Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why you don't set the minimum wage to $70K
#41
(08-04-2015, 07:39 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: No way, you think?!

Of course it would because a. the money has to come from somewhere and higher costs of good would be where b. even vendors paying wages nowhere near the $70K get that there is more money flowing and jack up their prices

The dumbasses who think "The jig is up! Those rich guys have to pay out of their deep pockets and now we will all prosper!" need to Google "cost push" and "demand pull" inflation.

It's also way past crazy thinking that people who have been making $70K to do skilled work won't expect to make a lot more than that if the cafeteria workers start making that to hand out jello.
Actually, boosting the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices at all. Money isn't magically created and driving inflation when the employees get more money, since that money that used to go to the owner is just going to the employees instead.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#42
(08-04-2015, 07:55 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Actually, boosting the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices at all.  Money isn't magically created and driving inflation when the employees get more money, since that money that used to go to the owner is just going to the employees instead.

SC, would I be correct in guessing you don't own a business or act as a financial officer for one?

Imagine if you were a sub shop owner and making $100K a year off your sub shop, paying five people $10/hour.

Well and good, a family can live on $100K a year so you buy a decent house, a nice car, and start taking nice vacations.

Then the minimum wage changes and goes up to $15/hour, and additional $200/week per employee. That's $52,000 a year knocking your gross down to $48K. Still more than the $30K the sandwich assemblers make, but (pay attention here) no family on Earth used to living on $100K a year would go back to $48K without doing whatever is humanly possible to avoid it.

No way no how not happening.

Whatever you make you spend, and it's REALLY easy to spend $100K these days. Going back to $48K would be like getting bombed back to the stone ages for that family. They would lose their home, their cars, their lifestyle.

Christmas for that guy's kids gets radically different, helping kids with college now out of the question. Hope they like making Rollo's ham and cheese for lunch.

So a bunch of things that add up to that $52K a year happen at the sub shop.

One less slice of ham per sandwich, or a cheaper brand of ham.

Less staff on site doing the same work. Maybe one guy gets laid off, rest have to pick up his work.

Maybe what benefits exist get cut. Instead of high deductible health care none is offered, owner pays the ACA tax instead. 401K match gets cut. Sick/vacation time cut.

Sandwiches price goes up a little. Christmas party cancelled.

As a person who apparently believes he can make the rich pay, hear this and think about it:

The rich/owners are the LAST people to pay, because they get paid first and they decide what expenses are.

Think I'm lying?

Are wages stagnant or declining? Are jobs being exported to wherever labor is cheapest? Are companies known for paying taxes or avoiding them? Who's paying for Obamacare? Rich guys? Or is it raised costs to all of us, coverage people don't need forced into their policies, and forcing the young who don't really need health insurance to buy it because they'll use it less?


Starting to get it? The only guy who doesn't pay is the guy who has a choice in the matter.
Reply
#43
(08-03-2015, 11:28 PM)ocre Wrote:
(08-02-2015, 10:30 PM)gstanford Wrote: I don't know what you mean "it didn't even work for Gravity", it is still happening there and he has picked up new customers in the process too.

His brother is forcing him to do it tough at the moment, but he will come through.  He certainly hasn't failed yet despite your desperately wanting him too.

This isn't communism, no matter how much you want to paint it that way.  At the end of the day there will be people at Gravity earning more than 70K, Dan included.  It just makes the basement much more livable.

it did not work.  Not at all. it is nothing like you and rollo think.  You guys got this all wrong.

Oh, let me count the ways.

1) Gravity did set the minimum salary to 70K, just not today.  Not this year, not even next year.......not even 2 yrs from now.
They plan (hope) to have the the minimum wage up to 70k by 2018 (dec 2017). Their wages will raise over time. 5k a yr.  
Employees making less than $70,000 annually will receive a $5,000-per-year raise or be paid a minimum of $50,000, whichever is greater
So, people making under 50k will get a raise to 50k. The average salary there was already 48,000 a year!  

2)It is not equal pay for everyone.  They still have more valuable people that already make over 70k.  One of the people that left was angry because they felt that their percentage on raise was not as good as the lower paid employees.  Everyone got raises.  The higher paid, higher skilled employees just didnt get double their income and that made a couple upset.  See, the newer people got double their income overnight.

3) Also, this company is in Seattle, which you should also be aware, passed a law to raise the city's minimum wage to $15 per hour. So....everyone from McDonalds to walmart door greeters are gonna be paid at least $15 is Seattle, its the law.  Companies have to raise the min. hourly pay significantly in Seattle and have 3yrs to implement this.  That means in 3 yrs anyone can make 35-45k working anywhere, any bum on the street can walk into any place and will be making such wages.  That is the law and companies have 3yrs to comply, they know that is coming and have to deal with it.  If you know lowest full time pay in the city will be 32-40k, you have to do something to try to keep the good employees and keep them happy.

Point 1, you are wrong, they did and they employed new employees at that rate as well as increased existing employees rates, which caused the dummy spit that led to two previously higher paid employees leaving.

Point 2, I never said it was equal pay for everyone, neither did Dan Price. It is only a pay rise for formerly low paid employees. There are others in the company who earn more than 70K.

Point 3, nice that Seattle is getting a minimum pay rate increase, however it comes nowhere close to 70K. 15*38*52 = 29,640 (15*weekly hours*weeks in a year), less than 30K per annum, not even half.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#44
(08-04-2015, 08:33 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-04-2015, 07:55 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: Actually, boosting the minimum wage wouldn't increase prices at all.  Money isn't magically created and driving inflation when the employees get more money, since that money that used to go to the owner is just going to the employees instead.

SC, would I be correct in guessing you don't own a business or act as a financial officer for one?

Imagine if you were a sub shop owner and making $100K a year off your sub shop, paying five people $10/hour.

Well and good, a family can live on $100K a year so you buy a decent house, a nice car, and start taking nice vacations.

Then the minimum wage changes and goes up to $15/hour, and additional $200/week per employee. That's $52,000 a year knocking your gross down to $48K. Still more than the $30K the sandwich assemblers make, but (pay attention here) no family on Earth used to living on $100K a year would go back to $48K without doing whatever is humanly possible to avoid it.

No way no how not happening.

Whatever you make you spend, and it's REALLY easy to spend $100K these days. Going back to $48K would be like getting bombed back to the stone ages for that family. They would lose their home, their cars, their lifestyle.

Christmas for that guy's kids gets radically different, helping kids with college now out of the question. Hope they like making Rollo's ham and cheese for lunch.

So a bunch of things that add up to that $52K a year happen at the sub shop.

One less slice of ham per sandwich, or a cheaper brand of ham.

Less staff on site doing the same work. Maybe one guy gets laid off, rest have to pick up his work.

Maybe what benefits exist get cut. Instead of high deductible health care none is offered, owner pays the ACA tax instead. 401K match gets cut. Sick/vacation time cut.

Sandwiches price goes up a little. Christmas party cancelled.

As a person who apparently believes he can make the rich pay, hear this and think about it:

The rich/owners are the LAST people to pay, because they get paid first and they decide what expenses are.

Think I'm lying?

Are wages stagnant or declining? Are jobs being exported to wherever labor is cheapest? Are companies known for paying taxes or avoiding them? Who's paying for Obamacare? Rich guys? Or is it raised costs to all of us, coverage people don't need forced into their policies, and forcing the young who don't really need health insurance to buy it because they'll use it less?


Starting to get it? The only guy who doesn't pay is the guy who has a choice in the matter.

Yes, wages are stagnant and declining. I showed you this in a link a while back (in the console thread as part of the car debate iirc). and yes jobs are going to wherever the labor to perform those jobs is cheapest.

[Image: corporate-profits-and-wages.jpg]

[Image: wage1.gif]
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#45
(08-04-2015, 10:03 AM)gstanford Wrote: Yes, wages are stagnant and declining.  I showed you this in a link a while back (in the console thread as part of the car debate iirc).  and yes jobs are going to wherever the labor to perform those jobs is cheapest.

[Image: corporate-profits-and-wages.jpg]

Do you see this as evidence of business owners wanting to keep all the money they can?

If you do, what I said about them making cuts anywhere they can to make up for the higher minimum wage probably makes sense to you.

Layoffs are the most likely big cut. It's easy math- two $15/hour people instead of three $10/hour people. Here in the States we saw it all over during the post 9/11 recession. Profits down, companies cut staff to maintain profit for owners/stockholders, remaining staff pick up slack and work much harder. And we saw lot of places cut benefits, not give out annual raises.

You can make the sub shop guy pay $15/hour by law, but most of it won't come out of his pocket, guaranteed.
Reply
#46
If employers want to clearly demonstrate that they are greedy, self-interested bastards who have no interest in helping the rest of society and only concern themselves with how rich they personally can get, that is fine by me.

You can clearly see profits skyrocketing while wages plummet in the first graph.

It won't end well for them.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#47
(08-04-2015, 10:21 AM)gstanford Wrote: If employers want to clearly demonstrate that they are greedy, self-interested bastards who have no interest in helping the rest of society and only concern themselves with how rich they personally can get, that is fine by me.

You can clearly see profits skyrocketing while wages plummet in the first graph.

It won't end well for them.

Ah.

Do you realize your graph is like the PR graphs we get from companies to pimp products?

Look at how profits and wages both start as 48% o GDP and one rises 4% the other falls 4% over 12 years.

4%.

4% is "skyrocketing"?

I've just illustrated how this new minimum wage could easily mean a 50% decline in wages for business owners, there was no "There will be revolution!" for them. On the contrary, the response was more like "It's about time! No one deserves to make much money except people who currently don't!".

Take 4% over 12 years from the masses and it's "OMFG!! HEADS will roll! The workers will rise up, put the heads of CEOs on the mailbox as a warning to anyone who wants to earn a decent living! They must pay for their sins!".

Double standard much?

For a guy that makes $50K a year, that 4% means a $2K cut pre tax. Maybe enough money to get cable tv after tax.

For the business owner who used to make $100K, losing $52K would mean losing his house and car, because I guarantee you don't live in the same house, drive same car at $100K as you do at $48K. "No big deal! No problem! About time those bastards had to live like the middle class!" Right?

Joint

The ONLY people who think this makes any sense are those who want to be latter day Robin Hoods and steal from the rich, give to the poor.
Reply
#48
The gap between profits and wages should be very close like on the far left of the graph, not extremely wide as it is on the right of the graph.

and the difference is actually 8.5%, not 4%. (53.5 - 44) Someone obviously can't even get elementary math right!
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#49
(08-04-2015, 05:06 PM)gstanford Wrote: The gap between profits and wages should be very close like on the far left of the graph, not extremely wide as it is on the right of the graph.

and the difference is actually 8.5%, not 4%.  (53.5 - 44)  Someone obviously can't even get elementary math right!

LOL!

That is for sure. Not only does neither line ever cross 53% (so no 53.5%) but someone doesn't recognize both start at 48.X% and one goes up about 4% this year from that (profits to 52.5%) while the other drops to 44%. (wages)

Like I said an approximately 4% drop for one and rise for the other.

Remind me to stop by your store to by some parts if I ever visit Australia. "These nickels are WAY bigger than these dimes GStan! I'm doing you a FAVOR buddy!"
Reply
#50
53.5 was typo, should have been 52.5. Everything else is accurate though. The gap between the two at the far right of the graph is 8.5%, not 4%
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#51
Here is yet another graph of profits vs wages over a larger timescale - 1970 thru 2012

[Image: 20121204-graph-corporate-profits-rise-to...ecline.png]
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#52
http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-v...ages/?IR=T

Lets see you argue with Business Insider.......

Quote:If you're looking for answers as to what has gone wrong in the U.S. economy--why so many people are unemployed, why so many Americans barely make enough to live on, why "the 1%" just keeps getting richer--here are two charts for you.

Quote:What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong is that an obsession with a very narrow view of "shareholder value" has led companies to put "maximizing current earnings growth" ahead of another critical priority in a healthy economy:

   The happiness and well-being of employees.

What those who obsess exclusively about profits forget is that one company's wages (costs) are other companies' revenues.

Quote:If American companies were willing to trade off some of their current earnings growth to make investments in wage increases and hiring, American workers would have more money to spend. And as American workers spent more money, the economy would begin to grow more quickly again. And the growing economy would help the companies begin to grow more quickly again. And so on.

But, instead, U.S. companies have become obsessed with generating near-term profits at the expense of paying their employees more, making capital investments, and investing in future growth.

This may help make their shareholders temporarily richer.

But it doesn't make the economy healthier.

And, ultimately, as with any ecosystem that gets out of whack, it's bad for the whole ecosystem.

Our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.

That's not what has made America a great country. It's also not what most people think America is supposed to be about.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#53
The link below is an excellent read.

http://www.strategy-business.com/blog/Th...?gko=d5b7c
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#54
(08-04-2015, 05:40 PM)gstanford Wrote: 53.5 was typo, should have been 52.5.  Everything else is accurate though.  The gap between the two at the far right of the graph is 8.5%, not 4%

Yes it is now 8.5% difference-because one went up 4%, one went down 4%.

The change to neither was 8.5%.

Let's say you and I invent something and it sells for $200, which we each get half of, $100 each.

If I sue you and my portion goes from $100>>>$104, and yours goes from $100>>>>$96, I've gained 4%, you've lost 4%. Our positions are only changed by 4%, not 8%.

With the $15 minimum wage, I showed with valid information how that could easily mean a 52% cut in pay for sandwich shop owners, you didn't care at all. "Fuck them, I don't make $100K, they shouldn't either" was your attitude, but "OMFG! The middle class has lost 4% over 12 years!" is the end of the world.

This is why:
A. You don't know math
B. You are an evil hypocrite. If some slobs that make $10K a year wanted to take half your income through a new law you would scream bloody murder.

It's A-OK if it is someone who made better financial choices than you gets screwed and robbed from, as long as it's not you.
Reply
#55
The gap is 8.5% and all your ranting won't change it. I'm somewhat amazed you aren't trying to use the profits crash right near 2009 as some sort of proof that there isn't really a gap.........

You haven't said boo on the two links I posted either. There is only one evil hypocrite in this thread and it isn't me!
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#56
I think something needs to be done about the absurd CEO salaries. That is as big a problem as how low the minimum wage is.
Reply
#57
(08-05-2015, 01:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I think something needs to be done about the absurd CEO salaries.  That is as big a problem as how low the minimum wage is.


Always amazes me how people who aren't successful sit around and whine about how "We need to do something about those darn successful people!".

Only some of them though. Actors, musicians, athletes, authors, and even some YouTube Dumbasses make equally huge salaries and you never hear a peep about this.

CEOs that are actually working stiffs like the rest of us get all the hate, I guess because they did the working stiff thing better than us.
Reply
#58
I don't believe I have ever singled out particular groups. I've always simply referred to "rich people"....
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#59
(08-05-2015, 07:36 AM)gstanford Wrote: I don't believe I have ever singled out particular groups.  I've always simply referred to "rich people"....

I try to look at these matters as "what kind of world do I leave for my son?"

Do I want Louie the janitor to make $70K at the expense of my son being able to make over $100K at a skilled trade? No.

Do I want Louie to starve? No, but I think the $25-$30K janitors make is pretty much in line with their skill set, and I take comfort that if my son can't find skilled work he can earn $25-$30K and eat, stay indoors while he tries to advance himself.

Do I want guys like Apoppin to be able to say "I think I want to be a web reviewer, that factory work blows goats! Some guys like Rollo's son will have to buy me health insurance now!" No.

Basically I want everyone to pay their own way, and have equal opportunity to compete.
Reply
#60
Quote:I try to look at these matters as "what kind of world do I leave for my son?"

Do I want Louie the janitor to make $70K at the expense of my son being able to make over $100K at a skilled trade? No.

That is because you are selfish, self-centred and greedy and can't see past your own nose. You act only to help yourself and don't care if others in society are hurt because of it or not. You abuse society to better yourself. I'm the exact opposite.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#61
(08-04-2015, 05:44 PM)gstanford Wrote: Here is yet another graph of profits vs wages over a larger timescale - 1970 thru 2012

[Image: 20121204-graph-corporate-profits-rise-to...ecline.png]

Wow, awesome graph.  Wages on a constant decline while the lazy armchair stockholders lash their proverbial whips on the poor workers, reaping the cream of the crop...  

If this keeps on, brace ourselves for the next great depression, as the $$ has to come from somewhere - the wages! 

Look at how well off the economy was during the turn of the millennium when the wages had the biggest relative surge in all of the graph above.  Most people were happy and buying homes, etc..  Wages were back above corporate profits before the 9/11 terrorism.  Largely happy and successful, positive economy times. 

What was wrong with that period?  Bill Clinton might have initiated the housing bubble, but it was a longest period of time when wages went up, for more than 6 years straight.  Happy times.  It didn't hurt the business owners.  Federal minimum wage went up from $5/hour to $7/hour during the late 90's, which didn't go up again for more than a decade later.  Corporate profits might have suffered a bit, but so what.  The economy still prospered overall.  It was a healthy economy.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#62
(08-02-2015, 02:39 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: If so, how do your attorneys and accountants like making the same money as your mail room people and janitors? Are they "good team players" and saying, "Seems fair to me I had to spend years of my life and $100,000 on my college degree and Bubba makes the same money as I do. Bubba needs money too, and we're all on the same team!"
Traditional American capitalist approach: 
Sam:  "I spent $10 million on purchasing vast land prime for cotton crops, and borrowed another $5 million for building a massive plantation along with shelters for the "workers" that are to be fed, clothed, and supervised by the few hired workers paid 2x the minimum wage.  So I deserve the merciful fruits of labor, especially considering the risk of investment.. and all the silverware, ivory tusks, cruises around the world on the Titanic, safari trips in Africa, etc..  All other stupid workers should never be given education or any opportunity to lessen my financial gains for my own children, grandchildren, and their grandchildren.  Hence, college education should never be free or paid by our taxes - only those already in power should be able to sustain the grip on power through their own heritage."

That's America, after all.  Returning the Jews to their newly formed nation, but not even bothering with giving the original lands back to the Native Americans.  Freedom and Equality for All, all an illusion that only the richest able to afford the best lawyers could hope of fighting for in legal terms (or risk getting thown in jail or assassinated like MLK Jr.). 

Just look at the Walton family (the "Walmart" family).  How do you think the oil business guys ever got up there in the first place, in terms of multi-millionaire corporate status?  Family.  A few crazy, rare workaholics (like Oprah) might be able to climb the corporate ladder outside of "familial heritage", but it still seems like heritage still runs strong in America's veins - actually superseding the "land of opportunity" romanticism that we all would love to believe in. 

College loans do not do justice to most low-income students - those who are able to qualify for loans with good standings only put further burden on the government as most of them are now unable to pay off the loans as tuition costs became even more outrageous these days (along with the wages going down and down...).  Way to go, American "capitalists", hard at work on bankrupting the government..  when they could just pay the tax themselves for free college education for all, so that America prospers as a whole in the future.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#63
(08-06-2015, 01:35 AM)BoFox Wrote:   A few crazy, rare workaholics (like Oprah) might be able to climb the corporate ladder outside of "familial heritage", but it still seems like heritage still runs strong in America's veins - actually superseding the "land of opportunity" romanticism that we all would love to believe in. 

I hate to burst your bubble, but while it is hard to get "rich" America is still the land of opportunity.

My dad- worked his way through college, ended up not rich, but running companies and later being partners in a few companies.

My mom- gets divorced, picks up a bachelors and two masters, gets good job.

My wife- works way through college, manages an accounting department.

Me- work my way through college, team lead at software company

Pretty much everyone I know who makes over $100K- started out middle class or lower.

A person can get a good lifestyle going in America still, especially if they team up with another working professional.
Reply
#64
(08-06-2015, 05:04 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: A person can get a good lifestyle going in America still, especially if they team up with another working professional.

"Still...", you say, like as if no longer someday soon?  Ha j/k.

True, dat. 

What I propose (very very rough draft - my ideas might evolve or change):

1)  Give the National Forests back to the Native Americans (under conditions that the forests are maintained and well-cared for). 

2)  Offer free college education nationwide in every public university/college, for long-standing citizens (of more than 18 years).  Those who have not been a citizen for more than 18 years (immigrants) have to pay for their own college tuition.

3)  Raise the minimum wage for long-standing citizens to $20/hour.  Minimum wage does not rise for immigrants - it would be left up to companies' discretion. 

4)  Recent immigrants, even with a green card, or those who have recently become citizens, will have to find other means of borrowing money for college tuition, rather than directly from the government.  

That way, Obama's relaxed immigration laws that encourage more immigrants to over-populate the states can do all the dirty work for us, like flipping burgers, etc. if they still want to escape their own countries.  And the long-standing citizens will have less of an excuse for not getting well-educated and working a more skilled job. 

The government would no longer be burdened with hundreds of billions of dollars of unpaid college loans, and the long-standing citizens won't be burdened with paying outrageous loan debts.  We owe it to the African Americans who built the nation from the ground up with their bare hands and the sweat on their brows - the tax dollars should encourage them to live the American dream for once.  They didn't wish to be brought over here, and we aren't creating an Isreal for our own African-Americans like we did for the European Jews.  Let it be that low-income (less than $60K income) African-Americans (who can prove their American heritage to pre-MLK Jr. days) don't even have to pay for taxes at all, as our public apology for centuries of slavery........  the same goes for Native Americans.

It is in my opinion that America is already heavily populated enough, with a still-healthy ratio of births to deaths.  Sure, the immigrants can keep on pouring in, but we shouldn't encourage it as much as Obama is now.  Especially not if we can't even make it right for the Native Americans.  The immigrants should be building upon their own countries rather than escaping to America and further burdening the government.  They will have to pay the taxes as well, after just making it harder for the long-standing citizens by directly competing against them in public universities and colleges, and at workplaces.  It seems fair to me (give-and-take condition).
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#65
(08-05-2015, 05:55 PM)gstanford Wrote:
Quote:I try to look at these matters as "what kind of world do I leave for my son?"

Do I want Louie the janitor to make $70K at the expense of my son being able to make over $100K at a skilled trade? No.

That is because you are selfish, self-centred and greedy and can't see past your own nose.  You act only to help yourself and don't care if others in society are hurt because of it or not.  You abuse society to better yourself.  I'm the exact opposite.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

Here's the difference between us:

You call me greedy because I think people should be able keep the money they earned and not have the government force charity or a wage structure on them. Laissez faire capitalism. If some dumbass wants to paint frogs on smooth rocks and sell them on Ebay as "Mr. Croaker" for a living, he entitled to the wages that job provides. The guy that studies electrical engineering is entitled to what the market will pay for that skill.

I call you greedy because you think the guy that decides of his own free will to pursue an asinine, probably low dollar profession like selling painted rocks is owed money by the engineer guy- [I]simply because the engineer guy put in the work to learn something society pays well for.

My way- everyone gets exactly what they earn, except the young, old, disabled.

Your way- the people who pick jobs that don't pay much use the government to steal from anyone who has more money than them.
Reply
#66
(08-06-2015, 05:45 AM)BoFox Wrote:
(08-06-2015, 05:04 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: A person can get a good lifestyle going in America still, especially if they team up with another working professional.

"Still...", you say, like as if no longer someday soon?  Ha j/k.

True, dat. 

What I propose (very very rough draft - my ideas might evolve or change):

1)  Give the National Forests back to the Native Americans (under conditions that the forests are maintained and well-cared for). 

2)  Offer free college education nationwide in every public university/college, for long-standing citizens (of more than 18 years).  Those who have not been a citizen for more than 18 years (immigrants) have to pay for their own college tuition.

3)  Raise the minimum wage for long-standing citizens to $20/hour.  Minimum wage does not rise for immigrants - it would be left up to companies' discretion. 

4)  Recent immigrants, even with a green card, or those who have recently become citizens, will have to find other means of borrowing money for college tuition, rather than directly from the government.  

That way, Obama's relaxed immigration laws that encourage more immigrants to over-populate the states can do all the dirty work for us, like flipping burgers, etc. if they still want to escape their own countries.  And the long-standing citizens will have less of an excuse for not getting well-educated and working a more skilled job. 

The government would no longer be burdened with hundreds of billions of dollars of unpaid college loans, and the long-standing citizens won't be burdened with paying outrageous loan debts.  We owe it to the African Americans who built the nation from the ground up with their bare hands and the sweat on their brows - the tax dollars should encourage them to live the American dream for once.  They didn't wish to be brought over here, and we aren't creating an Isreal for our own African-Americans like we did for the European Jews.  Let it be that low-income (less than $60K income) African-Americans (who can prove their American heritage to pre-MLK Jr. days) don't even have to pay for taxes at all, as our public apology for centuries of slavery........  the same goes for Native Americans.

It is in my opinion that America is already heavily populated enough, with a still-healthy ratio of births to deaths.  Sure, the immigrants can keep on pouring in, but we shouldn't encourage it as much as Obama is now.  Especially not if we can't even make it right for the Native Americans.  The immigrants should be building upon their own countries rather than escaping to America and further burdening the government.  They will have to pay the taxes as well, after just making it harder for the long-standing citizens by directly competing against them in public universities and colleges, and at workplaces.  It seems fair to me (give-and-take condition).

I don't think the Native Americans want the forests, they have casinos and other treaty perks. I don't really think we owe them anything either, the history of the world is one of conquest and this happened hundreds of years ago. What's next? Everyone researches their family tree and looks for reparations from the anyone who may have an ancestor who kicked their family off some rock? My ancestors came here in the late 1800s, never owned a slave, never fought a Native America. I owe someone? My dad's grandfather was a tenant famer, and his dad was a tenant farmer. I think someone owes ME.

As far as free college goes I disagree, although I do agree with state and federal subsidy to make it more reasonable, say $50K instead of $100K. College SHOULD cost a lot, because frankly it shouldn't be taken lightly. Joe Bob shouldn't be saying "Can't decide if I want to be a fry cook or a veterinarian, guess I'll go to college a while and see.". Not enough professional jobs for everyone as it is, and it's better if the people in class aren't fucking around. They know they've paid good bucks, and are serious about it. Making it free might make it like high school.

My plot to fix the economy is this: Route all safety net benefits through industry to subsidize wages for low skill factory jobs and provide health care for the people. Create federal day care centers where other assistant folks work to watch kids while their assistance buddies go do things like make socks or plastic bowls. How does this help you might say?

The huge pool of assistance labor creates for profit products, and more skilled people get jobs in the office or as supervisors of the assistance folks. Now you have a huge group of people who were once a drain on the economy, now part of it and helping others have jobs as well. (instead of sponging off them) The profits of their labor help fund the on assistance staff, themselves and the daycare centers. They get some dignity being working people, and people wouldn't hate them anymore because they would not be moochers, they would be an import part of the economy.

America's main problem is manufacturing left, it's not that not enough people go to college. I want manufacturing back, and for those people to have more dignity and self esteem.
Reply
#67
You just don't get it, do you?

Society needs janitors, burger flippers, garbage collectors and lots of other menial job roles too. Those jobs don't do themselves you know.

And there are more people doing essential menial work than there are engineers in the workforce. If everyone went and studied to be an engineer, you would have janitors with engineering degrees!
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#68
(08-05-2015, 07:13 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-05-2015, 01:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I think something needs to be done about the absurd CEO salaries.  That is as big a problem as how low the minimum wage is.


Always amazes me how people who aren't successful sit around and whine about how "We need to do something about those darn successful people!".

Only some of them though. Actors, musicians, athletes, authors, and even some YouTube Dumbasses make equally huge salaries and you never hear a peep about this.

CEOs that are actually working stiffs like the rest of us get all the hate, I guess because they did the working stiff thing better than us.

So I'm unsuccessful for having a logical point of view? Get lost! Get off our forum! You bring nothing to the community here!
Reply
#69
SB, Rollo didn't mean it in a bad personal way. Just a light reference to those who don't consider themselves to be successful in the sense of becoming a CEO. Be more thick skinned, SB! Tongue
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#70
Quote:RolloTheGreat
(08-06-2015, 05:45 AM)BoFox Wrote:
(08-06-2015, 05:04 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: A person can get a good lifestyle going in America still, especially if they team up with another working professional.

"Still...", you say, like as if no longer someday soon?  Ha j/k.

True, dat. 

What I propose (very very rough draft - my ideas might evolve or change):

1)  Give the National Forests back to the Native Americans (under conditions that the forests are maintained and well-cared for). 

2)  Offer free college education nationwide in every public university/college, for long-standing citizens (of more than 18 years).  Those who have not been a citizen for more than 18 years (immigrants) have to pay for their own college tuition.

3)  Raise the minimum wage for long-standing citizens to $20/hour.  Minimum wage does not rise for immigrants - it would be left up to companies' discretion. 

4)  Recent immigrants, even with a green card, or those who have recently become citizens, will have to find other means of borrowing money for college tuition, rather than directly from the government.  

That way, Obama's relaxed immigration laws that encourage more immigrants to over-populate the states can do all the dirty work for us, like flipping burgers, etc. if they still want to escape their own countries.  And the long-standing citizens will have less of an excuse for not getting well-educated and working a more skilled job. 

The government would no longer be burdened with hundreds of billions of dollars of unpaid college loans, and the long-standing citizens won't be burdened with paying outrageous loan debts.  We owe it to the African Americans who built the nation from the ground up with their bare hands and the sweat on their brows - the tax dollars should encourage them to live the American dream for once.  They didn't wish to be brought over here, and we aren't creating an Isreal for our own African-Americans like we did for the European Jews.  Let it be that low-income (less than $60K income) African-Americans (who can prove their American heritage to pre-MLK Jr. days) don't even have to pay for taxes at all, as our public apology for centuries of slavery........  the same goes for Native Americans.

It is in my opinion that America is already heavily populated enough, with a still-healthy ratio of births to deaths.  Sure, the immigrants can keep on pouring in, but we shouldn't encourage it as much as Obama is now.  Especially not if we can't even make it right for the Native Americans.  The immigrants should be building upon their own countries rather than escaping to America and further burdening the government.  They will have to pay the taxes as well, after just making it harder for the long-standing citizens by directly competing against them in public universities and colleges, and at workplaces.  It seems fair to me (give-and-take condition).

I don't think the Native Americans want the forests, they have casinos and other treaty perks. I don't really think we owe them anything either, the history of the world is one of conquest and this happened hundreds of years ago. What's next? Everyone researches their family tree and looks for reparations from the anyone who may have an ancestor who kicked their family off some rock? My ancestors came here in the late 1800s, never owned a slave, never fought a Native America. I owe someone? My dad's grandfather was a tenant famer, and his dad was a tenant farmer. I think someone owes ME.

As far as free college goes I disagree, although I do agree with state and federal subsidy to make it more reasonable, say $50K instead of $100K. College SHOULD cost a lot, because frankly it shouldn't be taken lightly. Joe Bob shouldn't be saying "Can't decide if I want to be a fry cook or a veterinarian, guess I'll go to college a while and see.". Not enough professional jobs for everyone as it is, and it's better if the people in class aren't fucking around. They know they've paid good bucks, and are serious about it. Making it free might make it like high school.

My plot to fix the economy is this: Route all safety net benefits through industry to subsidize wages for low skill factory jobs and provide health care for the people. Create federal day care centers where other assistant folks work to watch kids while their assistance buddies go do things like make socks or plastic bowls. How does this help you might say?

The huge pool of assistance labor creates for profit products, and more skilled people get jobs in the office or as supervisors of the assistance folks. Now you have a huge group of people who were once a drain on the economy, now part of it and helping others have jobs as well. (instead of sponging off them) The profits of their labor help fund the on assistance staff, themselves and the daycare centers. They get some dignity being working people, and people wouldn't hate them anymore because they would not be moochers, they would be an import part of the economy.

America's main problem is manufacturing left, it's not that not enough people go to college. I want manufacturing back, and for those people to have more dignity and self esteem.


Wow, federal day care centers make so much sense!!!  Yet, there should be at least 1 adult to 5 kids or so, with security cameras everywhere to ensure that proper treatment takes place, along with routine "surprise" checkups to ensure the cleaniness of the place, etc.  And these places should look like homes, like the one at NIH children care center. 
[Image: welcome-to-the-inn.jpg]
Been there, real nice.  Only a few miles from my home.  National Institute of Health  (where Obama goes for annual physical check-ups)

Rollo, yeah, there should be some transition. 

All long-standing citizens (citizens for more than 18 years) making below $60k/year pay zero income tax.  And then say, 10% income tax for any remaining income over $60K, not considering tax refunds...  
All long-standing African-American citizens of more than 36 years making below $90k/year pay zero income tax.  And then the same 10% income tax for any remaining income over $90K 

All green-card immigrants pay at least 25% income tax no matter the income level.  All short-standing citizens for less than 18 years pay progressively slightly less tax depending on how many years they have been citizens for (5-year citizens pay 20% tax, 10-year pay 15% tax, 15-year pay 10% tax).

This would discourage immigrants from creeping across the border at record high rates nowadays.  Less shooting of the Mexicans crossing the rivers.  Less costs associated with deporting them back overseas, etc..  Less overpopulation concerns (driving up the housing costs and property values for the rest of us Americans)..  traffic problems not getting out of hand as quickly in the future.. 

Notice how many immigrants work so hard, just to send money back to their families in other countries?  If they can afford to move here and do just that, then they can pay for our college tuition.  Many of them who come over to colleges here do so on a scholarship, with their own countries paying for the tuition, hoping that they would come back to support their own countries (which many don't, actually). 

About the Native Americans - the reservations that they are confined to are generally some of the most barren and worthless lands available anywhere.  The Trail of Tears might not mean anything to you, but it was pretty much like the Holocaust for the Native Americans - just a century earlier.  Allowing them to reside and own say, 50% of the National Forests (within the confines of moderation with land use and taking care of the forests) would just be a token of respect - a highly meaningful one, and a powerful gesture.  If spending $38 billion on the newly created Israel each year since shortly after WW2 made sense for us, isn't this the least we could do for our own victims? 

Regarding the long-standing African Americans - if they wish to move back to their homeland in Africa, we should pay for the transportation to Africa, plus $5000-15000 cash per individual (depending on their previous wages) for settling down in their own homeland (on the condition that the African country approves the transfer of citizenship).  Another powerful and meaningful gesture of apology (that not many would choose to undertake anyway). 

Look at Germany, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, etc..  see how well off they are without a massive influx of immigrants.  The quality of life is higher than here in America.

My Mom just had to wait for 11 hours in the emergency room here at John Hopkins hospital - the icon of an American hospital!  The service was HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!   That is, with private healthcare premium. 

My Dad was an immigrant, moving to America to attend college on a scholarship paid by his own country that expected him to come back after graduation.  His transportation was paid for, as he visited home each summer.  But then when he graduated, there was no going back, and not even visiting until many years later when he was in the "clear", protected by his own army Commanding-Officer brothers that are now Generals.  Nothing to do against him, except that there seems to be some betraying of his own country. 

America is too supportive of the immigrants while still being downright difficult on the Native Americans, African Americans, and other low-income nation-born citizens who didn't rise as prominently in the "Land of the Survival of the Fittest".  The immigrants just come in, make it harder for others to succeed at competitive schools and job marketplaces, and then send the money overseas, hoping that a few will move over as well.  And the rest of the long-standing Americans are pushed out of the upper-middle class status into the lower class status (the "new" middle class), with little time or hope for furthering education or career.

Rollo, your Mom who got divorced and then got 2 degrees, was rather lucky in order to have been able to do that compared to most other Americans who have to work full time jobs while barely being able to afford night classes with whatever time they have left, if they don't have to work a second job.  I know many people who would have absolutely loved to do that, but just got stuck in between a rock and a hard place, while the immigrants find themselves on a nice beach...
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#71
(08-06-2015, 06:39 AM)gstanford Wrote: You just don't get it, do you?

Society needs janitors, burger flippers, garbage collectors and lots of other menial job roles too.  Those jobs don't do themselves you know.

And there are more people doing essential menial work than there are engineers in the workforce.  If everyone went and studied to be an engineer, you would have janitors with engineering degrees!

Reading comprehension FTL!

I said in my post that there aren't enough professional jobs and everyone shouldn't go to college.

What's wrong with my idea to put the unemployed to work? Do you disagree with me that they would have more dignity and self esteem as working people than they have on welfare?
Reply
#72
Plus, no welfare for the elderly, even the widows - if their assets are greater than 5 years of local median income. The property (house) counts towards the asset, so say that the widow lives in a half-million dollar home, and buys new Cadillac's every few years... and still gets paid $2000 a month from the government just because the husband died?????

The baby-boomer generation is going to hit America much harder than it ever hit Japan. It wasn't fun for Japan, but it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back for America which recently doubled the national debt in the last 8 years. The next 10-25 years will bankrupt the government at that rate - as the national debt quadruples or so. The debt could even become twice the GDP.

I'd say that no matter how hard the widow worked, or how hard her husband worked, if the house is worth $500,000, and she wants welfare, she has to sell off the house, live off the cash by buying a smaller home or renting an apartment, until she can prove that her assets are low enough to warrant sucking money from the government's tits when they should be giving back to the society instead of just taking, taking, and taking....
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#73
(08-06-2015, 06:42 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(08-05-2015, 07:13 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-05-2015, 01:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I think something needs to be done about the absurd CEO salaries.  That is as big a problem as how low the minimum wage is.


Always amazes me how people who aren't successful sit around and whine about how "We need to do something about those darn successful people!".

Only some of them though. Actors, musicians, athletes, authors, and even some YouTube Dumbasses make equally huge salaries and you never hear a peep about this.

CEOs that are actually working stiffs like the rest of us get all the hate, I guess because they did the working stiff thing better than us.

So I'm unsuccessful for having a logical point of view?  Get lost!  Get off our forum!  You bring nothing  to the community here!

Rolleyes

Got news SB. You, me, GStan, BoFox, Dave- all "unsuccessful" financially compared to CEOs.
Reply
#74
(08-06-2015, 07:53 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Reading comprehension FTL!

I said in my post that there aren't enough professional jobs and everyone shouldn't go to college.

What's wrong with my idea to put the unemployed to work? Do you disagree with me that they would have more dignity and self esteem as working people than they have on welfare?
If you think that, you're wrong. The reality is that there are too many STEM graduates for the STEM jobs. Same story with PhD graduates.
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#75
I know a PhD secertary! Big Grin Honestly! Her PhD certificate was on the wall, and she has to handle phone calls for an Institute that she hopes to gets promoted at.....
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#76
BTW, Rollo, that Children's Inn at the NIH has Xbox360 consoles with Kinect, PS3, Wii, with big screen TV's in a fantastic looking entertainment room with ping pong tables, etc.. and in the back there's a tennis, basketball court, etc.. real nice! No reason the government can't do that!

Just get them all addicted to video gaming!


Anyway, Rollo, up in Wisconsin, I'm sure you're not seeing much of any immigration at all - so it's difficult for you to see it as a problem. In the faster growing states, especially in the south and the west, and in the larger cities especially of over 4-5 million people, immigration is higher than ever in the past 70 years - since WW2. I've personally seen some towns transform completely from a white redneck town into a hispanic spanish-speaking town.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#77
Immigration actually fuels the entire economy. They try to let in educated people with a lot of money. Try to imagine how much it costs to put one child through the school system in the US. Thousands of dollars.

I think immigration is good to a large extent; it's a no-brainer here in Canada because we have tons of unused land. In the US I could see it being more of an issue.
Reply
#78
(08-06-2015, 07:53 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-06-2015, 06:39 AM)gstanford Wrote: You just don't get it, do you?

Society needs janitors, burger flippers, garbage collectors and lots of other menial job roles too.  Those jobs don't do themselves you know.

And there are more people doing essential menial work than there are engineers in the workforce.  If everyone went and studied to be an engineer, you would have janitors with engineering degrees!

Reading comprehension FTL!

I said in my post that there aren't enough professional jobs and everyone shouldn't go to college.

What's wrong with my idea to put the unemployed to work? Do you disagree with me that they would have more dignity and self esteem as working people than they have on welfare?

You don't have Work For The Dole in the USA?
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#79
(08-06-2015, 08:05 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-06-2015, 06:42 AM)SickBeast Wrote:
(08-05-2015, 07:13 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:
(08-05-2015, 01:26 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I think something needs to be done about the absurd CEO salaries.  That is as big a problem as how low the minimum wage is.


Always amazes me how people who aren't successful sit around and whine about how "We need to do something about those darn successful people!".

Only some of them though. Actors, musicians, athletes, authors, and even some YouTube Dumbasses make equally huge salaries and you never hear a peep about this.

CEOs that are actually working stiffs like the rest of us get all the hate, I guess because they did the working stiff thing better than us.

So I'm unsuccessful for having a logical point of view?  Get lost!  Get off our forum!  You bring nothing  to the community here!

Rolleyes

Got news SB. You, me, GStan, BoFox, Dave- all "unsuccessful" financially compared to CEOs.

And that is why Dan Price's 70K lowend wage is so important, to put some fairness back into the system!
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#80
(08-06-2015, 08:06 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote:
(08-06-2015, 07:53 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: Reading comprehension FTL!

I said in my post that there aren't enough professional jobs and everyone shouldn't go to college.

What's wrong with my idea to put the unemployed to work? Do you disagree with me that they would have more dignity and self esteem as working people than they have on welfare?
If you think that, you're wrong.  The reality is that there are too many STEM graduates for the STEM jobs.  Same story with PhD graduates.

Exactly! Rollo's son had better choose what he studies at college/uni very carefully indeed or he will end up just another unemployed person with a fancy (and expensive) paper certificate that employers don't care about because the jobs market is flooded with people that have them.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)