how and why did the middle class expand so much during the 50's and 60's?

[Camp]

those guys destroyed themself's over fame. no amount of cash could of saved them.

Those guys destroyed themselves over drugs. Fame had nothing to do with it. Non famous people and poor people drug overdose everyday.

 

[Wyatt earp]

lol, ok so this Saturday afternoon and now I am talking with a bunch of rich folks that have nothing better to do than talk shit on the this board? How did i stumble on this board? lucky me, I guess.... All it proves if its true, money can not buy happiness and again if I was rich I sure as hell wouldnt waste my time here.

Expand your horizons. I am not "rich". But I am working. Some people who own businesses have to work on weekends. I'm not wasting time.......I'm multitasking.

I kind of have respect for you now.. but didnt you tell me you could buy me? Just a question why would you bother on here? just a question.. dont any of your friends or workers stimulate (spl?) your quest for knowledge?

 

[auditor0007]

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

That has been the conservative talking point for as long as I can remember, and for the most part, it's bullshit. People who want to become rich will work as hard as they need to in order to achieve what they want. On the other side, many rich people get rich out of pure luck, and they really don't give a shit about the money; they just enjoy the success, so the tax rates have nothing to do with it. When I talk about people getting rich out of pure luck, it doesn't mean they didn't work for it, but many people just fall into things. Zuckerberg had a neat idea that became Facebook, but he could never have imagined what it would become when he started it as a social thing for students where he went to school. Many businesses start out like that. It doesn't mean the people who started them didn't work hard, but they did get lucky that they found/created something that worked. For every one of them, there are countless others who work just as hard and never catch the golden egg.

But back to the basic point; higher tax rates do not dissuade people from trying to increase their earnings or wealth. It sounds like a good argument, but for the most part, it's hogwash. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence of it, but overall it doesn't fly.

You are a moron, and display a complete lack of understanding of human nature and economics.

When the marginal benefit of an activity is diminished to the point where the effort, risk and cost exceed the expected benefit, there is no reason to engage in the activity. It's a Hopeless Cause.

But I bet you're one of those guys who, despite being turned down repeatedly by a beautiful woman, continues to humiliate yourself in the pursuit of her.

On so many levels, you are just completely clueless.

 

[Wyatt earp]

those guys destroyed themself's over fame. no amount of cash could of saved them.

Those guys destroyed themselves over drugs. Fame had nothing to do with it. Non famous people and poor people drug overdose everyday.

Sorry, what I read John Candy didnt use drugs. John and Chris could not find happiness because they were fat and the only girls that wanted them was gold diggers...thats why they turned to drugs...they wanted out. they couldnt buy what they wanted.

 

[auditor0007]

if you have half a brain in your head, you would understand that the less you get to make and keep the less apt you are to invest in future enterprises. The risks rise with less to fall back on.

That has been the conservative talking point for as long as I can remember, and for the most part, it's bullshit. People who want to become rich will work as hard as they need to in order to achieve what they want. On the other side, many rich people get rich out of pure luck, and they really don't give a shit about the money; they just enjoy the success, so the tax rates have nothing to do with it. When I talk about people getting rich out of pure luck, it doesn't mean they didn't work for it, but many people just fall into things. Zuckerberg had a neat idea that became Facebook, but he could never have imagined what it would become when he started it as a social thing for students where he went to school. Many businesses start out like that. It doesn't mean the people who started them didn't work hard, but they did get lucky that they found/created something that worked. For every one of them, there are countless others who work just as hard and never catch the golden egg.

But back to the basic point; higher tax rates do not dissuade people from trying to increase their earnings or wealth. It sounds like a good argument, but for the most part, it's hogwash. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence of it, but overall it doesn't fly.

This concept that people get wealthy because of "luck" or because of a "national infrastructure" and therefore don't deserve what they make is naive to the Nth degree. Is there luck involved in business? Of course...good and bad! The truth is most business people who are "successful" have failed many times BEFORE that took place! What keeps them stepping up to the plate and trying again and again is the possibility of becoming successful.

It is ridiculous to think that you can steal the profits that people have made from the blood, sweat and tears of starting up their own business and NOT have fewer people willing to make that commitment. It's SO much easier to work for someone else and not have a care in the world when you punch out at the end of the day. Where would we be today if Henry Ford had just decided that working as a mechanic was good enough for him? Where would we be if Steven Jobs wanted to spend more quality time with his family and couldn't be bothered with the stress of a start up company?

You progressives want to take away the incentive to make that sacrifice...and then you're baffled why people won't start new companies or expand existing ones. It's an amazing thing to watch...

Hmm, funny how you twisted that into me saying the rich don't deserve what they make or earn. It's actually quite hilarious. This shows how twisted and illogical your thinking is. As most of you far right wing nuts, you have no clue.

 

[Camp]

those guys destroyed themself's over fame. no amount of cash could of saved them.[/quot

Sorry, what I read John Candy didnt use drugs. John and Chris could not find happiness because they were fat and the only girls that wanted them was gold diggers...thats why they turned to drugs...they wanted out. they couldnt buy what they wanted.

Oh, I hadn't looked at it from the fat guy angel and sorry for being wrong about John Candy. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another fan of the correlation implies causation fallacy, allow me to throw another one at you, The Beatles were still a group in the 1960's , so clearly the cause of the problem was The Beatles breaking up in 1970.

Given that the presence and relative power of unions directly impacts the wages and benefits of those who are in unions or are not,

and since the Beatles have nothing to do with wages and benefit issues of American labor,

I'd say your analogy was retarded, at best.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a simple demonstration of the correlation implies causation fallacy, the same fallacy that you were using as your argument, but obviously you still don't get the fact that it's a FALLACY any way you slice it.

In order for you to reject causation you have to reject the idea that unionism was or is ever able to obtain higher wages and better benefits for union members than they would get without unions.

If you reject that, you reject every argument ever made that in any way blames unions for any higher cost of doing business for any company.

Is that your position?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Union membership in the US peaked in the 1960's. The middle class has been in decline ever since.

Another fan of the correlation implies causation fallacy, allow me to throw another one at you, The Beatles were still a group in the 1960's , so clearly the cause of the problem was The Beatles breaking up in 1970.

So according to your 'reasoning', everyone who ever made the argument that the public sector unions were responsible for excessive wages, benefits, and pensions for public sector workers

is full of shit, dead wrong, and don't know what they're talking about.

Not to mention governors/legislatures who have wanted to get rid of public employees' bargaining rights in order to save money. You're saying that wouldn't save any money,

because there's no cause and effect between unions and labor costs, therefore all those people are also full of shit.

Eh?

 

[LoneLaugher]

lol, ok so this Saturday afternoon and now I am talking with a bunch of rich folks that have nothing better to do than talk shit on the this board? How did i stumble on this board? lucky me, I guess.... All it proves if its true, money can not buy happiness and again if I was rich I sure as hell wouldnt waste my time here.

Expand your horizons. I am not "rich". But I am working. Some people who own businesses have to work on weekends. I'm not wasting time.......I'm multitasking.

I kind of have respect for you now.. but didnt you tell me you could buy me? Just a question why would you bother on here? just a question.. dont any of your friends or workers stimulate (spl?) your quest for knowledge?

If I told you that I could buy you ( I have said that a few times here ) it is because you called me a welfare recipient or a taker or a societal leech. It is my standard reply to such silliness.

I am not here on a quest for knowledge. I am here to shoot the shit about politics without having to deal with the fallout. I often discuss politics with friends and family.....but it usually does not end well. Most people are too easily offended. I don't discuss politics with customers.

Finally, I do not currently have workers. I hire independent reps and a fulfillment service.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Union membership in the US peaked in the 1960's. The middle class has been in decline ever since.

Detroit was one of the most prosperous cities in the U.S. and the world....happy days in the '50s and '60s....it still has unions and high taxes....

why is it bankrupt today....?

 

[NightFox]

Given that the presence and relative power of unions directly impacts the wages and benefits of those who are in unions or are not,

and since the Beatles have nothing to do with wages and benefit issues of American labor,

I'd say your analogy was retarded, at best.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a simple demonstration of the correlation implies causation fallacy, the same fallacy that you were using as your argument, but obviously you still don't get the fact that it's a FALLACY any way you slice it.

In order for you to reject causation you have to reject the idea that unionism was or is ever able to obtain higher wages and better benefits for union members than they would get without unions.

If you reject that, you reject every argument ever made that in any way blames unions for any higher cost of doing business for any company.

Is that your position?

Ummm... I'm not rejecting the idea that state of unions is a/the cause I'm rejecting your argument that was based on the correlation implies causation fallacy, if you want to make a valid argument supporting your hypothesis fine but if you simply rely on correlation then your argument is invalid.

Do you understand what a logical fallacy is?

 

[deltex1]

Finally, I do not currently have workers. I hire independent reps and a fulfillment service.


Sounds like pimping to me.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Finally, I do not currently have workers. I hire independent reps and a fulfillment service.


Sounds like pimping to me.

Deltex,

That is two references to pimping aimed at me. Would you like to say something directly.....or are you just going to hit me with a series of little girlie-man slaps?

I am happy to spend some time on you....but you will have to be a little more direct.

 

[Vox]

lol, ok so this Saturday afternoon and now I am talking with a bunch of rich folks that have nothing better to do than talk shit on the this board? How did i stumble on this board? lucky me, I guess.... All it proves if its true, money can not buy happiness and again if I was rich I sure as hell wouldnt waste my time here.

and everybody "owns a business", though expresses the views which clearly indicate it is not possible, since the very views are the ones which destroy the businesses, the others have 2 pensions and retired at 52 and live at the beach yet their views express such a hatred toward the "haves" that it is obvious where they are on a ladder and so on

 

[deltex1]

Whenever I get direct, the ref throws a flag. You seem to get the message...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whenever I get direct, the ref throws a flag. You seem to get the message...

Go ahead. Be direct. PM me. I promise, I won't make you cry. What is your message. Spit it out, loser.

 

[LoneLaugher]

lol, ok so this Saturday afternoon and now I am talking with a bunch of rich folks that have nothing better to do than talk shit on the this board? How did i stumble on this board? lucky me, I guess.... All it proves if its true, money can not buy happiness and again if I was rich I sure as hell wouldnt waste my time here.

and everybody "owns a business", though expresses the views which clearly indicate it is not possible, since the very views are the ones which destroy the businesses, the others have 2 pensions and retired at 52 and live at the beach yet their views express such a hatred toward the "haves" that it is obvious where they are on a ladder and so on

Another one. You don't know shit if you think my views are not conducive to business ownership. It is very possible.

 

[Katzndogz]

those guys destroyed themself's over fame. no amount of cash could of saved them.

Those guys destroyed themselves over drugs. Fame had nothing to do with it. Non famous people and poor people drug overdose everyday.

Sorry, what I read John Candy didnt use drugs. John and Chris could not find happiness because they were fat and the only girls that wanted them was gold diggers...thats why they turned to drugs...they wanted out. they couldnt buy what they wanted.

What was Heath Ledger's excuse? Cory Monteith, janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse, Jimmy Hendrix, Jim Morrison, River Phoenix, all drugged themselves to death and weren't fat.

 

[deltex1]

Whenever I get direct, the ref throws a flag. You seem to get the message...

Go ahead. Be direct. PM me. I promise, I won't make you cry. What is your message. Spit it out, loser.

No thanks...next thing you'll be sending me pictures.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whenever I get direct, the ref throws a flag. You seem to get the message...

Go ahead. Be direct. PM me. I promise, I won't make you cry. What is your message. Spit it out, loser.

No thanks...next thing you'll be sending me pictures.

Good choice. You have no chance.