Well are you?

[ChrisL]

And what do you do when you call some place that has an automated system? I press 0 immediately, so that I can skip through all the bull and talk to a person. Did you know that works with most automated voice message systems that businesses use? Lol. Just press 0.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you think that when most of the citizens of the United States are on the poor side, that money may start to lose it's value?

Money - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Governments and central banks have taken both regulatory and free market approaches to monetary policy. Some of the tools used to control the money supply include:

• changing the interest rate at which the central bank loans money to (or borrows money from) the commercial banks
• currency purchases or sales
• increasing or lowering government borrowing
• increasing or lowering government spending
• manipulation of exchange rates
• raising or lowering bank reserve requirements
• regulation or prohibition of private currencies
• taxation or tax breaks on imports or exports of capital into a country

In the US, the Federal Reserve is responsible for controlling the money supply, while in the Euro area the respective institution is the European Central Bank. Other central banks with significant impact on global finances are the Bank of Japan, People's Bank of China and the Bank of England.

For many years much of monetary policy was influenced by an economic theory known as monetarism. Monetarism is an economic theory which argues that management of the money supply should be the primary means of regulating economic activity. The stability of the demand for money prior to the 1980s was a key finding of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz[44] supported by the work of David Laidler,[45] and many others. The nature of the demand for money changed during the 1980s owing to technical, institutional, and legal factors[clarification needed] and the influence of monetarism has since decreased. However, since the emergence of new dynamic models (such as New Keynesian DSGE models), some authors show that money has a role on the economy and business cycles depending on the households' risk aversion level.[46]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And what do you do when you call some place that has an automated system? I press 0 immediately, so that I can skip through all the bull and talk to a person. Did you know that works with most automated voice message systems that businesses use? Lol. Just press 0.

That's less of a problem than it is talking to a foreigner on a cell phone and trying to make out what they say. Or them trying to make out what you are trying to tell them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, that's not the only one. The larger problem is automation. When wages and benefits get too high, employers invest in robots and machinery to do the work instead. Robots don't demand higher wages. Robots don't need breaks or lunch. Robots can work 24/7 and never complain. Robots don't demand a higher minimum wage. Robots don't need healthcare especially now that Commie Care forces employers to provide it.

McDonald's ordered 70,000 kiosks not too long ago. The companies I service seem to be getting more automated all the time. In fact I just went to visit my doctor not long ago. When I went to the reception desk, there was nobody there. The lights were off over the desk and behind. A woman walked up to me and instructed me to use the brand new kiosk and check myself in instead of the way I've always done it.

Here is an article that's a bit dated, but the research can't be disputed. It's from economist Walter E Williams. It's a short read but very interesting so it shouldn't take up much of your time:

Walter Williams

That is not the reason wages have fallen. Sorry.

You obviously didn't even look at the article.

I've already read about that theory. Even though there are kiosks, there are still bank tellers, etc. These people are always going to be needed because . . .
1. Some people don't trust these machines. They have functional problems sometimes, and they can be tampered with.
2. Something always goes wrong with automation. I remember when they said years ago that speech recognition would take over my job. Well, we have PLENTY of editing work to do from speech recognition programs because, even though they have a HUGE memory/data base, they are not capable of storing and remembering all of the new information that is presented every day.

Now, that may be different for McDonald's workers, but I think there are always going to be workers physically present even with the existence of kiosks and automated systems.

Correct, but much less of them.

And I suggest you read the article if you want to find out what's going on in our country when it comes to jobs. As for your job, if you work on the phone, you're one of the few Americans that do. Most of that kind of work is farmed out to third world countries.

Bank tellers? They too have been replaced by machines. The only people you see in the bank these days are old people who are scared of touch screens and people that have a transaction that the machine can't handle such as bringing in your rolled coins or applying for a loan of some sorts.

I see all kinds of people in the bank at the tellers all the time, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Then check out the line at the ATM and you'll see what I'm talking about. All those transactions used to be handled by real people.

 

[ChrisL]

And what do you do when you call some place that has an automated system? I press 0 immediately, so that I can skip through all the bull and talk to a person. Did you know that works with most automated voice message systems that businesses use? Lol. Just press 0.

That's less of a problem than it is talking to a foreigner on a cell phone and trying to make out what they say. Or them trying to make out what you are trying to tell them.

I used to work for a place where most of the IT team was from India. I had such a hard time understanding some of them. It was terrible.

 

[ChrisL]

That is not the reason wages have fallen. Sorry.

You obviously didn't even look at the article.

I've already read about that theory. Even though there are kiosks, there are still bank tellers, etc. These people are always going to be needed because . . .
1. Some people don't trust these machines. They have functional problems sometimes, and they can be tampered with.
2. Something always goes wrong with automation. I remember when they said years ago that speech recognition would take over my job. Well, we have PLENTY of editing work to do from speech recognition programs because, even though they have a HUGE memory/data base, they are not capable of storing and remembering all of the new information that is presented every day.

Now, that may be different for McDonald's workers, but I think there are always going to be workers physically present even with the existence of kiosks and automated systems.

Correct, but much less of them.

And I suggest you read the article if you want to find out what's going on in our country when it comes to jobs. As for your job, if you work on the phone, you're one of the few Americans that do. Most of that kind of work is farmed out to third world countries.

Bank tellers? They too have been replaced by machines. The only people you see in the bank these days are old people who are scared of touch screens and people that have a transaction that the machine can't handle such as bringing in your rolled coins or applying for a loan of some sorts.

I see all kinds of people in the bank at the tellers all the time, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Then check out the line at the ATM and you'll see what I'm talking about. All those transactions used to be handled by real people.

I don't know, but whenever I go to the bank, the ATM is empty except for maybe one or two people, but my branch is in a grocery store. There are still tellers working there though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You obviously didn't even look at the article.

I've already read about that theory. Even though there are kiosks, there are still bank tellers, etc. These people are always going to be needed because . . .
1. Some people don't trust these machines. They have functional problems sometimes, and they can be tampered with.
2. Something always goes wrong with automation. I remember when they said years ago that speech recognition would take over my job. Well, we have PLENTY of editing work to do from speech recognition programs because, even though they have a HUGE memory/data base, they are not capable of storing and remembering all of the new information that is presented every day.

Now, that may be different for McDonald's workers, but I think there are always going to be workers physically present even with the existence of kiosks and automated systems.

Correct, but much less of them.

And I suggest you read the article if you want to find out what's going on in our country when it comes to jobs. As for your job, if you work on the phone, you're one of the few Americans that do. Most of that kind of work is farmed out to third world countries.

Bank tellers? They too have been replaced by machines. The only people you see in the bank these days are old people who are scared of touch screens and people that have a transaction that the machine can't handle such as bringing in your rolled coins or applying for a loan of some sorts.

I see all kinds of people in the bank at the tellers all the time, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Then check out the line at the ATM and you'll see what I'm talking about. All those transactions used to be handled by real people.

I don't know, but whenever I go to the bank, the ATM is empty except for maybe one or two people, but my branch is in a grocery store. There are still tellers working there though.

There aways will be......at least for now. But the way things are going, I'm glad I'll be off of this earth 50 years from now because I would hate to see a country run almost entirely by machines. What will people do for jobs then?

They are even trying to perfect cars that drive themselves. Imagine what that's going to do to the taxi industry. You'll order a taxi on your smart phone, and this manless vehicle will pick you up and take you to where you are going. Then you use the phone to pay the bill.

 

[ChrisL]

I've already read about that theory. Even though there are kiosks, there are still bank tellers, etc. These people are always going to be needed because . . .
1. Some people don't trust these machines. They have functional problems sometimes, and they can be tampered with.
2. Something always goes wrong with automation. I remember when they said years ago that speech recognition would take over my job. Well, we have PLENTY of editing work to do from speech recognition programs because, even though they have a HUGE memory/data base, they are not capable of storing and remembering all of the new information that is presented every day.

Now, that may be different for McDonald's workers, but I think there are always going to be workers physically present even with the existence of kiosks and automated systems.

Correct, but much less of them.

And I suggest you read the article if you want to find out what's going on in our country when it comes to jobs. As for your job, if you work on the phone, you're one of the few Americans that do. Most of that kind of work is farmed out to third world countries.

Bank tellers? They too have been replaced by machines. The only people you see in the bank these days are old people who are scared of touch screens and people that have a transaction that the machine can't handle such as bringing in your rolled coins or applying for a loan of some sorts.

I see all kinds of people in the bank at the tellers all the time, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Then check out the line at the ATM and you'll see what I'm talking about. All those transactions used to be handled by real people.

I don't know, but whenever I go to the bank, the ATM is empty except for maybe one or two people, but my branch is in a grocery store. There are still tellers working there though.

There aways will be......at least for now. But the way things are going, I'm glad I'll be off of this earth 50 years from now because I would hate to see a country run almost entirely by machines. What will people do for jobs then?

They are even trying to perfect cars that drive themselves. Imagine what that's going to do to the taxi industry. You'll order a taxi on your smart phone, and this manless vehicle will pick you up and take you to where you are going. Then you use the phone to pay the bill.

Well, there will have to be people to maintain and take care of those machines, program them, fix them, etc. We will adapt and change.

Interesting thought though, what would we do if machines took over ALL of our jobs? We would have no choice but to become a "socialist" type of country because we wouldn't be able to make any money anymore! Scary thought.

 

[Conservative65]

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

And don't pay enough because unions are shot, and pay no more in taxes than the non-rich under GOP tax rates...Great job!

Anyone that has to rely on a union to get them a wage isn't worth hiring.

Bullshit

Unions allow workers to negotiate as a group

Companies want workers to negotiate one on one...that way they can use them against each other

Anyone that has to negotiate as part of a group isn't worth hiring as an individual.

I can see where employers would prefer it that way......play one employee off another

If employers are so intent on every man negotiating for himself, why are they afraid to let employees know what everyone makes?

Why wouldn't anyone prefer it that way. I'm not hiring Person A because of the skills of Person B. I'm hiring A because of what A offers. I don't really care about what B offers at that time and not until I talk to B.

You think it's about fear? Typical dumbass. Is Person A negotiating based on what he has to offer or what another person makes. If it's the latter, tells me Person A doesn't offer much or he/she would sell themselves on their skills not whine about someone else's money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And don't pay enough because unions are shot, and pay no more in taxes than the non-rich under GOP tax rates...Great job!

Anyone that has to rely on a union to get them a wage isn't worth hiring.

Bullshit

Unions allow workers to negotiate as a group

Companies want workers to negotiate one on one...that way they can use them against each other

Anyone that has to negotiate as part of a group isn't worth hiring as an individual.

I can see where employers would prefer it that way......play one employee off another

If employers are so intent on every man negotiating for himself, why are they afraid to let employees know what everyone makes?

Why wouldn't anyone prefer it that way. I'm not hiring Person A because of the skills of Person B. I'm hiring A because of what A offers. I don't really care about what B offers at that time and not until I talk to B.

You think it's about fear? Typical dumbass. Is Person A negotiating based on what he has to offer or what another person makes. If it's the latter, tells me Person A doesn't offer much or he/she would sell themselves on their skills not whine about someone else's money.

A workers worth is determined by what other workers will do the same job for.

If you sweep floors and clean toilets for a living, anybody can do that. It involves little skill and training. It's a chore most of us do at home. Because anybody can do that job, it pays very little.

Mowing a lawn is also a household chore for home owners. Again, doesn't require a lot of thought and also doesn't pay very much in spite of the hard work if you want to do that for a living.

Not everybody can fix a toilet or repair a leak from a shutoff valve in the basement. It requires some knowledge and experience to do the job correctly. Because not everybody can repair plumbing, doing it for a living pays much better than cutting lawns.

Engineering is not something you can learn on the internet. It takes education and understanding of science, electronics, mechanics, and various other skills depending on what kind of engineer you wish to be. Because most people can't do that kind of work, it pays much better than a plumber.

And the list goes on and on right up to the CEO of a company.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyone that has to rely on a union to get them a wage isn't worth hiring.

Bullshit

Unions allow workers to negotiate as a group

Companies want workers to negotiate one on one...that way they can use them against each other

Anyone that has to negotiate as part of a group isn't worth hiring as an individual.

I can see where employers would prefer it that way......play one employee off another

If employers are so intent on every man negotiating for himself, why are they afraid to let employees know what everyone makes?

Why wouldn't anyone prefer it that way. I'm not hiring Person A because of the skills of Person B. I'm hiring A because of what A offers. I don't really care about what B offers at that time and not until I talk to B.

You think it's about fear? Typical dumbass. Is Person A negotiating based on what he has to offer or what another person makes. If it's the latter, tells me Person A doesn't offer much or he/she would sell themselves on their skills not whine about someone else's money.

A workers worth is determined by what other workers will do the same job for.

If you sweep floors and clean toilets for a living, anybody can do that. It involves little skill and training. It's a chore most of us do at home. Because anybody can do that job, it pays very little.

Mowing a lawn is also a household chore for home owners. Again, doesn't require a lot of thought and also doesn't pay very much in spite of the hard work if you want to do that for a living.

Not everybody can fix a toilet or repair a leak from a shutoff valve in the basement. It requires some knowledge and experience to do the job correctly. Because not everybody can repair plumbing, doing it for a living pays much better than cutting lawns.

Engineering is not something you can learn on the internet. It takes education and understanding of science, electronics, mechanics, and various other skills depending on what kind of engineer you wish to be. Because most people can't do that kind of work, it pays much better than a plumber.

And the list goes on and on right up to the CEO of a company.

It's a disgusting job that NOBODY wants to do. Right there, it deserves a decent wage. Lol. Cleaning up after your own and your family's piss and shit is one thing, cleaning up after EVERYONE's piss and shit is something else entirely.

 

[Never3ndr]

Hmmm, I've been out of this discussion topic for a day or two, but just perusing over that last several pages it looks like ChrisL has posted a lot of information to back whatever argument he or she is giving...if I get some time later today I'll try to review a bit and respond.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

are you better off now than you were eight years ago

Yes & no. Depends on the subject

 

[ChrisL]

Hmmm, I've been out of this discussion topic for a day or two, but just perusing over that last several pages it looks like ChrisL has posted a lot of information to back whatever argument he or she is giving...if I get some time later today I'll try to review a bit and respond.

Thanks, and that's she. I thought it would be obvious by my avi.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bullshit

Unions allow workers to negotiate as a group

Companies want workers to negotiate one on one...that way they can use them against each other

Anyone that has to negotiate as part of a group isn't worth hiring as an individual.

I can see where employers would prefer it that way......play one employee off another

If employers are so intent on every man negotiating for himself, why are they afraid to let employees know what everyone makes?

Why wouldn't anyone prefer it that way. I'm not hiring Person A because of the skills of Person B. I'm hiring A because of what A offers. I don't really care about what B offers at that time and not until I talk to B.

You think it's about fear? Typical dumbass. Is Person A negotiating based on what he has to offer or what another person makes. If it's the latter, tells me Person A doesn't offer much or he/she would sell themselves on their skills not whine about someone else's money.

A workers worth is determined by what other workers will do the same job for.

If you sweep floors and clean toilets for a living, anybody can do that. It involves little skill and training. It's a chore most of us do at home. Because anybody can do that job, it pays very little.

Mowing a lawn is also a household chore for home owners. Again, doesn't require a lot of thought and also doesn't pay very much in spite of the hard work if you want to do that for a living.

Not everybody can fix a toilet or repair a leak from a shutoff valve in the basement. It requires some knowledge and experience to do the job correctly. Because not everybody can repair plumbing, doing it for a living pays much better than cutting lawns.

Engineering is not something you can learn on the internet. It takes education and understanding of science, electronics, mechanics, and various other skills depending on what kind of engineer you wish to be. Because most people can't do that kind of work, it pays much better than a plumber.

And the list goes on and on right up to the CEO of a company.

It's a disgusting job that NOBODY wants to do. Right there, it deserves a decent wage. Lol. Cleaning up after your own and your family's piss and shit is one thing, cleaning up after EVERYONE's piss and shit is something else entirely.

Well unfortunately we don't get paid by how dirty or hard the job is. We get paid by how much somebody else would be willing to do the job for. I think I should get paid more money than I get, but as long as other people are willing to do my job for this kind of money, why would my boss pay me any more?

 

[ChrisL]

Anyone that has to negotiate as part of a group isn't worth hiring as an individual.

I can see where employers would prefer it that way......play one employee off another

If employers are so intent on every man negotiating for himself, why are they afraid to let employees know what everyone makes?

Why wouldn't anyone prefer it that way. I'm not hiring Person A because of the skills of Person B. I'm hiring A because of what A offers. I don't really care about what B offers at that time and not until I talk to B.

You think it's about fear? Typical dumbass. Is Person A negotiating based on what he has to offer or what another person makes. If it's the latter, tells me Person A doesn't offer much or he/she would sell themselves on their skills not whine about someone else's money.

A workers worth is determined by what other workers will do the same job for.

If you sweep floors and clean toilets for a living, anybody can do that. It involves little skill and training. It's a chore most of us do at home. Because anybody can do that job, it pays very little.

Mowing a lawn is also a household chore for home owners. Again, doesn't require a lot of thought and also doesn't pay very much in spite of the hard work if you want to do that for a living.

Not everybody can fix a toilet or repair a leak from a shutoff valve in the basement. It requires some knowledge and experience to do the job correctly. Because not everybody can repair plumbing, doing it for a living pays much better than cutting lawns.

Engineering is not something you can learn on the internet. It takes education and understanding of science, electronics, mechanics, and various other skills depending on what kind of engineer you wish to be. Because most people can't do that kind of work, it pays much better than a plumber.

And the list goes on and on right up to the CEO of a company.

It's a disgusting job that NOBODY wants to do. Right there, it deserves a decent wage. Lol. Cleaning up after your own and your family's piss and shit is one thing, cleaning up after EVERYONE's piss and shit is something else entirely.

Well unfortunately we don't get paid by how dirty or hard the job is. We get paid by how much somebody else would be willing to do the job for. I think I should get paid more money than I get, but as long as other people are willing to do my job for this kind of money, why would my boss pay me any more?

This is why unions were formed.

 

[rightwinger]

And don't pay enough because unions are shot, and pay no more in taxes than the non-rich under GOP tax rates...Great job!

Anyone that has to rely on a union to get them a wage isn't worth hiring.

Bullshit

Unions allow workers to negotiate as a group

Companies want workers to negotiate one on one...that way they can use them against each other

Anyone that has to negotiate as part of a group isn't worth hiring as an individual.

I can see where employers would prefer it that way......play one employee off another

If employers are so intent on every man negotiating for himself, why are they afraid to let employees know what everyone makes?

Why wouldn't anyone prefer it that way. I'm not hiring Person A because of the skills of Person B. I'm hiring A because of what A offers. I don't really care about what B offers at that time and not until I talk to B.

You think it's about fear? Typical dumbass. Is Person A negotiating based on what he has to offer or what another person makes. If it's the latter, tells me Person A doesn't offer much or he/she would sell themselves on their skills not whine about someone else's money.

Why doesn't the employer let Employee A know what Employee B makes so he can negotiate in good faith?

 

[Skylar]

I'm in fine shape because I planned for my future years ago. I have 2 retirement checks, my home and land is paid for and I have money in the bank. The "American Dream" was realized by me.

I am sorry for you young people of today. I truly am. This is what logically comes from supporting liberals and their ideology.

The middle class in America is all but gone. Part time work is becoming the "norm" and it is not unusual to see a young man or woman working 2-3 part time jobs in an attempt to get ahead.

It's a damn shame. It really is.

And what about 'supporting liberals and their ideology' results in young people working multiple part time jobs?

 

[Skylar]

Anyone that has to rely on a union to get them a wage isn't worth hiring.

Bullshit

Unions allow workers to negotiate as a group

Companies want workers to negotiate one on one...that way they can use them against each other

Anyone that has to negotiate as part of a group isn't worth hiring as an individual.

I can see where employers would prefer it that way......play one employee off another

If employers are so intent on every man negotiating for himself, why are they afraid to let employees know what everyone makes?

Why wouldn't anyone prefer it that way. I'm not hiring Person A because of the skills of Person B. I'm hiring A because of what A offers. I don't really care about what B offers at that time and not until I talk to B.

You think it's about fear? Typical dumbass. Is Person A negotiating based on what he has to offer or what another person makes. If it's the latter, tells me Person A doesn't offer much or he/she would sell themselves on their skills not whine about someone else's money.

Why doesn't the employer let Employee A know what Employee B makes so he can negotiate in good faith?

Probably for the same reason that Business A doesn't tell their customers what Business B is charging.

 

[francoHFW]

The problem with the free trade deals for us is that Pubs have blocked the tech training for good tech jobs that modern countries were supposed to get, and places like Germany DID get....Great job!