The republican solution to poverty doesn’t make any sense

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes even in this government-controlled Nation, Youtube's investors started pulling their funding when they disagreed with the content. Consumers do care, and Youtube nearly went bankrupt as a solid example of just how much they care. In fact, I'm pretty sure the government is the only reason they survived the adpocalypse.

Driving another business out of business isn't a dirty tactic, as doing so requires one to provide a better service or the other to provide mediocre service. In fact, I bet the reason you didn't go into detail is because only force or coercion can be dirty tactics, and anything else is completely acceptable, as they're simply improvements upon what the business already does.

In order for a business to become the only option, with no other business rising to oppose, they would need government assistance, or full control over every resource. Without government, it is impossible, and for evidence I cite that there isn't a single business that has ever become a monopoly without government help. How about you actually attempt to counter my argument instead of ignoring it and re-stating your bogus claim?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

Yes even in this government-controlled Nation, Youtube's investors started pulling their funding when they disagreed with the content. Consumers do care, and Youtube nearly went bankrupt as a solid example of just how much they care. In fact, I'm pretty sure the government is the only reason they survived the adpocalypse.

Driving another business out of business isn't a dirty tactic, as doing so requires one to provide a better service or the other to provide mediocre service. In fact, I bet the reason you didn't go into detail is because only force or coercion can be dirty tactics, and anything else is completely acceptable, as they're simply improvements upon what the business already does.

In order for a business to become the only option, with no other business rising to oppose, they would need government assistance, or full control over every resource. Without government, it is impossible, and for evidence I cite that there isn't a single business that has ever become a monopoly without government help. How about you actually attempt to counter my argument instead of ignoring it and re-stating your bogus claim?

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

So in your unfettered capitalism........if I sweat and develop a better mousetrap that significantly outperforms any other mousetrap. I put my life savings into its development and testing

Once I have my final product, you can come in and just produce it and sell it

Yes, I guess that means you should either give better service, continue developing a better Mousetrap, or sell it cheaper, or sell it at lower cost. In this case, there would always be incentive to continue innovating, so that you have to always be better than your competitors. If you don't, they will.

You have just destroyed the incentive for R&D

Why invest in R&D when you can just steal from other people’s R&D ?

Copying someone else doesn't put you ahead, it MAY put you where they are, and even if that were the case, the other name would be more recognizable for what you're ripping off, and would be more likely to be capable of streamlining the process and cutting costs to beat you. To truly get ahead, one would need to make something better, thus incentivizing innovation.

 

[rightwinger]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

The problem is that those low skilled jobs used to pay enough to support a family
Now they need welfare to supplement their income

Thanks Republicans

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why can't those who don't make enough on their own have roommates? Or find ways to otherwise share expenses. Is every individual entitled to a certain standard pile of possession simply because they exist? If they can't earn it should others be forced to pay their way? Who says there must be a government or collective solution to this or any other issue?

Liberalsim is all about victimization. Victims of big business, victims of big oil, victims of guns, victims of fast food, victims of big phrama.

So in the mind of a liberal, people who work minimum wage are victims, therefore, the solution to victimization is more government.

They avoid discussing real solutions like a two-parent family, advanced education, learning a trade, living at home with mom and dad while saving a ton of money for the future, no. Go out, start having kids at 16 years old, and when you have no work experience or talent to offer in order to make a living wage, you are a victim.

Liberalism is about helping those who need help
Conservatism is about helping the rich grow richer

Those who need help? Thank you for making my point: victimization.

Well I don't think my HUD neighbors need any help. So it seems by the cars parked in the drive all day long, they don't work very much. They stay up all hours of the morning. They have several kids I assume they never were able to support. Most of them are so fat they couldn't run away from a mad turtle. And then there are those Food Stamp people at the grocery store. Again, large as a house, brings three or four kids with them. Loads the belt with all kinds of goodies, and after they pay for the food with their food stamps, they whip out that wad of cash for cigarettes, beer or wine, two large bags of dog food, three bags of cat litter, and of course, their flowers.

Liberalism is about taking advantage of the system.
Conservatism is about fixing the system.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

The problem is that those low skilled jobs used to pay enough to support a family
Now they need welfare to supplement their income

Thanks Republicans

And don't forget to thank the unions.

 

[rightwinger]

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

Beating a competitor through better service is the basis of capitalism

But what if you beat them by stealing their patents, threatening their suppliers and consumers, spreading false rumors, undercutting their prices until they are forced out of business

All are acceptable in your ideal capitalism

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

So in your unfettered capitalism........if I sweat and develop a better mousetrap that significantly outperforms any other mousetrap. I put my life savings into its development and testing

Once I have my final product, you can come in and just produce it and sell it

Yes, I guess that means you should either give better service, continue developing a better Mousetrap, or sell it cheaper, or sell it at lower cost. In this case, there would always be incentive to continue innovating, so that you have to always be better than your competitors. If you don't, they will.

You have just destroyed the incentive for R&D

Why invest in R&D when you can just steal from other people’s R&D ?

Copying someone else doesn't put you ahead, it MAY put you where they are, and even if that were the case, the other name would be more recognizable for what you're ripping off, and would be more likely to be capable of streamlining the process and cutting costs to beat you. To truly get ahead, one would need to make something better, thus incentivizing innovation.

It doesn’t work that way
Steal someone’s patents and you saved a bundle on R&D
They may be in debt for all the time and money they spent on development

You get a leg up as soon as it is ready to market

That is your capitalist utopia

 

[rightwinger]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

The problem is that those low skilled jobs used to pay enough to support a family
Now they need welfare to supplement their income

Thanks Republicans

And don't forget to thank the unions.

Unions use drugs to look out for workers

Now they are on their own

 

[danielpalos]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States!

 

[danielpalos]

Why can't those who don't make enough on their own have roommates? Or find ways to otherwise share expenses. Is every individual entitled to a certain standard pile of possession simply because they exist? If they can't earn it should others be forced to pay their way? Who says there must be a government or collective solution to this or any other issue?

Liberalsim is all about victimization. Victims of big business, victims of big oil, victims of guns, victims of fast food, victims of big phrama.

So in the mind of a liberal, people who work minimum wage are victims, therefore, the solution to victimization is more government.

They avoid discussing real solutions like a two-parent family, advanced education, learning a trade, living at home with mom and dad while saving a ton of money for the future, no. Go out, start having kids at 16 years old, and when you have no work experience or talent to offer in order to make a living wage, you are a victim.

Liberalism is about helping those who need help
Conservatism is about helping the rich grow richer

Those who need help? Thank you for making my point: victimization.

Well I don't think my HUD neighbors need any help. So it seems by the cars parked in the drive all day long, they don't work very much. They stay up all hours of the morning. They have several kids I assume they never were able to support. Most of them are so fat they couldn't run away from a mad turtle. And then there are those Food Stamp people at the grocery store. Again, large as a house, brings three or four kids with them. Loads the belt with all kinds of goodies, and after they pay for the food with their food stamps, they whip out that wad of cash for cigarettes, beer or wine, two large bags of dog food, three bags of cat litter, and of course, their flowers.

Liberalism is about taking advantage of the system.
Conservatism is about fixing the system.

dude; means tested corporate welfare even paid multimillion dollar bonuses!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

The problem is that those low skilled jobs used to pay enough to support a family
Now they need welfare to supplement their income

Thanks Republicans

And don't forget to thank the unions.

Unions use drugs to look out for workers

Now they are on their own

I have no idea WTF that even means.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

Patents shouldn't exist regardless. Threatening people would ruin a business' reputation, as it's using force and coercion, rumors can be verified. Undercutting prices can't beat out everyone, as product quality is also a factor. even if a business does this, once they stop, other competitors will rise up, and if they continue to do so, they will simply damage their own business, as they can't sustain prices. Likewise, other businesses can also undercut. Nobody can permanently stifle competition without help from the government, it isn't possible.

So in your unfettered capitalism........if I sweat and develop a better mousetrap that significantly outperforms any other mousetrap. I put my life savings into its development and testing

Once I have my final product, you can come in and just produce it and sell it

Yes, I guess that means you should either give better service, continue developing a better Mousetrap, or sell it cheaper, or sell it at lower cost. In this case, there would always be incentive to continue innovating, so that you have to always be better than your competitors. If you don't, they will.

You have just destroyed the incentive for R&D

Why invest in R&D when you can just steal from other people’s R&D ?

Copying someone else doesn't put you ahead, it MAY put you where they are, and even if that were the case, the other name would be more recognizable for what you're ripping off, and would be more likely to be capable of streamlining the process and cutting costs to beat you. To truly get ahead, one would need to make something better, thus incentivizing innovation.

It doesn’t work that way
Steal someone’s patents and you saved a bundle on R&D
They may be in debt for all the time and money they spent on development

You get a leg up as soon as it is ready to market

That is your capitalist utopia

Except it is how business works, because one can't actually get ahead by marketing the exact same thing. Hell, people still do it today, and it's never the most recognized or most bought of the options, in fact, marketing and name recognition keep them ahead, even with the exact same product at a higher price. People get ahead by developing a better product and marketing better, that's how it has always been, EXCEPT when the government gives into lobbyists and prevents other businesses from competing with the bigger corporations through regulation. Medicine today is a shining example of patents at work, shown through high costs on what takes pocket change to create and sell. The government is the only thing that makes it possible to price gouge.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So in your unfettered capitalism........if I sweat and develop a better mousetrap that significantly outperforms any other mousetrap. I put my life savings into its development and testing

Once I have my final product, you can come in and just produce it and sell it

Yes, I guess that means you should either give better service, continue developing a better Mousetrap, or sell it cheaper, or sell it at lower cost. In this case, there would always be incentive to continue innovating, so that you have to always be better than your competitors. If you don't, they will.

You have just destroyed the incentive for R&D

Why invest in R&D when you can just steal from other people’s R&D ?

Copying someone else doesn't put you ahead, it MAY put you where they are, and even if that were the case, the other name would be more recognizable for what you're ripping off, and would be more likely to be capable of streamlining the process and cutting costs to beat you. To truly get ahead, one would need to make something better, thus incentivizing innovation.

It doesn’t work that way
Steal someone’s patents and you saved a bundle on R&D
They may be in debt for all the time and money they spent on development

You get a leg up as soon as it is ready to market

That is your capitalist utopia

Except it is how business works, because one can't actually get ahead by marketing the exact same thing. Hell, people still do it today, and it's never the most recognized or most bought of the options, in fact, marketing and name recognition keep them ahead, even with the exact same product at a higher price. People get ahead by developing a better product and marketing better, that's how it has always been, EXCEPT when the government gives into lobbyists and prevents other businesses from competing with the bigger corporations through regulation. Medicine today is a shining example of patents at work, shown through high costs on what takes pocket change to create and sell. The government is the only thing that makes it possible to price gouge.

Drugs may take pocket change to make, but not to create.

A company has to spend 3 to 10 years to get a drug on the market in the US. During that time, it's non-stop testing and government paperwork. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on those drugs, and some of them can't get FDA approval, so all that money was spent for nothing. To recoup that loss, they increase prices on their product that have FDA approval and are already on the market.

 

[MaryL]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

The solution to poverty is ignoring impoverished Americans and giving illegals jobs? And then to rub salt in the wound, creating massive bastions for illegals by our beloved Liberals? And then sorta without legal consent or the vote of the average joe. Yeah, I like that. Let's ask questions...and see were this goes.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, I guess that means you should either give better service, continue developing a better Mousetrap, or sell it cheaper, or sell it at lower cost. In this case, there would always be incentive to continue innovating, so that you have to always be better than your competitors. If you don't, they will.

You have just destroyed the incentive for R&D

Why invest in R&D when you can just steal from other people’s R&D ?

Copying someone else doesn't put you ahead, it MAY put you where they are, and even if that were the case, the other name would be more recognizable for what you're ripping off, and would be more likely to be capable of streamlining the process and cutting costs to beat you. To truly get ahead, one would need to make something better, thus incentivizing innovation.

It doesn’t work that way
Steal someone’s patents and you saved a bundle on R&D
They may be in debt for all the time and money they spent on development

You get a leg up as soon as it is ready to market

That is your capitalist utopia

Except it is how business works, because one can't actually get ahead by marketing the exact same thing. Hell, people still do it today, and it's never the most recognized or most bought of the options, in fact, marketing and name recognition keep them ahead, even with the exact same product at a higher price. People get ahead by developing a better product and marketing better, that's how it has always been, EXCEPT when the government gives into lobbyists and prevents other businesses from competing with the bigger corporations through regulation. Medicine today is a shining example of patents at work, shown through high costs on what takes pocket change to create and sell. The government is the only thing that makes it possible to price gouge.

Drugs may take pocket change to make, but not to create.

A company has to spend 3 to 10 years to get a drug on the market in the US. During that time, it's non-stop testing and government paperwork. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on those drugs, and some of them can't get FDA approval, so all that money was spent for nothing. To recoup that loss, they increase prices on their product that have FDA approval and are already on the market.

In other words, it's still all government that causes the prices to reach such heights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have just destroyed the incentive for R&D

Why invest in R&D when you can just steal from other people’s R&D ?

Copying someone else doesn't put you ahead, it MAY put you where they are, and even if that were the case, the other name would be more recognizable for what you're ripping off, and would be more likely to be capable of streamlining the process and cutting costs to beat you. To truly get ahead, one would need to make something better, thus incentivizing innovation.

It doesn’t work that way
Steal someone’s patents and you saved a bundle on R&D
They may be in debt for all the time and money they spent on development

You get a leg up as soon as it is ready to market

That is your capitalist utopia

Except it is how business works, because one can't actually get ahead by marketing the exact same thing. Hell, people still do it today, and it's never the most recognized or most bought of the options, in fact, marketing and name recognition keep them ahead, even with the exact same product at a higher price. People get ahead by developing a better product and marketing better, that's how it has always been, EXCEPT when the government gives into lobbyists and prevents other businesses from competing with the bigger corporations through regulation. Medicine today is a shining example of patents at work, shown through high costs on what takes pocket change to create and sell. The government is the only thing that makes it possible to price gouge.

Drugs may take pocket change to make, but not to create.

A company has to spend 3 to 10 years to get a drug on the market in the US. During that time, it's non-stop testing and government paperwork. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on those drugs, and some of them can't get FDA approval, so all that money was spent for nothing. To recoup that loss, they increase prices on their product that have FDA approval and are already on the market.

In other words, it's still all government that causes the prices to reach such heights.

Absolutely. If you ever want to ruin a good thing, all you have to do is get government involved.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

The problem is that those low skilled jobs used to pay enough to support a family
Now they need welfare to supplement their income

Thanks Republicans

Are you retarded or something? Never in the history of man has a low level worker ever had a sweet life ahead of them. The closest we ever came was a factory job that sucked the life out of them. And that was the best they could hope for. Thank god for capitalism it give them that. You can’t welfare people into a good life. It’s impossible. The best you can do is give them a chance. That chance is what democrats don’t want to give their welfare slaves.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States!

The fuck are you talking about here?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

The problem is that those low skilled jobs used to pay enough to support a family
Now they need welfare to supplement their income

Thanks Republicans

And don't forget to thank the unions.

Thanks for what? Paying a portion of your salary to people living far better than you could ever hope to?

 

[Billy000]

1) Yes of course they wouldn’t and that’s the point. I am dispelling the narrative that poor people should work harder to eliminate poverty itself. Working hard doesn’t necessarily give you a living that is kept up with the current cost of living. Again, even if they did, we would still have widespread vacant jobs that are the backbone of the economy.

2) It would have been better had I not used “entry level” as the description I am talking about. What I am referring to is any job that doesn’t require an education of any kind to do. Teenagers could not possibly be adequate for this market.

3) Why are you so convinced that the current government regulations are hindering capitalism? Based on what facts? If you look up the actual labor statistics, you will see that regulations are insignificant when it comes to creating jobs. The number one reason a business can’t create jobs is that the demand for their products is inadequate to expand their business. That’s what business comes down to: demand.

Also, Wal-Mart is a company worth BILLIONS. They choose to pay their workers shit so that they maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s the ugly side of capitalism that Fox won’t tell you.

1. Even if they did, the point can't be reached that everyone will be in upper level jobs. Teenagers and College Students will always exist. That said, your statement that hard work doesn't mean anything is also false, as the hardest working are the ones selected for the upper level jobs, barring affirmative action of course. That said, barring the government's red tape preventing the creation of new businesses, the said skilled labor can also create their own business, or find an expanding job market.
2. If it's unskilled labor and there's no age restriction, then anyone old enough for a job is old enough for THAT job. Even if that wasn't the case, the turnover rate at unskilled jobs is massive, people are only willing to drive a limited range, giving them limited employment pools, and the army is always an option.
3. Because, by default, regulations restrict business' actions, thereby preventing them from functioning optimally. That is literally the point of regulations in the first place. Not a single regulations helps businesses function better, and you can not cite a single example otherwise. Regulations are not insignificant, even the smallest regulation damages business functions and forces them to change the way they operate. At BEST a regulation FORCES the creation of a new business that there was never a demand for, and it gets propped up by the government, creating non-self-sustaining jobs. At WORST, said regulations force the creation of a monopoly, which tends to be the case, as no monopoly has EVER been created without government assistance, and are otherwise impossible, due to the fact that a monopoly can only otherwise exist by controlling ALL resources associated with that business.

As a matter of fact ALL businesses attempt to maximize profit, and that's not the ugly side, it's the beautiful side. Without government involvement, businesses will naturally pay their employees what is needed, as they would otherwise find another business to work for, and their previous boss would be forced to either shut down, or start paying a wage people are willing to work for. Government involvement is what makes it possible for a business to pay less, either by regulating their competition into oblivion or by creating Federal Aid, which allows a person to make a living wage off of less. Either option, again, requires government involvement.

Furthermore, I do not watch Fox News, they're owned by the same people as the DNC Controlled news sources, preventing any of them from being reliable. That said, YOU need to stop looking to the economically illiterate for YOUR information. There's a reason Socialism has never succeeded, and continuing to push it is the literal definition of insanity.

1) Um no teens and college kids aren’t nearly enough to carry the entire market of low wage jobs. Again, many of them could only work seasonally anyway. And no, government red tape has an insignificant effect on business growth. The BLS data proves this.
2) The turnover rate is high because these jobs are shit: low pay and shitty benefits for a job that isn’t worth the effort. Oh and these millions of poor people joining the army doesn’t make any sense. Sorry.
3) Successful businesses launch already prepared for regulation. While some may be misguided, the point of them is to protect the consumers or the population at large.
4) See here’s what you’re not getting: there is a feduciary responsibility to benefit shareholders as much as possible. How, in part, is this done? By attempting to spend as little as legally possible on the labor force. This means a company can pay their employees minimum wage and many of them do. This minimum wage puts people in the red as far as the cost of living. All of this has NOTHING to do with government red tape except for the fact these workers are saved from getting paid less than the national minimum wage of $7.25 or the state minimum wage which at most is $9.00 per hour.

And again, you fail to accept the actual definition of socialism. See while you might want to point to Venezuela as proof it doesn’t work, you would have to ignore the socialist Nordic countries who have better quality of life for their citizens and a higher median wage after taxes than we do. Oh and a lower poverty rate.

1. Actually, yes they are, and some retired people go back to providing unskilled labor for extra pocket change. A citation is needed for the claim that they can only work seasonally, as last I checked, college kids need money for more than just a season, especially if they're living on their own, and seasonal jobs are only for extra money when not taking classes. Furthermore, Low-income entrepreneurs suffer most when government makes it harder to start a business no, they are not, and this is ignoring the massive cost a business has to pay to insure all of their employees. Government red tape is FAR from insignificant, and in fact, is becoming the first and last reason as to why businesses are starting more slowly. It bothers me that the left never stops to wonder why the big cooporations are the ones asking for regulations and taxes.
2. Actually, poor people joining the army makes perfect sense, as the army will pay for their education after they've done their time, and the only requirement is that they're physically able. Actually, the turnover rate is high because other people around my age don't want to work, they simply don't follow the rules and are incredibly lazy. Most of them don't even show up for orientation.
3. Only those who have already made enough money, and as noted in my link above, it's very difficult to get a list of rules that have to be met before launching. People in the middle ad lower class find it nearly impossible due to all the costs and regulations, and again, that's ignoring the massive cost to insuring employees. All of this is also assuming that you haven't chosen a business that the government has already split into area monopolies with regulations.
4. That must be why only 3% of employees across America are paid minimum wage. Maybe it's something you're not getting, not me. If businesses only paid their employees the bare minimum, they'd lose their skilled labor to other businesses, and their service and products would be poorly reviewed, losing them customers that they didn't need to lose otherwise. Businesses can't cut corners unless mommy government bails them out, otherwise they're at the mercy of their competition and consumers. Employees aren't saved by the government, the government only makes life harder. Wage laws, in fact, only increase the cost of living, California being a shining example of this, with the highest cost of living in the entire US. Furthermore, Puerto Rico, which is even more Left than California, managed to double their cost of living.

Socialism's name came from Social Control, which is what defines the model. The one not getting it is the self-professed Socialist.

Actually, I can point to an entire list of Socialist failures.:
Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

Denmark is not Socialist, their businesses are required to report to the government, and while their economy is sub-optimal, it still isn't Socialist. Although, their taxes are Socialist level, at 59%. Something to be expected of a Nation that punishes success and rewards failure. Their tax rate also increases every year.

Finland is is more Socialist than the other Nordic Countries, but still not really their, however like Denmark, their massive Tax Rate does scream Socialist, at about 51%. Again, typical of a place that punishes success and rewards failure.

Tax rate in Norway is also massive, at 41%, I'm seeing a trend here, it's like Socialist Countries have a massive tax rate, so that the people who still work can carry those who don't. These places aren't even fully Socialist, I can certainly see why fully Socialist countries collapsed.

44% in Greenland, still extremely high. 56% in Sweden. I wonder how the 'quality of life' can be supposedly better in a place where half of their income is stolen. Besides that, Quality of Life hardly measures a place's economy, our poor already has it REALLY good. As far as I can see, I don't really think that your life should be any better if you're choosing not to work, otherwise there's no incentive to get a job, especially since the trade-off is losing half of your income when you ARE working. It looks to me like there's more incentive to never get a job. On the same train of thought, lower poverty rate? I suppose it would make sense if your jobless are stealing so much money from those who do have jobs. Not much of a measuring tool.

You can likely only point to one or two 'successes' which are either sub-optimal capitalist, or either not Socialist, or not Successful.

1) Uh again high school students typically only work seasonally and many college students do as well. Not only that but both of these demographics would only do part time work.
2) Obvously joining the army is a good solution for some. The point is that it is dumb solution to anyone in poverty.
3) Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs?

“But the idea that regulations stunt job growth more broadly is not supported by research. Many of the academic studies that have explored the question find that regulations don’t decrease jobs in the overall economy. They sometimes reduce jobs in certain sectors, but they create new jobs in others. A factory that makes lead additives for gasoline might be shut down because regulations have banned lead additives. But new jobs will then be created at a factory that makes catalytic converters, which are emissions-control devices for cars. Some workers, then, benefit from regulation, while others lose. That doesn’t mean that the losses aren’t real and painful for the people who held those jobs, but the overall picture is not one that can be accurately characterized by the phrase “job-killing.””
4) Christ. If the federal wage was raised high enough, it would raise all STATE minimum wages as well. Ya get me? Oh and California’s wage was raised AFTER the cost of living became too high.
5) Again what you don’t seem to get is that every nation around the world including the US has socialist aspects. How governments choose to be run is why they fail - it isn’t the concept of socialism that is at fault.
6) You’re just making things up by saying Denmark isn’t socialist lol. Of course it is. Norway and Denmark are socialist and their median wages are higher AFTER taxes than ours is. Their poverty rate is also much lower than ours.

1. Citation still needed. Also false, because it's possible to go to college part time, or work and go to college full time.
2. I don't see how it's a dumb solution, considering they will pay for your education, and I'm pretty sure that people can stay on base. Not only both of these, but they pay you for your work. It's a job, and if someone is in a bad situation, all of these things are fantastic, and options cannot be snubbed. If one can be picky, one must not need the money all that badly.
3. Yes, regulations DO kill jobs, by definition and intent they make it harder to conduct business. In fact, your article flat-out states it: Screenshot your article also lacks citations for any of the research it mentions, and claims without backing it up that regulations create new jobs after killing the old ones. I'd also like to point out that what this article is talking about isn't people being laid off due to the costs of conforming to a regulation, but a JOB as a whole ceasing to be in demand. In this sense, they are correct that a regulation often does not remove a whole job from the private sector, but people are still laid off as a result of regulations, and businesses do factually have a harder time starting as a result of said regulations. As I said earlier, there's a reason corporations are the ones lobbying for regulations, not small businesses.
4. Citation needed. As I said, however, they have both the highest cost of living in the US and the highest minimum wage. I think it's interesting that with leftist leadership, they managed to have both, and are the only state with both so high. I don't think it's a coincidence.
5. Assuming that's true, absolutely all Socialist elements prevent a Nation from functioning optimally, without exception, and the very locations you cited are an example of this, with their taxes all around 50%, without even being fully Socialist. I will, however, ask what it is you believe is required for a Nation to be considered Socialist? For it to fit the actual definition, I've seen that it requires where the failure of an ideology got its name from, that being Social Control of the means of Production.
6. Denmark itself stated that it is not Socialist, and the Means of Production are not Socially controlled. Bernie called them Socialist because he's a senile economic illiterate, and with Venezuela proving Socialism cannot work, was desperate for an example. I did, however, prove that massive tax rates accompanied their Socialist aspects, showing you that Socialist policy is not sustainable. I will, however, debunk that as well: It's funny you mention Median Wages specifically, because those are the people paying the least taxes. What they're charging the higher earners is basically highway robbery. What you're basically telling me is that they've done what YOUR goal is, regardless of what the long run and current costs are, however, the goal of every capitalist is personal liberty and personal success, something Socialism completely destroys. So, yes, Norway and Denmark have succeeded, at massive cost to everyone, in bringing DOWN the higher earners, and bringing UP the lower class, through theft, force, coercion. the tax rate, however, is around 50%, their economy is in shambles, and success is being punished. So, while your statement is true, it's nowhere near worth it. This, however, is all without actually creating a Socialist Society, only implementing the Socialist ideal of robbery.

1) I think we both know filling this widespread labor demand with teens and college students obviously wouldn’t work.
2) I don’t know how else to explain this to you. I’m not saying joining the army is the wrong move for poor people - I’m saying it isn’t solution for EVERY or even most poor people. What I find ironic is that you’re defending a government institution while also claiming socialism is a bad idea. Our welfare and defense budgets are the largest socialist institutions in the world.
3) The BLS statistics prove that the number one reason businesses shutter is because of a lack of demand. Regulations rarely cause businesses to shutter, even if it does happen.
4) The cost of living in California has always been high. It’s grown over time just like rent or mortgage nationwide.
5) I don’t know how else to explain socialism to you. It’s a broad term but you refuse to acknowledge its other functions or the actual definition as written. Denmark very much is democratically socialist. This specific type refers to government programs that provide basic services to the people like socialized healthcare. Programs regarding social justice. What makes ANY nation socialist is that there are programs managed by the government and funded by the population’s tax revenue. Our military fits this exact definition. Hell, what do you think social security is? Are you really going to tell me social security isn’t socialist? Yikes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States!

The fuck are you talking about here?

Nobody knows. That's why most of us ignore him. Foreigners........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even if every poor person worked hard and went to school to get better pay, who would do all those entry level jobs that are the backbone of the economy? Now of course you might be dense and say “teenagers”, but there are many entry jobs kids cannot do and even they could, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of them working during the school year.

So what’s the solution to help alleviate poverty, republicans?

This is the best example of the democrat slave agenda I’ve ever seen.

We can’t let these poor people improve their lives. Where else will we get our drive thru employees, maids and Gardner’s? We can’t live without these people. You know what we should do? Give them just enough welfare to keep them doing those low level jobs. Then we can live our own upper class lives without the worry our maid may some day be in our country club.

The democrat KKK never died off.

The problem is that those low skilled jobs used to pay enough to support a family
Now they need welfare to supplement their income

Thanks Republicans

And don't forget to thank the unions.

Thanks for what? Paying a portion of your salary to people living far better than you could ever hope to?

Not only that but it's the unions that chased companies out of the state or country. I can't tell you how many customers we lost because of unions. The left complains that monkey jobs don't pay anything anymore. Well....what do monkey jobs pay when they are sent to China?