9 out of 10 Americans completely wrong

[Steelplate]

Amazon...you act as though people have a choice. Let's see..

A. Starve
B. Go on welfare
C. Take shitty job

Those are the "big three" choices that a HELL of a lot of Americans.are looking at. The fact that so many are choosing C over B should tell you that it's not LAZINESS that is the problem.

But...that's the mentality you guys have been trained to accept. Once again...80% of this country has only 7% of the wealth...there are banana Republics in Central America that has a better ratio than that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah, there's unfair and then there is really unfair, taking advantage of, no morals unfair.

Did anyone put a gun to your head, a knife to your throat, or a grenade down your pants perhaps? As I keep saying over and over, business is not a one way street and capitalism involves voluntary exchange between two parties. If you except payment for services for only $10,000 a year voluntarily then there was no way you were exploited.

After all, you could have declined the offer. The simple fact that you didn't means you were offered the best possible opportunity at that time. The fact that you haven't quit means you haven't found the best possible alternative. You wouldn't be better off if your job disappeared tomorrow.

Now if your marketable skills are so low that your skills are only worth $10,000, you have a problem. Seeing the world as unfair essentially does nothing. Rather than just stating the obvious, you would be better off figuring out what to do about your lack of human capital.

When workers are a dime a dozen, they are all underpaid. That doesn't mean their work is worth less, only that people who take advantage pay less. When the state makes up for the pay difference with food stamps and welfare, then there is something wrong, the taxpayers are subsidizing the greedy.

Uhmm we are the State. The people collecting food stamps and welfare are the ones being subsidized. And since the top half are the ones paying money for said welfare... the poor are being subsidized off the backs of the evil rich you are spiting on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

While what you say is correct... most entities have to live within budget constraints. Thus, once you choose to work for the "man" you are limited to the "man's" budget.

No you're not. You can work for one "man" AND then work another job for another "man" so as to use the additional funds to secure your financial future.

 

[tjvh]

My solution is a simple one

Why continue programs that enable the super wealthy to preserve and accumulate more wealth when it has been shown that these programs do not result in more jobs?

Just because you didn't put forth the effort, doesn't mean you should be entitled to the wealth of those who did.

Why do we continue programs that allow the super wealthy not to have to put forth the same effort?

Besides a college education, what programs are you referring to?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Amazon...you act as though people have a choice. Let's see..

A. Starve
B. Go on welfare
C. Take shitty job

Those are the "big three" choices that a HELL of a lot of Americans.are looking at. The fact that so many are choosing C over B should tell you that it's not LAZINESS that is the problem.

But...that's the mentality you guys have been trained to accept. Once again...80% of this country has only 7% of the wealth...there are banana Republics in Central America that has a better ratio than that.

I disagree it is laziness and it is lack of pride.

I'd take a shitty job any day over being a ward of the state.

 

[Polk]

So if I have a twenty in my pocket and you have a nothing in your pocket that means I have all of our wealth so someone should come to my house and cut it in half and give it to you then the wealth will be evenly distributed. Problem solved right?

Nope. My answer to that is I'll just stop working hard enough to have that extra twenty in my pocket, we'll get the money from some other rich guy who has not figured out just how evil he is to be earning more than minimum wage in this country.

Here's a better analogy. We both work a 40 hour week. You get a paycheck of $10,000,000 and I get a paycheck of $10,000. We both work for the same company. Do you really believe you deserve 1000 times more money than me, regardless of our jobs?

Yes.

Which is asinine, because there is no way your labor is 1000x value-added.

 

[Polk]

Here's a better analogy. We both work a 40 hour week. You get a paycheck of $10,000,000 and I get a paycheck of $10,000. We both work for the same company. Do you really believe you deserve 1000 times more money than me, regardless of our jobs?

Why is the owner of the company paying someone 10m a week? I don't know you should ask the owner. Why should that same owner pay you 20k for that work week if you will do it for 10k?

To answer your second question, he shouldn't. He doesn't a moral obligation to pay you anything for your labor. He wants to employ you at the lowest cost possible. Then again, if you argue that, you're kinda undermining one of the big conservative talking points against unions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Amazon...you act as though people have a choice. Let's see..

A. Starve
B. Go on welfare
C. Take shitty job

Those are the "big three" choices that a HELL of a lot of Americans.are looking at. The fact that so many are choosing C over B should tell you that it's not LAZINESS that is the problem.

But...that's the mentality you guys have been trained to accept. Once again...80% of this country has only 7% of the wealth...there are banana Republics in Central America that has a better ratio than that.

You say C > B... Do you have something to back that up? The percentage of working-age adults in the labor force is at 63% the lowest since 1979. We have 40MILLION on food stamps 9million on disability? It would seem that when you promote welfare as an easy means of income a ton of people sign up that would otherwise be more productive members of society.

 

[Polk]

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

In the infinite time horizon, that's true. We don't live forever though.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

While what you say is correct... most entities have to live within budget constraints. Thus, once you choose to work for the "man" you are limited to the "man's" budget. Thus, envy can ensue if someone has a larger piece of that particular budget. Course, if you did something to increase the size of the man's pie you'd probably get paid a lot more.

True. When workers see their hours and raises cut while top management rakes in millions they don't quit their job because they need it and other employers are doing the same thing. The result is lose of enthusiasm for the job, doing only what's required. American labor is seen as a necessary evil by top management, a cost to be cut. Loyalty has been determined to be irrelevant. Employers don't give a damn about their employees and their employees feel the same way about them.

Surely you dont suggest to make that an across the board blanket statement?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Here's a better analogy. We both work a 40 hour week. You get a paycheck of $10,000,000 and I get a paycheck of $10,000. We both work for the same company. Do you really believe you deserve 1000 times more money than me, regardless of our jobs?

Yes.

Which is asinine, because there is no way your labor is 1000x value-added.

What is asinine is the initial question she asked.

If you take my experience and what I can bring to the table vs a newbie to the industry then yes, my value is far greater.

Do you honestly think an apprentice should be paid the same as a 30 year veteran?

Now don't run off after I kick your ass like you did the last time.

 

[Polk]

If you watched the video, you'd know no one expects us to make the same paycheck. But no one expects only the wealthy to benefit from increased productivity either.

So only the wealthy benefit from increased productivity? This is news to a lot of consumers in the economy, who are grateful that their favorite retailers and chain stores are open and available on the weekends. Even on holidays.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but that is an example of increased productivity. And something to remember the next time you walk into a shop on Christmas Eve to do your last minute Christmas shopping and you're surprised that the store is still open.

Yes, only the wealthy have benefited from increased productivity. Wages in real terms have been flat for most earners for 30+ years.

 

[Polk]

Amazon...you act as though people have a choice. Let's see..

A. Starve
B. Go on welfare
C. Take shitty job

Those are the "big three" choices that a HELL of a lot of Americans.are looking at. The fact that so many are choosing C over B should tell you that it's not LAZINESS that is the problem.

But...that's the mentality you guys have been trained to accept. Once again...80% of this country has only 7% of the wealth...there are banana Republics in Central America that has a better ratio than that.

The United States will eventually look like Argentina, if it doesn't become Yugoslavia first.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

In the infinite time horizon, that's true. We don't live forever though.

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you watched the video, you'd know no one expects us to make the same paycheck. But no one expects only the wealthy to benefit from increased productivity either.

So only the wealthy benefit from increased productivity? This is news to a lot of consumers in the economy, who are grateful that their favorite retailers and chain stores are open and available on the weekends. Even on holidays.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but that is an example of increased productivity. And something to remember the next time you walk into a shop on Christmas Eve to do your last minute Christmas shopping and you're surprised that the store is still open.

Yes, only the wealthy have benefited from increased productivity. Wages in real terms have been flat for most earners for 30+ years.

Then you should move to Texas where wages have been increasing for the past 30 years.

In 1980 a journeyman welder was making about 12-15 bucks an hour. Now they're making 30-35 bucks an hour.

 

[Polk]

Yes.

Which is asinine, because there is no way your labor is 1000x value-added.

What is asinine is the initial question she asked.

If you take my experience and what I can bring to the table vs a newbie to the industry then yes, my value is far greater.

Do you honestly think an apprentice should be paid the same as a 30 year veteran?

Now don't run off after I kick your ass like you did the last time.

I haven't "r[a]n off" at any point (you also haven't "kick[ed] [my] ass").

To answer your question, even though it's built on a false premise: no, an apprentice should not be paid the same as a veteran employee with more training and experience. The issue being discussed is the pay differential. If the labor of the veteran employee is 10 times more valuable than the apprentice, but he's being paid 30 times more, there is something askew about that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's a better analogy. We both work a 40 hour week. You get a paycheck of $10,000,000 and I get a paycheck of $10,000. We both work for the same company. Do you really believe you deserve 1000 times more money than me, regardless of our jobs?

Why is the owner of the company paying someone 10m a week? I don't know you should ask the owner. Why should that same owner pay you 20k for that work week if you will do it for 10k?

To answer your second question, he shouldn't. He doesn't a moral obligation to pay you anything for your labor. He wants to employ you at the lowest cost possible. Then again, if you argue that, you're kinda undermining one of the big conservative talking points against unions.

I'm not against unions, they can serve a useful purpose when they don't run the jobs out of the country and / or become just as corrupt as a corrupt executive board room. I'm more libertarian / constitutional conservative than an authoritarian big money my religion republican.

 

[Polk]

There is no pie.

Wealth is not finite. Wealth is not a zero sum game.

In the infinite time horizon, that's true. We don't live forever though.

So tell me every time another person's net worth increases does yours decrease?

If your net worth increases does another person's decrease?

There is no pie.

The answer to both questions is no, but that doesn't mean there isn't a "pie". Sometimes wealth is being increased by enlarging the "pie". However, the size of the "pie" is relatively fixed at any given point of time (at nothing else by resource constraints).

 

[Sallow]

Here's a better analogy. We both work a 40 hour week. You get a paycheck of $10,000,000 and I get a paycheck of $10,000. We both work for the same company. Do you really believe you deserve 1000 times more money than me, regardless of our jobs?

Why is the owner of the company paying someone 10m a week? I don't know you should ask the owner. Why should that same owner pay you 20k for that work week if you will do it for 10k?

To answer your second question, he shouldn't. He doesn't a moral obligation to pay you anything for your labor. He wants to employ you at the lowest cost possible. Then again, if you argue that, you're kinda undermining one of the big conservative talking points against unions.

And tax cuts!

 

[Polk]

Why is the owner of the company paying someone 10m a week? I don't know you should ask the owner. Why should that same owner pay you 20k for that work week if you will do it for 10k?

To answer your second question, he shouldn't. He doesn't a moral obligation to pay you anything for your labor. He wants to employ you at the lowest cost possible. Then again, if you argue that, you're kinda undermining one of the big conservative talking points against unions.

I'm not against unions, they can serve a useful purpose when they don't run the jobs out of the country and / or become just as corrupt as a corrupt executive board room. I'm more libertarian / constitutional conservative than an authoritarian big money my religion republican.

Fair enough. Even though I'm certainly on the left, I would absolutely agree that unions should consider the negative impact of their negotiation posture.