“Redistribute the wealth”

[Skull Pilot]

We do not live under socialism and the individual trumps "society"

Our Constitutions claim otherwise and They are the supreme law of the land.

Where in the Constitution does it say that any person is obligated to do anything for "society"?

In fact the a large and very important part of our constitution is protection from governemnt overreach and protects the individual

Congress has the power to Tax persons to fix problems in our society.

The militia is also, callable by Congress to fix any problems for our society.

So what?

An individual has absolutely no obligation to do anything for the benefit of "society"

Ethics claim otherwise.

And, only lousy religionists, talk that way; not enough morals?

And what ethics compel anyone to do anything for "society"

No one is obligated to do anything to benefit "society"

You might want to look up the word obligated

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitutions claim otherwise and They are the supreme law of the land.

Where in the Constitution does it say that any person is obligated to do anything for "society"?

In fact the a large and very important part of our constitution is protection from governemnt overreach and protects the individual

Congress has the power to Tax persons to fix problems in our society.

The militia is also, callable by Congress to fix any problems for our society.

So what?

An individual has absolutely no obligation to do anything for the benefit of "society"

Ethics claim otherwise.

And, only lousy religionists, talk that way; not enough morals?

And what ethics compel anyone to do anything for "society"

No one is obligated to do anything to benefit "society"

You might want to look up the word obligated

you have to obey the laws of society.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where in the Constitution does it say that any person is obligated to do anything for "society"?

In fact the a large and very important part of our constitution is protection from governemnt overreach and protects the individual

Congress has the power to Tax persons to fix problems in our society.

The militia is also, callable by Congress to fix any problems for our society.

So what?

An individual has absolutely no obligation to do anything for the benefit of "society"

Ethics claim otherwise.

And, only lousy religionists, talk that way; not enough morals?

And what ethics compel anyone to do anything for "society"

No one is obligated to do anything to benefit "society"

You might want to look up the word obligated

you have to obey the laws of society.

No I don't.

Nothing is stopping me from committing a crime today

In fact people break the laws of "society" all the time

And here we come again with the fact that I am not obligated to do anything for the benefit of "society".

 

[danielpalos]

Congress has the power to Tax persons to fix problems in our society.

The militia is also, callable by Congress to fix any problems for our society.

So what?

An individual has absolutely no obligation to do anything for the benefit of "society"

Ethics claim otherwise.

And, only lousy religionists, talk that way; not enough morals?

And what ethics compel anyone to do anything for "society"

No one is obligated to do anything to benefit "society"

You might want to look up the word obligated

you have to obey the laws of society.

No I don't.

Nothing is stopping me from committing a crime today

In fact people break the laws of "society" all the time

And here we come again with the fact that I am not obligated to do anything for the benefit of "society".

does it matter, if hypothetically and in that alternative, society has to do something about You?

 

[Hiryuu]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

Look Danny, you do understand that raising the bottom doesn't change the fact it is the bottom. What you are asking for is the top to give the bottom more of what they have, but it doesn't work that way. The bottom will move up, the middle will move up, and the top will move up. If you inflate costs, you inflate everything because everything costs something. It doesn't matter if you pay someone $15 an hour if a jug milk ends up costing $10 because you inflated the whole system.

 

[Fang]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Do I deserve to be able to buy a house and car if I never learned any skill and all I can do is work the french fry machine at McDonalds?

 

[danielpalos]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

Look Danny, you do understand that raising the bottom doesn't change the fact it is the bottom. What you are asking for is the top to give the bottom more of what they have, but it doesn't work that way. The bottom will move up, the middle will move up, and the top will move up. If you inflate costs, you inflate everything because everything costs something. It doesn't matter if you pay someone $15 an hour if a jug milk ends up costing $10 because you inflated the whole system.

a cost of living adjustment does not cause the inflation the right wing, soothsays or hearsays. and, inflation happens; only the cognitively dissonant right wing, only whines about inflation "from the poor". Why no inflationary outrage about price inflation for fuel, right wingers.

there really is, a Religious, technical term for that.

 

[Hiryuu]

a cost of living adjustment does not cause the inflation the right wing, soothsays or hearsays. and, inflation happens; only the cognitively dissonant right wing, only whines about inflation "from the poor". Why no inflationary outrage about price inflation for fuel, right wingers.

there really is, a Religious, technical term for that.

You are talking about inflating resource costs, and cost of living doesn't have a choice but to follow (unless you want to imagine a fairytale where people decide they don't want to make money).If you raise a lineman's wage to $15 an hour, the supervisor's wage will go up too. If you increase the cost of producing a product/service or providing a resource, well the cost for that product/service or resource goes up.

What you want is for Santa Clause to start passing out presents, and there is no Santa Clause.

 

[danielpalos]

a cost of living adjustment does not cause the inflation the right wing, soothsays or hearsays. and, inflation happens; only the cognitively dissonant right wing, only whines about inflation "from the poor". Why no inflationary outrage about price inflation for fuel, right wingers.

there really is, a Religious, technical term for that.

You are talking about inflating resource costs, and cost of living doesn't have a choice but to follow (unless you want to imagine a fairytale where people decide they don't want to make money).

don't know what you mean. higher paid labor pays more in Taxes. and, creates more in demand.

supply and demand doesn't cease to exist for right wing fantasy.

 

[Hiryuu]

don't know what you mean. higher paid labor pays more in Taxes. and, creates more in demand.

supply and demand doesn't cease to exist for right wing fantasy.

It doesn't matter if they pay more taxes if everything the taxes could pay for costs more. You don't want to increase the value of labor, you want to limit profit (it doesn't work that way except in your fantasy).

 

[danielpalos]

don't know what you mean. higher paid labor pays more in Taxes. and, creates more in demand.

supply and demand doesn't cease to exist for right wing fantasy.

It doesn't matter if they pay more taxes if everything the taxes could pay for costs more. You don't want to increase the value of labor, you want to limit profit (it doesn't work that way except in your fantasy).

inflation happens, regardless. the trade off is worth it since even the dollar menu won't double.

and, we could be lowering our tax burden through recourse to the law of large numbers of the poor, now being able to pay more in taxes, and need less in social services.

 

[Hiryuu]

inflation happens, regardless. the trade off is worth it since even the dollar menu won't double.

and, we could be lowering our tax burden through recourse to the law of large numbers of the poor, now being able to pay more in taxes, and need less in social services.

Repeating the same idea over and over doesn't make it work any better. If you need a better understanding of how business works, open a business and things will become more clear to you. If you want to depend on government, you deserve the crap you get in return. What you want is for the government to make it so people cannot make the money they want to. If a person wants to make more money, they need to increase their value to the business, not the government.

 

[danielpalos]

inflation happens, regardless. the trade off is worth it since even the dollar menu won't double.

and, we could be lowering our tax burden through recourse to the law of large numbers of the poor, now being able to pay more in taxes, and need less in social services.

Repeating the same idea over and over doesn't make it work any better. If you need a better understanding of how business works, open a business and things will become more clear to you. If you want to depend on government, you deserve the crap you get in return. What you want is for the government to make it so people cannot make the money they want to. If a person wants to make more money, they need to increase their value to the business, not the government.

inflation happens, regardless. the trade off is worth it since even the dollar menu won't double.

capital simply must seek gains from efficiency to stay in business. we Want to lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

 

[Hiryuu]

inflation happens, regardless. the trade off is worth it since even the dollar menu won't double.

capital simply must seek gains from efficiency to stay in business. we Want to lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

The US went through the "leaner and meaner" stage from the mid '80's to the turn of the century. That's when efficiency damn near killed some people. In "leaner and meaner" efficiency and cost reduction were forefront. You can have 3 employees, lay one off, then split the workload and some of the pay between the remaining two. There is less wasted time, and more overtime as well. I mean the pay is great for the remaining employees, but who knows the last time they saw their kids?

The fault in your process starts with the fact you want business to have social concerns, and ends with the stupid ideas government equals efficiency in the slightest way.

 

[danielpalos]

inflation happens, regardless. the trade off is worth it since even the dollar menu won't double.

capital simply must seek gains from efficiency to stay in business. we Want to lose low wage jobs that don't cover social costs.

The US went through the "leaner and meaner" stage from the mid '80's to the turn of the century. That's when efficiency damn near killed some people. In "leaner and meaner" efficiency and cost reduction were forefront. You can have 3 employees, lay one off, then split the workload and some of the pay between the remaining two. There is less wasted time, and more overtime as well. I mean the pay is great for the remaining employees, but who knows the last time they saw their kids?

The fault in your process starts with the fact you want business to have social concerns, and ends with the stupid ideas government equals efficiency in the slightest way.

this isn't a "leaner meaner" stage. We have a First World economy and would like to stay that way.

Cheap labor is not an Option in the first world.

 

[Hiryuu]

this isn't a "leaner meaner" stage. We have a First World economy and would like to stay that way.

Cheap labor is not an Option in the first world.

Say it again and it still won't make a difference. Until you are running the business, paying the labor costs, producing the products/services, and decide to do something better with the money you have, it will never make a difference (unless you want the government to take what someone else has and limit what they can do). No Thanks.

 

[danielpalos]

this isn't a "leaner meaner" stage. We have a First World economy and would like to stay that way.

Cheap labor is not an Option in the first world.

Say it again and it still won't make a difference. Until you are running the business, paying the labor costs, producing the products/services, and decide to do something better with the money you have, it will never make a difference (unless you want the government to take what someone else has and limit what they can do). No Thanks.

yes, it will; you only have last millennium's, economics technology to work with.

Capital will have an institutional pressure to seek gains from efficiency, not Cheap labor.

 

[Hiryuu]

yes, it will; you only have last millennium's, economics technology to work with.

Capital will have an institutional pressure to seek gains from efficiency, not Cheap labor.

If you want to suggest to me that Cheap Labor can be replaced by innovation and technology, then it is fair to say you don't know how long I have already been looking for ways to improve efficiency, improve quality, recognize cost reduction and all around better processes to tackle the future as far as business is concerned.Government will always be trying to fix yesterday's problems, and claim they have better vision than the people who have already left government behind.

If you ever want to be part of the First World, you better start fucking running, we aren't slowing down and have no desire to drag your ass across the line.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it will; you only have last millennium's, economics technology to work with.

Capital will have an institutional pressure to seek gains from efficiency, not Cheap labor.

If you want to suggest to me that Cheap Labor can be replaced by innovation and technology, then it is fair to say you don't know how long I have already been looking for ways to improve efficiency, improve quality, recognize cost reduction and all around better processes to tackle the future as far as business is concerned.Government will always be trying to fix yesterday's problems, and claim they have better vision than the people who have already left government behind.

If you ever want to be part of the First World, you better start fucking running, we aren't slowing down and have no desire to drag your ass across the line.

Henry Ford was a Good capitalist and was able to achieve gains from efficiency to offset a doubling of autoworker wages, not whine about Minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, do that.

 

[Hiryuu]

Henry Ford was a Good capitalist and was able to achieve gains from efficiency to offset a doubling of autoworker wages, not whine about Minimum wages. Only lousy capitalists, do that.

Correction, Henry Ford was a good business owner that did what was necessary to ensure his business succeeded. In any case, he never relied on the government to increase the minimum wage in order to do so. You keep missing the point, and you ignore that fact that I already stated the business owner doing something will always make a bigger difference than the government ever will. The business owners have the money they need to invest, and don't have to ask you or the rest of society for it.