gap.
> 
> Ursula Burns, started off as an Intern at Xerox.  The average starting wage of a Xerox intern today is $10 to $15 an hour.    Burns is now CEO.
> 
> There are literally hundreds of examples.   Hundreds.   And that's just the ones we know about.  I have about a dozen from my own life, that I could tell you about.
> 
> The point is this.... according to your belief system, none of these people could have ever been successful.   All of them should have been 'economically dependent', unable to leave their low wage job.
> 
> Yet it's simply isn't true.  Just flat out, you are wrong.   They can.   And they do.    That's all there is too it.
> 
> You are only economically dependent, if *YOU* make the choice to be so.   If you don't want to work, if you don't want to learn something new, if you don't want to strive to improve yourself, if you don't want to take the extra time, if you want to rather spend your time watching TV, playing video games, or just complaining on a forum somewhere.... yeah, you are stuck.  But it's not the employers fault, it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you that people can break free from the grip, but like I said it is a mental sort of Jim Jones thing they pull on people, and sadly there are many who fall for it and think they are stuck for a while all depending. They finally break free as you say, but how long did it take before they realized they could ? If they felt trapped for say 5 years before they were finally free, then the corporation thinks well lets find another mullet and move on, but don't you know that he or she was an idiot, but we won't say that is what they say? Then they think man if we had about 300 more like that one, who are idiots just like the government is, well we would be filthy rich in a lot less time... How about the CEO's taking it upon themselves to do the right thing, and this instead of playing the economic dependency game for even one day against an employee ? Just do what is right, is it so hard to do anymore ?
Click to expand...


I don't think you grasp how economics work.    "CEO does the 'right thing'".

Why is it the 'right thing' to pay people a higher wage?   That implies they deserve more.   You don't deserve anything.   You deserve what you can negotiate for.  My existence... and the sucking of air... and the pooping... and the drinking of water, and pissing it down the drain.... does not entitle me to ANYTHING.

The only thing I am entitled to, is whatever price I can sell my labor for.

*And see, you would grasp this, if you were the one paying it.*

You drive your car into one of those little girl scout car washes.   The girl scout comes up and says "$80 please!"

Are you going to pay $80, to have some 8 year old girls spritz your car with dirty soap water, and wipe it with an old rag, and wave as you leave all spotted?

Of course not.   Girl Scout "Why can't you do the right thing? You are going to play economic dependency on us??"

Or the dude walking down the side walk with flowers for sale.   "$50 a rose please.  Do the right thing!  Don't force me into economic dependency!"

Or the guy mowing your lawn.  "$100 a mow!  Do the right thing!  Don't force me into economic dependency!"

Of course, you understand that their labor, isn't worth that much money to you.  One semi decent rose on the road, isn't worth $50.   One mowing of your lawn (unless you own several acers), isn't worth $100.   One shoddy girl scout car washing, isn't worth $80.

But what about 'doing the right thing!'.     Well that doesn't apply to you.... does it?

*See, you the customer, determine how much the labor is worth.  Not the CEO.  The CEO has no ability to dictate how much the labor is worth.*

If the CEO could... they would say the Cashier's labor was worth $1 Million an hour.   Pay them $900K an hour, pocket $100K, and charge the customer $1 Million per product.

If the CEO could do that, they would.   They would love to just deem that part-time high school students labor was worth millions.   But they can't.

Before the Airline deregulation, the Airline CEO could do this.   Because the price of a ticket was mandated by the government.   And because customers were forced to pay a high price, and they were subsidized by the government, the Airline pilots and stewards were paid large pay checks.

The CEO wasn't 'doing the right thing'.   He was simply paying his employees, what their labor was worth.  Because the customer was paying more, their labor was worth more, and thus they were paid more.    That's all there is to it.

Walmart can't pay their employees more.  If they did, they would have to charge the customer more.  If they charged the customer more, the customers would go someplace else.

There is only one reason I go to Walmart.  I don't like super mega stores, because I can't ever seem to find what I want.   Too big.  Too much stuff.  Five minute hikes are for nature trails, not trying to find 2-liters of Dr. Pepper.

The only reason I go there... is price.   I was looking for a vacuum sweeper a few years back.  I went to my local store, and it was $79.   I decided to check walmart which was just on the other side of the street.   It was $42.    I bought from Walmart.   If it wasn't that much cheaper all the time... I wouldn't buy from there.   No customers, and now all your employees who you think should be paid more, will be paid ZERO.

Which is worse.... $9/hr, or ZERO?


----------



## Andylusion

dblack said:


> The main thing we have to understand, re: the OP, is that it's absolutely vital that we all agree on the optimal number of hours to work each week and then pass laws to ensure that everyone falls in line.



Everyone falls in line?

See this is another aspect, that people just don't grasp.

You will NEVER be very wealthy working a straight 40 hours.

If you want to have real money, it is going to take real time.   No one makes big money, working just a mere 40-hours.  NO ONE.

CEOs don't work a mere 40 hours.   Are you kidding?  My CEO works 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday, and sometimes on the Weekend.

I've known many CEOs.   I worked at an IT Consulting place, and the CEO was there before I arrived every morning, and was there long after I left.

That Honda guy that quit and opened his own consulting firm, he's working more than he ever did at Honda.   But that's why he's wealthy.

One of my co-workers I knew, got a job working for Xerox, and his base pay was $60,000.   But.... they told him up front, he would be working 60-hours a week at the end of every month.  3-weeks 40, 1 week 60, every month.

When you say "absolutely vital that we all agree on the optimal number of hours to work each week and then pass laws to ensure that everyone falls in line", you are basically saying "I want to mandate everyone is poor".


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all.  No one owns me, and I have never been a part of a Union.
> 
> Unions served a specific purpose for a specific situation, that no longer exists in America today.
> 
> There was a time when mining companies, and similar, would build mining towns, and build a rail road to the town.   Then recruit people to work at the mine, pay for a ticket to the mine, and build them a home.
> 
> The problem was, they paid them in company dollars only redeemable at the company store.  They couldn't get a horse or cart, couldn't buy a ticket out of town, and any money they saved was all company dollars useless anywhere else.    They were literally trapped.
> 
> The Unions served a purpose, to save those people from a trap.
> Is anyone today paid in company dollars?  Is anyone trapped at a remote mining town, or anything similar?
> 
> I have quit several jobs, and nothing has happened to me.   I literally walked off two jobs, because the boss wasn't treating me well.  Nothing happened.  No one could stop me.
> 
> This isn't Pre-78 China, where the boss actually does own you.  The communist party says you work at X place.  If you don't show up, the boss sends a note to government, and they come and drag you back to your job.
> 
> We don't live there.   In America, my next door neighbor was working for Honda.   He decided he was going to start his own business, less they paid home more.   They give him a little raise, he said it wasn't enough, they refused, he quit and started his own company.   Now as a private contractor, he earns whatever he wants, and vacations whenever he wants.
> 
> That's America.   The boss doesn't "own" you, unless *YOU* decide you are owned.  The people who are trapped, are trapped because they choose to be trapped.   And that's all there is too it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes companies understand that if they can keep their people economically dependent, then they can keep them from being able to make a move without it being devastating on them (the employee) for doing so if need too. They look for weaknesses in many ways, and these weaknesses can cause a person to be stuck if they are not careful in life. The more dependent you are, the more they love it. This is how they get people over time to hang around and put up with their bull crap, because an employee is actually to poor to leave or even to poor to attempt to leave, and so they just stay to the employers delight.  This happens a lot in peoples lives, and that is sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's my point.  There is no such thing as economic dependency.  Chris Gardener was HOMELESS.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job, should have kept him 'economically' dependent, and left him a low wage worker for life.
> 
> Instead he runs his own company now, and is a multi-millionaire.
> 
> Douglas Mcmillon, CEO of Walmart, started off minimum wage unloading trucks at a Walmart distribution center as a part time summer job.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished forever.
> 
> Instead he is now CEO of the company.
> 
> David Abney, first person in his family to ever go to college, did so by working at UPS for minimum wage, at night unloading trucks.  Poor, he couldn't afford to live in the dorm at his college, and instead slept on the couch of the Student Union building.
> 
> According to you, his corporate job should have kept him economically dependent for life, and left him impoverished.
> 
> Abney is now CEO of UPS.
> 
> James Skinner, CEO of McDonald's, started off as a Assistant Manager Trainee.   That's about $2/hr in 1971.
> 
> Dan Rather, worked as a minimum wage CBS radio affiliate.
> 
> Oprah Winfrey's first job was entry level news reader at a radio station.   To this day, such a position pays $20K entry level.
> 
> Carol Bartz, worked for 75¢ an hour, as a bank teller.  She's now CEO of Yahoo.
> 
> Brad Pitt, dressed in a chicken suit for a restaurant after dropping out of college.  I'm sure that was a 'living wage' job.
> 
> Cory Monteith, (Glee TV series) worked as a Walmart greeter.
> 
> Madonna worked at Dunken Doughnuts.
> 
> Jerry Seinfeld was a telemarketer.
> 
> Kanye West did retail at The Gap.
> 
> Ursula Burns, started off as an Intern at Xerox.  The average starting wage of a Xerox intern today is $10 to $15 an hour.    Burns is now CEO.
> 
> There are literally hundreds of examples.   Hundreds.   And that's just the ones we know about.  I have about a dozen from my own life, that I could tell you about.
> 
> The point is this.... according to your belief system, none of these people could have ever been successful.   All of them should have been 'economically dependent', unable to leave their low wage job.
> 
> Yet it's simply isn't true.  Just flat out, you are wrong.   They can.   And they do.    That's all there is too it.
> 
> You are only economically dependent, if *YOU* make the choice to be so.   If you don't want to work, if you don't want to learn something new, if you don't want to strive to improve yourself, if you don't want to take the extra time, if you want to rather spend your time watching TV, playing video games, or just complaining on a forum somewhere.... yeah, you are stuck.  But it's not the employers fault, it's yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you that people can break free from the grip, but like I said it is a mental sort of Jim Jones thing they pull on people, and sadly there are many who fall for it and think they are stuck for a while all depending. They finally break free as you say, but how long did it take before they realized they could ? If they felt trapped for say 5 years before they were finally free, then the corporation thinks well lets find another mullet and move on, but don't you know that he or she was an idiot, but we won't say that is what they say? Then they think man if we had about 300 more like that one, who are idiots just like the government is, well we would be filthy rich in a lot less time... How about the CEO's taking it upon themselves to do the right thing, and this instead of playing the economic dependency game for even one day against an employee ? Just do what is right, is it so hard to do anymore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you grasp how economics work.    "CEO does the 'right thing'".
> 
> Why is it the 'right thing' to pay people a higher wage?   That implies they deserve more.   You don't deserve anything.   You deserve what you can negotiate for.  My existence... and the sucking of air... and the pooping... and the drinking of water, and pissing it down the drain.... does not entitle me to ANYTHING.
> 
> The only thing I am entitled to, is whatever price I can sell my labor for.
> 
> *And see, you would grasp this, if you were the one paying it.*
> 
> You drive your car into one of those little girl scout car washes.   The girl scout comes up and says "$80 please!"
> 
> Are you going to pay $80, to have some 8 year old girls spritz your car with dirty soap water, and wipe it with an old rag, and wave as you leave all spotted?
> 
> Of course not.   Girl Scout "Why can't you do the right thing? You are going to play economic dependency on us??"
> 
> Or the dude walking down the side walk with flowers for sale.   "$50 a rose please.  Do the right thing!  Don't force me into economic dependency!"
> 
> Or the guy mowing your lawn.  "$100 a mow!  Do the right thing!  Don't force me into economic dependency!"
> 
> Of course, you understand that their labor, isn't worth that much money to you.  One semi decent rose on the road, isn't worth $50.   One mowing of your lawn (unless you own several acers), isn't worth $100.   One shoddy girl scout car washing, isn't worth $80.
> 
> But what about 'doing the right thing!'.     Well that doesn't apply to you.... does it?
> 
> *See, you the customer, determine how much the labor is worth.  Not the CEO.  The CEO has no ability to dictate how much the labor is worth.*
> 
> If the CEO could... they would say the Cashier's labor was worth $1 Million an hour.   Pay them $900K an hour, pocket $100K, and charge the customer $1 Million per product.
> 
> If the CEO could do that, they would.   They would love to just deem that part-time high school students labor was worth millions.   But they can't.
> 
> Before the Airline deregulation, the Airline CEO could do this.   Because the price of a ticket was mandated by the government.   And because customers were forced to pay a high price, and they were subsidized by the government, the Airline pilots and stewards were paid large pay checks.
> 
> The CEO wasn't 'doing the right thing'.   He was simply paying his employees, what their labor was worth.  Because the customer was paying more, their labor was worth more, and thus they were paid more.    That's all there is to it.
> 
> Walmart can't pay their employees more.  If they did, they would have to charge the customer more.  If they charged the customer more, the customers would go someplace else.
> 
> There is only one reason I go to Walmart.  I don't like super mega stores, because I can't ever seem to find what I want.   Too big.  Too much stuff.  Five minute hikes are for nature trails, not trying to find 2-liters of Dr. Pepper.
> 
> The only reason I go there... is price.   I was looking for a vacuum sweeper a few years back.  I went to my local store, and it was $79.   I decided to check walmart which was just on the other side of the street.   It was $42.    I bought from Walmart.   If it wasn't that much cheaper all the time... I wouldn't buy from there.   No customers, and now all your employees who you think should be paid more, will be paid ZERO.
> 
> Which is worse.... $9/hr, or ZERO?
Click to expand...

Are you not embarrassed of yourself yet ?


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Are you not embarrassed of yourself yet ?


Why would he be embarrassed?


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Are you not embarrassed of yourself yet ?



Why should I be embarrassed, when I'm right?   You are the one that is economically ignorant.  If anyone should be embarrassed, it would be you.


----------



## TGN

Interesting, the Kellog company actually had a 6 hour workday all the way up until the mid-80s when it was finally phased out. The idea was that it was cheaper to have fewer workers working longer hours due to benefit expenses. I guess that means they would've kept it otherwise. Maybe Basic Income can be a partial solution, in that it could reduce benefits and insurance costs for employers, who could then afford to hire more workers to work 12 hour production schedules split into two 6 hour shifts? It could increase productivity (as a happy worker is a productive one) and also reduce unemployment as an added benefit to society.

When America Came This Close to Establishing a 30-Hour Workweek Alternet

_"In 1992, I traveled with Hunnicutt to interview former thirty-hour week workers in Battle Creek. They spoke movingly of the free time they had when they worked shorter hours—'you weren’t all wore out when you got home,' one man told me. One couple, Chuck and Joy Blanchard, who had both worked at the plant, claimed that the six-hour day made Chuck a 'feminist' long before the women’s movement. He and his wife shared the housework and he was a 'room parent' at his children’s school."_


----------



## dblack

Androw said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main thing we have to understand, re: the OP, is that it's absolutely vital that we all agree on the optimal number of hours to work each week and then pass laws to ensure that everyone falls in line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone falls in line?
> 
> See this is another aspect, that people just don't grasp.
> 
> You will NEVER be very wealthy working a straight 40 hours.
> 
> If you want to have real money, it is going to take real time.   No one makes big money, working just a mere 40-hours.  NO ONE.
> 
> CEOs don't work a mere 40 hours.   Are you kidding?  My CEO works 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday, and sometimes on the Weekend.
> 
> I've known many CEOs.   I worked at an IT Consulting place, and the CEO was there before I arrived every morning, and was there long after I left.
> 
> That Honda guy that quit and opened his own consulting firm, he's working more than he ever did at Honda.   But that's why he's wealthy.
> 
> One of my co-workers I knew, got a job working for Xerox, and his base pay was $60,000.   But.... they told him up front, he would be working 60-hours a week at the end of every month.  3-weeks 40, 1 week 60, every month.
> 
> When you say "absolutely vital that we all agree on the optimal number of hours to work each week and then pass laws to ensure that everyone falls in line", you are basically saying "I want to mandate everyone is poor".
Click to expand...


I was being sarcastic; pointing out the overriding goal of the statist - lockstep conformity.


----------



## TGN

_"I was being sarcastic; pointing out the overriding goal of the statist - lockstep conformity."_

If you read the article I've just posted you will see that though Congress overturned the Black-Connery bill (after the Senate passed it) many employers implemented a 6 hour work day anyway.

And you're reference to "statist - lockstep conformity" resembles reactionary stereotyping. Workers could afirm their own power to negotiate the deals they want or even form their own enterprises.


----------



## dblack

TGN said:


> _"I was being sarcastic; pointing out the overriding goal of the statist - lockstep conformity."_
> 
> If you read the article I've just posted you will see that though Congress overturned the Black-Connery bill (after the Senate passed it) many employers implemented a 6 hour work day anyway.
> 
> And you're reference to "statist - lockstep conformity" resembles reactionary stereotyping. Workers could afirm their own power to negotiate the deals they want or even form their own enterprises.



No, I'm referencing the impulse to push for these kinds of social changes with coercive regulation, rather than just being the change you want to see.


----------



## TGN

You don't need coercive regulation. A more democratic, participatory economy for workers would do the trick.


----------



## dblack

TGN said:


> You don't need coercive regulation. A more democratic, participatory economy for workers would do the trick.



Agreed. As long as it's voluntary.


----------



## Dekster

A lot or people already work these 3 on 4 off 4 on three off 12 hour shift schedules.  Most seem to like it except there are weird rules/policies when it comes to things like sick days/personal days that make no sense to me.  One of my brothers works in such a place.  One time he told me he got paid more if he took a day off without using a vacation/personal day than if he took a paid day.


----------

