Define these terms

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Define these terms

 Everyone tells me that the big problem is companies are not paying a "livable wage". The only definition I get from people is generalities about being enough for people to pay bills etc. That is a useless definition because everyone has different needs. For a single healthy 18 year old $10,000 per year may be sufficient to live on. For a 30 something single mother obviously $10,000 isn't going to cut it. Everyone assures me that most companies don't pay a livable wage.

 

What is a "livable wage", how would I go about calculating it? How do I determine whether I, as an employer, am paying a livable wage?

 

To take it one step further, suppose you were an employer- what methodology would you use to determine what to pay your employees? I am told I do it wrong, but no one has offered me any alternatives.

 

Another term that makes no rational sense but is thrown at me time and again is "fair share". What is a "fair share" of taxation? How do I determine whether or not I am paying my "fair share"? Suppose someone makes $1 billion, what should they pay in taxes? $1 million? $500k? $250k? $100k? $50k? $25k? $10k?

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Another

Beyond Saving wrote:

Another term that makes no rational sense but is thrown at me time and again is "fair share". What is a "fair share" of taxation? How do I determine whether or not I am paying my "fair share"? Suppose someone makes $1 billion, what should they pay in taxes? $1 million? $500k? $250k? $100k? $50k? $25k? $10k?

Quote:

Thanks a lot to the 1%
Pays 43% of city tax

the top 1 percent of New York City’s moneymakers paid 43.2 percent of the city’s income tax — even though they accounted for just 33.8 percent of total income here.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/thanks_lot_to_the_e7GGP2aPLhaW0yESCrknEJ#ixzz1hkJ5FUnr

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You keep bringing up over

You keep bringing up over all sums when the reality is RATIO PER INDIVIDUAL. When you combine that ratio with the pay gap it DESTROYS THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET and creates MORE poverty and a wider gap.

And again, if things are going so well there would not be any protesters on the street.

Your solution will hurt us and the only reason you buy the bullshit big business sells is because you own a business yourself. THEY are hurting you as much as they are hurting us because they are part of an extraction economy. If it continues it will eventually affect you as well.

As long as our economy is shareholder and CEO and marketing based, and does nothing to improve the lives of the lower classes. As long as it continues to put profits above building, and allows jobs to be shipped overseas. As long as our trade policies allow China to undermine our value. It WILL continue to be a race to the bottom.

Now, what would I do if I owned your business? I would look at my personal take vs the lowest paid and consider the gap instead of being a selfish prick. If big business has no problem setting limits to pay for it's lowest paid workers then it can do the same for it's highest paid CEOs. ESPECIALLY when the bulk of the work is NOT done by the CEOs.

Take your head out of your utopia label and try reality for a while. Big business caused this mess, not the middle class and not the poor. Big banks, big car companies, big insurance, big drug companies, big housing, all those big businesses bought our congress to make laws to allow them to create this mess and WE were the ones who paid for it.

Monopolies of money pooled together to create the mess we are in. Unless this monopoly can be broken, things will only get worse. Conflate value, skim off the top, and when the bubble bursts dump the mess on the tax payers.

THAT is the economy model we have had for the past 30 years. Only a hermit like you could be in total denial.

Here is the solution.

ENFORCE ANTI MONOPOLY LAWS

TAX THE UBER RICH

REDUCE THE PAY GAP

INVEST HERE IN BUILDING AND EDUCATION

That is what it will take  and that is what WE will do, with or without you. The car was crashed and you have no right to bitch now that others are competing for the drivers seat. We didn't wreck the car, but we sure as hell are tired of your mindset driving it and your childish denial of who made the mess.

"Poor me" yea poor you, poor poor you. It sucks owning a business. It sucks sooooo much. You are starving to death aren't you?

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to take this opportunity to start a new Charity, "Bucks For Billionaires". I'll pass around the collection plate right now. Beyond, when we collect enough money, we'll send it to you because you are soooooooooooo hurting.

OH THE HUMANITY! What will you do without your second Bentley?

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE.

Just like a theist, different utopia, different holy book.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Owning a business sucks.  

Owning a business sucks.   What do you think he's doing?  Sitting on a sofa all day being fed grapes by scantily clad women?

My father owned his own business.  The stress is incredible.

I'd rather make less money and have a tiny fraction of the stress.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You keep

Brian37 wrote:

You keep bringing up over all sums when the reality is RATIO PER INDIVIDUAL. When you combine that ratio with the pay gap it DESTROYS THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET and creates MORE poverty and a wider gap.

Ok, so what is a proper or healthy ratio?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, what would I do if I owned your business? I would look at my personal take vs the lowest paid and consider the gap instead of being a selfish prick. If big business has no problem setting limits to pay for it's lowest paid workers then it can do the same for it's highest paid CEOs. ESPECIALLY when the bulk of the work is NOT done by the CEOs.

So what should be the minimum and/or maximum? What should the max difference be between the two? Should a ceo's pay be limited to 2 times? 3 times? 100 times that of the lowest paid worker? You yourself have used the terms "livable wage" and "fair share" more than once. I am simply asking you to define precisely what you mean by those terms. I don't care if the definition is a formula or specific amounts or a ratio. Just explain what you mean, because it comes across to me as pure gibberish designed to make nice sounding talking points rather than communicate a real idea. 

 

I am simply asking what you want. You say "tax the rich more" ok, how much more? I assume you don't mean 100% tax, but obviously you believe that the current tax rate is too low. So what should it be? What tax rate would make you happy? Do you believe taxes should be raised on lower tax brackets as well, or only the top? How do you determine what is "fair"?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Owning a

Watcher wrote:

Owning a business sucks.   What do you think he's doing?  Sitting on a sofa all day being fed grapes by scantily clad women?

My father owned his own business.  The stress is incredible.

I'd rather make less money and have a tiny fraction of the stress.

Oh boy, who said owning a business was easy? You're making the same mistake he is.

Everyone has a role in society. Business is needed and if that is what someone wants in life, go for it.

My problem with him is his attitude and what he thinks will work in owning a business. Not the fact he owns one.

FACT, there will always be in a three class system more workers than owners or even shareholders and CEOs. It is the jadedness in thinking I despise, not the free market. It is the abuse because of that jadedness that has lead to the market crash.

"Every man for themselves" is his attitude.

If all we are going to do in life is worry about ourselves, then we don't need a three class system for that. Lets just always equate money being the most important thing in life and only let people like Beyond vote.

There IS a class war and his mindset won at the expense of the rest of us. And now that the rest of us are saying we are not going to take it any more his mindset bitches.

Now, again, there are people who own businesses(all be it not enough) and there are rich people who do care. Stephen Cobert and John Stewart are millionaires I am quite sure. Even Buffet says that the tax code is unfairly stacked against the lower two classes.

So don't confuse issues here. Pointing out pay gap and lack of investment in the states is my issue. Money constantly flying out of the country because those who do that have no sense of loyalty to the societies they make money off of. The creation of nothing but low wage jobs and the default to cutting labor FIRST is hurting us.

Business is not bad by itself. But it is when all it does is care about itself. How one makes money and HOW it affects society counts as much if not more than simply the right to own a business.

Beyond's attitude sucks, Owning a business doesn't by itself suck. My prior owners had a conscious and many business people do. But not enough on a collective scale to prevent what has happened.

I am not, nore will ever suggest getting rid of privately owned business. I am suggesting a collective attitude change at the top. If it does not change then even the top will collapse because of it's own jadedness of "every man for themselves".

Beyond, like far to many business owners, not all, but far too many, live in a utopia bubble and ignore the reality around them. No different to me than when arguing with a theist about their utopia claims.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh boy, who

Brian37 wrote:

Oh boy, who said owning a business was easy? You're making the same mistake he is.

Brian37 wrote:

"Poor me" yea poor you, poor poor you. It sucks owning a business. It sucks sooooo much. You are starving to death aren't you?

If you did not intend to communicate the impression that you trivialized the incredible long hours, financial risk, and non-stop stress among business owners then you really need to work on your communication skills.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Owning a

Watcher wrote:

Owning a business sucks.   What do you think he's doing?  Sitting on a sofa all day being fed grapes by scantily clad women?

lol, well I am sitting on the couch and I've got a bitch wearing only a collar sitting with me. Haven't taught my dog how to feed me grapes yet. Not sure I want to. It would be sweet if I could get her to grab a beer from the fridge though.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You keep bringing up over all sums when the reality is RATIO PER INDIVIDUAL. When you combine that ratio with the pay gap it DESTROYS THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET and creates MORE poverty and a wider gap.

Ok, so what is a proper or healthy ratio?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, what would I do if I owned your business? I would look at my personal take vs the lowest paid and consider the gap instead of being a selfish prick. If big business has no problem setting limits to pay for it's lowest paid workers then it can do the same for it's highest paid CEOs. ESPECIALLY when the bulk of the work is NOT done by the CEOs.

So what should be the minimum and/or maximum? What should the max difference be between the two? Should a ceo's pay be limited to 2 times? 3 times? 100 times that of the lowest paid worker? You yourself have used the terms "livable wage" and "fair share" more than once. I am simply asking you to define precisely what you mean by those terms. I don't care if the definition is a formula or specific amounts or a ratio. Just explain what you mean, because it comes across to me as pure gibberish designed to make nice sounding talking points rather than communicate a real idea. 

 

I am simply asking what you want. You say "tax the rich more" ok, how much more? I assume you don't mean 100% tax, but obviously you believe that the current tax rate is too low. So what should it be? What tax rate would make you happy? Do you believe taxes should be raised on lower tax brackets as well, or only the top? How do you determine what is "fair"?

What is a healthy ratio? Not the one we have now. And I am quite sure you make far more than you need compared to your lowest paid worker, even if YOU personally pay better than most.

I can only use where I work as an example because I know on average how much they make per week total. I could live quite comfortably off of one weekend's profits per month,  and I would stay in the house I am in. I would at worst fix it up. I might buy a second vehicle that is cheap to drive and fuel efficient. The money I saved by not having a fancy house or expensive car, I would put back into the workers in more hours(when slow, send them house to house with coupons) and I would invest in their health care.

That is also a positive thing as well because when they have less stress, and more time for themselves off the clock, when they are there, with that reduced stress, because they have less to worry about, it can and does motivate people to do well on the job.

The reality is that cannot happen now because of the cost of living. But if insurance cost less and our collective society reduced the cost of health care, I most certainly would do that. Unlike you Beyond, just because you claim "This is the way things are" doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

Our current mess cannot afford your "every man for themselves" solution. I see nothing at the top end that makes me think they give on shit about anyone but their investors and CEOs and profits.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You keep bringing up over all sums when the reality is RATIO PER INDIVIDUAL. When you combine that ratio with the pay gap it DESTROYS THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET and creates MORE poverty and a wider gap.

Ok, so what is a proper or healthy ratio?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, what would I do if I owned your business? I would look at my personal take vs the lowest paid and consider the gap instead of being a selfish prick. If big business has no problem setting limits to pay for it's lowest paid workers then it can do the same for it's highest paid CEOs. ESPECIALLY when the bulk of the work is NOT done by the CEOs.

So what should be the minimum and/or maximum? What should the max difference be between the two? Should a ceo's pay be limited to 2 times? 3 times? 100 times that of the lowest paid worker? You yourself have used the terms "livable wage" and "fair share" more than once. I am simply asking you to define precisely what you mean by those terms. I don't care if the definition is a formula or specific amounts or a ratio. Just explain what you mean, because it comes across to me as pure gibberish designed to make nice sounding talking points rather than communicate a real idea. 

 

I am simply asking what you want. You say "tax the rich more" ok, how much more? I assume you don't mean 100% tax, but obviously you believe that the current tax rate is too low. So what should it be? What tax rate would make you happy? Do you believe taxes should be raised on lower tax brackets as well, or only the top? How do you determine what is "fair"?

Well, if I am Warren Buffet I'd be happy to give up half of what I make. And on top of that I'd also with what I had left over use on raising the salaries of those at the bottom and invest in their heath care and pay them enough to be able to support themselves on one job.

I do believe even in our history the tax rate that created the middle class at one time was as high as 90%. Keeping in mind after the deductions they were only paying 50%.

I think if we get back to higher rates, investing in the worker, better pay, lower cost of living ratio, cheap or free higher education, which is what created our boom after WW2, we can get back to a less dependent society, which is what you say you want. And in theory that is noble, but the way everything is rigged now, it wont happen.

What wont work is what big money in our politics has set up. Unless that monopoly is broken, we will at best be facing another bubble in the future that will be dumped on us again.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fricking A

I posted a link for you ages ago.  It showed the living wage in various localities based on local costs of living.  You didn't like it.  It didn't make sense to you.  I am not going to bother with it again, as you obviously don't see what you don't like and that was one of the things you don't like.  An actual, real, reasonable, logical chart of what it takes to live comfortably - not extravagantly - in a number of different areas in the US.  And it had supporting data on what went into the determination of what was "comfortable" based on minimal levels of comfort in the US, not Sweden or North Korea.

I know that realistically, it isn't what is a reasonable wage for their employees to live on that concerns most business owners.  It is the profit margin and how little they can get away with paying their employees that is the main concern.  Pay them what you figure you can get away with and that leaves you with enough cash in your own pocket that you can live the life you want to live. 

If you are feeling guilty, that is your problem.  Don't plan on dragging me into your guilt trip.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am simply asking what you want. You say "tax the rich more" ok, how much more? I assume you don't mean 100% tax, but obviously you believe that the current tax rate is too low. So what should it be? What tax rate would make you happy? Do you believe taxes should be raised on lower tax brackets as well, or only the top? How do you determine what is "fair"?

 

I have a job starting next week.  $12 / hour, 18 hours a week, six month contract.  Plus the $500 from relatives, plus food stamps (which will be reduced once the job starts).  And I was making $60,000 a year less than 3 years ago.

So you tell me how someone who is currently bringing home $4,000,000 a year (I realize that isn't you) can not make it on $2,000,000?  Will the poor person have to give up a vacation home or yacht?  Poor baby.  I'm trying to stretch what is in my cupboard to last until food stamps show up next week and the electric company wants money sooner than that.

I don't have a problem with people making a good living.  6 figure incomes don't set my teeth on edge.  7 or 8 figures - yeah, they could live on a lot less.  The small business owner who is making $20,000 - 500,000 is working their ass off, but the CEO of a large corporation is not.  I have worked for large, global corporations (see last job) and I am reasonably certain all goes much smoother if the CEO doesn't attempt to "work".

People are not angry at the small business owners of this country, they are really fried with large corporations that have boards composed of the CEOs of other corporations - and they all vote for mega salaries and mega bonuses and mega stock options and mega platinum parachutes for each other.  Turn and turn about.

Congress doesn't want to increase taxes for the 1% because 50% of congress are milliionaires - at least.  They want pay raises and no new taxes.  Phhhttttt.  What would satisfy me is a tax rate in line with having two wars going on - though it doesn't have to be as high as the rates during WWII.  Say, 35% for the top bracket.  And we could add another bracket - say, over $500,000 that the higher rate applies to.  And taxes on stock market exchanges.  And some increase in capital gains tax.  Yeah, I know a lot of retirees have capital gains and they are not uber wealthy, but we could make capital gains progressive and that would catch the Donalds of this world and not mess with mom or grandma.

But no one who can do anything about it listens to me, so why should you care what I think.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
If what you're saying is

If what you're saying is true about overpaying the guys at the top. Why not organize with others to start small business to compete? You have a massive cost advantage over companies that overpay CEOs.

For instance, why can't you all start a health care Coop instead of giving your money to insurance company CEOs? What laws need to change for you all to do this?

Personally I don't believe any of you believe your own propaganda.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:If what you're

EXC wrote:

If what you're saying is true about overpaying the guys at the top. Why not organize with others to start small business to compete? You have a massive cost advantage over companies that overpay CEOs.

For instance, why can't you all start a health care Coop instead of giving your money to insurance company CEOs? What laws need to change for you all to do this?

Personally I don't believe any of you believe your own propaganda.

 

None of my friends can afford health insurance.  So a coop is beyond our means as well.

Ask the ex small business owners in Ephrata, WA how easy it was to compete when Walmart moved into to town.  The local hardware stores, gift shops, grocery stores (even the Safeway) and health clinics all closed soon after Wally opened its doors.  When they were all out, the prices at Walmart took a big jump.  Surprise, surprise.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:If what you're

EXC wrote:

If what you're saying is true about overpaying the guys at the top. Why not organize with others to start small business to compete? You have a massive cost advantage over companies that overpay CEOs.

For instance, why can't you all start a health care Coop instead of giving your money to insurance company CEOs? What laws need to change for you all to do this?

Personally I don't believe any of you believe your own propaganda.

If we complain about lacking resources we should take what resources we don't have and compete with those who are flush with resources thanks to the government's help (and yes the largest corporations still get government help - they seem to have no problem with socialism when they're advantaged by it)?

I'm pretty sure you believe your propaganda even though you will likely never benefit from the cause you're championing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Watcher

Beyond Saving wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Owning a business sucks.   What do you think he's doing?  Sitting on a sofa all day being fed grapes by scantily clad women?

lol, well I am sitting on the couch and I've got a bitch wearing only a collar sitting with me. Haven't taught my dog how to feed me grapes yet. Not sure I want to. It would be sweet if I could get her to grab a beer from the fridge though.

Your problem is you like dogs when everyone knows that truly civilized people like cats.

I don't have time to respond for real, but the key measure of "Fair" and "Livable" is sustainability, which is the only metric which makes sense for a SOCIETY.

And Brian37 is spot-on -- what you and the others are advocating is a race to the bottom.  The only thing that's keeping the current house of cards afloat is outsourcing to India and China as fast as companies can.  They don't buy a damned thing -- they are pure labor-export economies.  As the middle and working classes continue to be destroyed, the ability to employ even the Chinese and Indians will be destroyed right along with it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I posted a link for

cj wrote:

I posted a link for you ages ago.  It showed the living wage in various localities based on local costs of living.  You didn't like it.  It didn't make sense to you.  I am not going to bother with it again, as you obviously don't see what you don't like and that was one of the things you don't like.  An actual, real, reasonable, logical chart of what it takes to live comfortably - not extravagantly - in a number of different areas in the US.  And it had supporting data on what went into the determination of what was "comfortable" based on minimal levels of comfort in the US, not Sweden or North Korea.

I know that realistically, it isn't what is a reasonable wage for their employees to live on that concerns most business owners.  It is the profit margin and how little they can get away with paying their employees that is the main concern.  Pay them what you figure you can get away with and that leaves you with enough cash in your own pocket that you can live the life you want to live. 

If you are feeling guilty, that is your problem.  Don't plan on dragging me into your guilt trip.

 

http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/

Yeah I remember the link, and thank you for being the only person so far to answer the question. Them problem is that the living wage it came up with in most areas was below minimum wage let alone average wages. So if others want to agree that those numbers accurately portray what they mean when demanding "livable wages" then virtually every claim that most business pay less than a livable wage is absurd. For example, here in Ohio the claim the living wage is $7.95 per person, legal minimum wage is $7.25- good luck finding a job that pays minimum wage as market forces demand employers pay more. So I assume that when most on this site say "livable wage" they mean a somewhat higher number. 

 

Don't worry, I don't feel the least bit guilty. I am truly curious how so many people who live in a country that has provided them great opportunity and wealth have so much hatred towards the entities that provide for them. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Don't worry, I don't

Quote:
Don't worry, I don't feel the least bit guilty. I am truly curious how so many people who live in a country that has provided them great opportunity and wealth have so much hatred towards the entities that provide for them.

 

Maybe from YOUR perspective.  I'm not sure what you do for a living and I really don't care.  I'm leaning towards supervisor or contractor, but who the hell knows.  

 

These "entities" are gradually squeezing out what's left of the golden goose they implemented about ninety years ago; that's why people are pissed off.  There was never any prosperity and opportunity in America to begin with; just smart people keeping the financial institution on it's toes from raping this country faster and more efficiently, but now that things have seemingly come to a head, it's now up to us to use our heads and try to erase the damage these corporate scumbags have done. 

 

You have job security while A LOT of others don't and the reason for this is technology.  The more advanced our knowledge of how to downgrade the human populace in various fields of labor, the more unemployment will rise.  The elite know this VERY well.  You're lucky enough that you are in a position to where things SEEM to be looking up, but once the debt ceiling crashes, their pyramid topples and money will become the biggest burden of all time, that's when you'll be fucked no matter how well you think you're doing.  Mark my words.

 

You're not a stupid person, Beyond, but wake the fuck up; the monetary system is broken, your train of thought of archaic and this "livable wage" crap is nothing more than a futile discussion on how things WON'T get better without some sort of massive social upheaval.  

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Everyone tells me that the big problem is companies are not paying a "livable wage". The only definition I get from people is generalities about being enough for people to pay bills etc. That is a useless definition because everyone has different needs. For a single healthy 18 year old $10,000 per year may be sufficient to live on. For a 30 something single mother obviously $10,000 isn't going to cut it. Everyone assures me that most companies don't pay a livable wage.

 

What is a "livable wage", how would I go about calculating it? How do I determine whether I, as an employer, am paying a livable wage?

 

To take it one step further, suppose you were an employer- what methodology would you use to determine what to pay your employees? I am told I do it wrong, but no one has offered me any alternatives.

 

Another term that makes no rational sense but is thrown at me time and again is "fair share". What is a "fair share" of taxation? How do I determine whether or not I am paying my "fair share"? Suppose someone makes $1 billion, what should they pay in taxes? $1 million? $500k? $250k? $100k? $50k? $25k? $10k?

 

 

I will add one.  Define 'Rich'.  Who are 'the Rich'?  Where does it start?  If you were to compare wealth and poverty around the world, someone in the USA who is classified poor, would indeed be rich in some place like Sudan or Zimbabwe.  Nobody has ever given me a definitive answer.  The only time I ever hear the word is when it is used as a pejorative.  From the pejorative tone I have heard it called, it could be the new 'N' Word that happens to be socially acceptable to some. 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:I will add

Burnedout wrote:


I will add one.  Define 'Rich'.  Who are 'the Rich'?  Where does it start?  If you were to compare wealth and poverty around the world, someone in the USA who is classified poor, would indeed be rich in some place like Sudan or Zimbabwe.  Nobody has ever given me a definitive answer.  The only time I ever hear the word is when it is used as a pejorative.  From the pejorative tone I have heard it called, it could be the new 'N' Word that happens to be socially acceptable to some. 

 

"We know what you are, now we are negotiating price."

Rich - anyone who has way more money than any small third world country would need to support everyone who lives there for a year.

Wealthy - anyone who can walk out and buy whatever they want - house, car, etc - for cash.

The two definitions likely overlap.  I'm sure someone will look it up in a dictionary for you at some point.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

I posted a link for you ages ago.  It showed the living wage in various localities based on local costs of living.  You didn't like it.  It didn't make sense to you.  I am not going to bother with it again, as you obviously don't see what you don't like and that was one of the things you don't like.  An actual, real, reasonable, logical chart of what it takes to live comfortably - not extravagantly - in a number of different areas in the US.  And it had supporting data on what went into the determination of what was "comfortable" based on minimal levels of comfort in the US, not Sweden or North Korea.

I know that realistically, it isn't what is a reasonable wage for their employees to live on that concerns most business owners.  It is the profit margin and how little they can get away with paying their employees that is the main concern.  Pay them what you figure you can get away with and that leaves you with enough cash in your own pocket that you can live the life you want to live. 

If you are feeling guilty, that is your problem.  Don't plan on dragging me into your guilt trip.

 

http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/

Yeah I remember the link, and thank you for being the only person so far to answer the question. Them problem is that the living wage it came up with in most areas was below minimum wage let alone average wages. So if others want to agree that those numbers accurately portray what they mean when demanding "livable wages" then virtually every claim that most business pay less than a livable wage is absurd. For example, here in Ohio the claim the living wage is $7.95 per person, legal minimum wage is $7.25- good luck finding a job that pays minimum wage as market forces demand employers pay more. So I assume that when most on this site say "livable wage" they mean a somewhat higher number. 

 

Don't worry, I don't feel the least bit guilty. I am truly curious how so many people who live in a country that has provided them great opportunity and wealth have so much hatred towards the entities that provide for them. 

Hatred? Nah, more like an "urge to fix".

You benefit from  the system being broken so I don't expect you to see the problem.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Burnedout wrote: I

cj wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

 

I will add one.  Define 'Rich'.  Who are 'the Rich'?  Where does it start?  If you were to compare wealth and poverty around the world, someone in the USA who is classified poor, would indeed be rich in some place like Sudan or Zimbabwe.  Nobody has ever given me a definitive answer.  The only time I ever hear the word is when it is used as a pejorative.  From the pejorative tone I have heard it called, it could be the new 'N' Word that happens to be socially acceptable to some. 

 

"We know what you are, now we are negotiating price."

Rich - anyone who has way more money than any small third world country would need to support everyone who lives there for a year.

Wealthy - anyone who can walk out and buy whatever they want - house, car, etc - for cash.

The two definitions likely overlap.  I'm sure someone will look it up in a dictionary for you at some point.

 

 

Not trying to be snarky...but I have seen the word 'Rich' used as a pejorative to put down ANYBODY with wealth....kind of like the way people will use the 'N' word to describe black people.  It is like the 'Rich' is the new minority to hate. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:cj

Burnedout wrote:

cj wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

 

I will add one.  Define 'Rich'.  Who are 'the Rich'?  Where does it start?  If you were to compare wealth and poverty around the world, someone in the USA who is classified poor, would indeed be rich in some place like Sudan or Zimbabwe.  Nobody has ever given me a definitive answer.  The only time I ever hear the word is when it is used as a pejorative.  From the pejorative tone I have heard it called, it could be the new 'N' Word that happens to be socially acceptable to some. 

 

"We know what you are, now we are negotiating price."

Rich - anyone who has way more money than any small third world country would need to support everyone who lives there for a year.

Wealthy - anyone who can walk out and buy whatever they want - house, car, etc - for cash.

The two definitions likely overlap.  I'm sure someone will look it up in a dictionary for you at some point.

 

 

Not trying to be snarky...but I have seen the word 'Rich' used as a pejorative to put down ANYBODY with wealth....kind of like the way people will use the 'N' word to describe black people.  It is like the 'Rich' is the new minority to hate. 

How about a paraphrase of Chris Rock's definition?

Tom Brady is rich - the man who signs Brady's paycheck is wealthy.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Not trying

Burnedout wrote:

Not trying to be snarky...but I have seen the word 'Rich' used as a pejorative to put down ANYBODY with wealth....kind of like the way people will use the 'N' word to describe black people.  It is like the 'Rich' is the new minority to hate. 

 

Yeah, I've heard them, too.  I don't worry about it - those who bitch will find something else to bitch about in a while.  We are all of us stereotyped in one way or another. 

I think what makes most people angry is the obvious disparity in income and the lack of compassion.  It is all your fault for being poor.  For not being a Bill Gates, Mark Zukerberg, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford ......... For not coming up with the million dollar idea, marketing / publishing / inventing / manufacturing / programming / providing the service.  "Turn your hobby into millions!"

The problem with that is we hear about the winners.  The people who make it.  We don't hear about the millions of people who make the attempt but for one reason or another - often just luck - don't make it and/or lose the rest of their savings on it with no return.  It's a common statistical fallacy - seeing the hits, but not the misses.  If it were published every day - Joe Blow's construction company closed - Jane Doe's hobby business crashed - the list would be a lot longer than the people who make enough money to live on. 

So, try, you say.  You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.  I have better chances of winning the lottery.  I honestly don't have an idea - every one I have thought of that I could do is being done.  Sometimes by more than one company.  There is no "fault" here, no lack of trying, no "ghetto mentality".  And to assume that there is, is insulting.

When the economy is trashed, the country is at war, people doing what they can but it is never enough, and someone who has plenty of money - they were born into a trust fund, they get over the top compensation while their employees are on food stamps - is unwilling to contribute a little more to the pot....... I'm supposed to think this is fine and wonderful?  When the person has so damn much money they couldn't spend it all if they tried?

In my post to BS, I stated what I thought would be fair.  I still think it is fair.  I am not for taking someone's hard earned money away.  I do not want to increase taxes on people who are making a decent wage / profit.  But if you could feed that third world country for a year, you are rich and it won't hurt you to help at home a little more.

And I think it makes more sense to have a centralized - usually governmental - place to get help when you need it.  Many states now have it set up so you contact one office and you get what you need and qualify for.  Much more efficient than attempting to contact hundreds of charities and figuring out whether or not this one is going to help or is only helping one eyed black Jewish male comedians this month.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Burnedout wrote:Not

cj wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

Not trying to be snarky...but I have seen the word 'Rich' used as a pejorative to put down ANYBODY with wealth....kind of like the way people will use the 'N' word to describe black people.  It is like the 'Rich' is the new minority to hate. 

Yeah, I've heard them, too.  I don't worry about it - those who bitch will find something else to bitch about in a while.  We are all of us stereotyped in one way or another. 

I think what makes most people angry is the obvious disparity in income and the lack of compassion.

It's not the disparity in income at all for me -- it's the flagrant lies and the blatant exploitation of the United States for the personal gain of a few.

It all started when "Union" became a dirty word and when "Cheaper!" became a mantra.

The only power employees have to counteract management is organization -- solidarity between members of the working class.  When the race to the bottom for "price" started it was a foregone conclusion that unemployment was going to rise and the economy was going to crumble.  I spent a bit of time on the phone with my cable television company asking them why they thought it was okay to charge me more than they charge some new customer.  The reason "Why" is because they can.  Because they know that =reasonable= people don't dump their service providers every chance they get, just so they can get a better deal for a limited period of time.  "Loyalty" is completely obsolete as a concept.  "Get while the getting is good!" is the new business plan.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:cj

FurryCatHerder wrote:

cj wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

Not trying to be snarky...but I have seen the word 'Rich' used as a pejorative to put down ANYBODY with wealth....kind of like the way people will use the 'N' word to describe black people.  It is like the 'Rich' is the new minority to hate. 

Yeah, I've heard them, too.  I don't worry about it - those who bitch will find something else to bitch about in a while.  We are all of us stereotyped in one way or another. 

I think what makes most people angry is the obvious disparity in income and the lack of compassion.

It's not the disparity in income at all for me -- it's the flagrant lies and the blatant exploitation of the United States for the personal gain of a few.

It all started when "Union" became a dirty word and when "Cheaper!" became a mantra.

The only power employees have to counteract management is organization -- solidarity between members of the working class.  When the race to the bottom for "price" started it was a foregone conclusion that unemployment was going to rise and the economy was going to crumble.  I spent a bit of time on the phone with my cable television company asking them why they thought it was okay to charge me more than they charge some new customer.  The reason "Why" is because they can.  Because they know that =reasonable= people don't dump their service providers every chance they get, just so they can get a better deal for a limited period of time.  "Loyalty" is completely obsolete as a concept.  "Get while the getting is good!" is the new business plan.

 

I agree that is another very good reason for losing it.  Unions are not horrible - they can be not good just like every other organization put together by humans - including business and corporations.  They are the only way the employee has of negotiating with their employer and not getting fired for their efforts.

There are a couple of things about loyalty. 

1 - Make things cheaply so people will have to purchase replacements more often.  We were given a Norge refrigerator.  It was from the 60s.  We finally got rid of it about 4 years ago - it was still working but was really broke up inside.  We had moved it, laid it on its side.  Not a problem.  Newer refrigerators that would be not good.  Our electric bill dropped almost $10 a month when it was gone.  Norge is now out of business - has been for years.  Can you guess why?

2 - someone sued a corporation they had stock in because the corporation was not maximizing profits and therefore his dividends.  Now as I understand, Congress made a law.  Corporations must maximize profit.  And so we get short term - very short term - like once a quarter - planning.  Not conducive to loyalty to customers or anything else but money.

The only place you will find loyalty is with the small businesses.  Where the owner knows their customers, feels some loyalty to them, and wants to carry the best for people who may be personal friends as well as customers.

I'm sure there are more good and valid reasons for being angry with the "rich" and other bastards, but I didn't want to write a book.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Everyone tells me that the big problem is companies are not paying a "livable wage". The only definition I get from people is generalities about being enough for people to pay bills etc. That is a useless definition because everyone has different needs. For a single healthy 18 year old $10,000 per year may be sufficient to live on. For a 30 something single mother obviously $10,000 isn't going to cut it. Everyone assures me that most companies don't pay a livable wage.

What is a "livable wage", how would I go about calculating it? How do I determine whether I, as an employer, am paying a livable wage?

To take it one step further, suppose you were an employer- what methodology would you use to determine what to pay your employees? I am told I do it wrong, but no one has offered me any alternatives.

Another term that makes no rational sense but is thrown at me time and again is "fair share". What is a "fair share" of taxation? How do I determine whether or not I am paying my "fair share"? Suppose someone makes $1 billion, what should they pay in taxes? $1 million? $500k? $250k? $100k? $50k? $25k? $10k?

One has to ask if those complaining about companies hiring at the lowest pay they can are the same people who spent December hunting for the lowest prices. If employers are obligated to pay a "living wage" are not customers obligated to pay prices that make paying that wage possible?

It is all political pandering.

Are CEOs being paid too much? I'll tell you what. I will run IBM for only $100,000 a year. I have made them this offer. I have no idea why they have not taken me up on it. Look at all the money they will save. After all, what do qualifications have to do with it? Same goes for the local fast food places. They need employees but business is slow. Why are not people volunteering to work at reduced wages to help them out? I am making that kind of offer to IBM. It seems only fair.

It is all political pandering.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I'd say $15 an hour coupled

I'd say $15 an hour coupled with a forced direct tie-in to inflation (wages go up with inflation, at the same rate) would be a livable, fair minimum wage.

Someone who makes a billion shouldn't have to pay more per $ in taxes, yet neither should they be permitted to keep it for themselves. They didn't make it, the people did. Most likely all they did was finance it, which anyone could do with enough money. And which money was also made by the people.
They should be entitled to a payout, certainly. But the majority of those profits should be reinvested instead of locked in a rich assholes bank. Noone on the planet has a credible argument for someone taking home a billion dollars, enough to feed a billion people for anywhere between a day and indefinitely.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
1- A Livable wage depends

1- A Livable wage depends somewhat on geography,,, for instance, here in NJ, my wife and I pay over a thousand $ a month in property taxes... thats before our mortgage... I am a blue collar guy... the union scale for what I do is usually less in other parts of the country. ... not to mention that it is also a job specific concept... I don't think that anyone believes that a short order cook in a diner should get the same pay scale as a gourmet chef. Entry level jobs probably shouldn't be obligated to pay a scale that will allow someone to buy an house and raise a family of four... our system has flourished because it inspires upward mobility.

 

2- The criteria to establish a pay scale can be based on the market value in a specific region.... and an employer can make individual determinations from there. Cartainly, this is an "employers market" as far as pay scale goes...

 

3-"Fair share" is certainly an ambiguous term.... and perhaps I'm being naive, but a simplified tax code that eliminates *all* loopholes (including mortgage deductions and children), and where every dollar earned is taxed at the same rate can be boiled down to simple math. How much does it take to run federal, state and local government.... and what is the GNP... divide, and we have our rate.

 

Of course, I am open to change my mind should anyone present a more reasonable case


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:1- A

Rich Woods wrote:

1- A Livable wage depends somewhat on geography,,, for instance, here in NJ, my wife and I pay over a thousand $ a month in property taxes... thats before our mortgage... I am a blue collar guy... the union scale for what I do is usually less in other parts of the country. ... not to mention that it is also a job specific concept... I don't think that anyone believes that a short order cook in a diner should get the same pay scale as a gourmet chef. Entry level jobs probably shouldn't be obligated to pay a scale that will allow someone to buy an house and raise a family of four... our system has flourished because it inspires upward mobility.

 

Why should anyone be given a raise that has not earned a raise?  What have they done to improve production or produce more sales, or be more efficient beyond expectations?  That is when they deserve a raise.  Otherwise, they are paid what the market will bear.  If you start forcing wage laws then you force many businesses to go out of business.  The opportunity cost goes too high. 

 

Quote:
2- The criteria to establish a pay scale can be based on the market value in a specific region.... and an employer can make individual determinations from there. Cartainly, this is an "employers market" as far as pay scale goes...

Yes...and any time the government tries to interfere, the more it costs to run a company, the fewer companies want to come in or current ones expand and thus it retards job growth. 

 

Quote:
3-"Fair share" is certainly an ambiguous term.... and perhaps I'm being naive, but a simplified tax code that eliminates *all* loopholes (including mortgage deductions and children), and where every dollar earned is taxed at the same rate can be boiled down to simple math. How much does it take to run federal, state and local government.... and what is the GNP... divide, and we have our rate.

"Fair share" is simply buzz word justification to have the government come in and effectively stick a gun in your face and extort, rob, steal YOUR money under color of law and call it "Taxation" or the new modern term...."Revenue Enhancement". 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Rich Woods

Burnedout wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

1- A Livable wage depends somewhat on geography,,, for instance, here in NJ, my wife and I pay over a thousand $ a month in property taxes... thats before our mortgage... I am a blue collar guy... the union scale for what I do is usually less in other parts of the country. ... not to mention that it is also a job specific concept... I don't think that anyone believes that a short order cook in a diner should get the same pay scale as a gourmet chef. Entry level jobs probably shouldn't be obligated to pay a scale that will allow someone to buy an house and raise a family of four... our system has flourished because it inspires upward mobility.

 

Why should anyone be given a raise that has not earned a raise?  What have they done to improve production or produce more sales, or be more efficient beyond expectations?  That is when they deserve a raise.  Otherwise, they are paid what the market will bear.  If you start forcing wage laws then you force many businesses to go out of business.  The opportunity cost goes too high. 

 

Quote:
2- The criteria to establish a pay scale can be based on the market value in a specific region.... and an employer can make individual determinations from there. Cartainly, this is an "employers market" as far as pay scale goes...

Yes...and any time the government tries to interfere, the more it costs to run a company, the fewer companies want to come in or current ones expand and thus it retards job growth. 

 

Quote:
3-"Fair share" is certainly an ambiguous term.... and perhaps I'm being naive, but a simplified tax code that eliminates *all* loopholes (including mortgage deductions and children), and where every dollar earned is taxed at the same rate can be boiled down to simple math. How much does it take to run federal, state and local government.... and what is the GNP... divide, and we have our rate.

"Fair share" is simply buzz word justification to have the government come in and effectively stick a gun in your face and extort, rob, steal YOUR money under color of law and call it "Taxation" or the new modern term...."Revenue Enhancement". 

 

 

1.If raises are given for earning them there would be less of an issue. Most raises are given out based on how well the person trying for the raise kisses ass. Or in the case of the corporate boards and Congress - they vote it for themselves.

2. There is almost no government regulation now so job growth should be through the roof by your logic. Why isn't that happening?

3. And "job growth" is a buzzword for higher unemployment...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
   Quote:1.If raises are

 


 

 

Quote:

1.If raises are given for earning them there would be less of an issue. Most raises are given out based on how well the person trying for the raise kisses ass. Or in the case of the corporate boards and Congress - they vote it for themselves.

That is why people are free to work else where.  Also, if the bosses are shitty, why whine...fuck with them personally....I have when I worked a job and before i got into business for myself.  Besides, what if that is all people really want to earn? 

Quote:
2. There is almost no government regulation now so job growth should be through the roof by your logic. Why isn't that happening?

Ahhh....tell me your kidding right?  Have you ever tried to go into something as timeless as farming?  Try going over 2200....YES...2200 pages of regulations and some of them from different agencies that conflict.  That  is just for a SMALL FARM.  Ever try to open a mechanic shop to work on cars?  Try looking at more than 2000 pages there.  "No government regulations" MY ASS. 

Quote:
3. And "job growth" is a buzzword for higher unemployment...

Now you're really joking.  Look at the definitions of "Job Growth" and "Unemployment"....you might find a slightly different definition....Eye-wink


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I do think that a lot of the

I do think that a lot of the bigwigs are raping our economy.  I'm firmly behind the idea of fixing that.

What gets under my skin is when someone sits around working in a craptastic job for craptastic wages and takes out their frustrations on small business owners.  I've heard it so many times from people that barely have a high school education, aren't doing anything to improve their lot in life, and would rather just complain all day.

When I got out of the Navy in the beginning of '03 the economy was not good.  Three years previous other guys in my rate where getting free steak dinners from potential employers and walking off the ship for the last time with a job already waiting on them.  When I got out I would go to an interview where they were hiring 3 or 4 people and there were 30 other people coming out of the Navy in my same rate sitting in the waiting room.  Just not a good situation.

So I applied for my GI Bill and went to school.  I got an Associates in IT and during that my first child was born.

After I received my Assoc I moved my family back to Texas and ended up in a job where the pay was lousy, the owner was a Billionaire, and the health insurance that I paid a huge chunk of my crappy paycheck too was worse than worthless.

The Health Insurance would deny every claim.  Every single one.  For anything.  Just really bad.

So what did I do?  I continued working full time, I went to school full time, and I helped out with now two little ones in diapers.  I came home every day and cleaned the kitchen, wiped butts, etc., etc.  But I still managed to make a 4.84 GPA out of a 5.0 grading scale.

So I got my Bachelor's in IT.  By the time I had that my pay at that job was 25% higher than it was starting off but still not good pay.  I wanted a higher position that made more money.  They denied it to me.

So I took my new degree and experience there and found another job with much better health insurance and an immediate 20% pay increase.  What was funny was that while I was working on finding that job I sat around listening to a coworker bitch all day long every day about how crappy our jobs were and how there were "no other jobs out there".  While he sat there and bitched I got a better job.

I worked at that new job for a year and a half (super stressful environment) and then moved on to another job with another 25% pay increase, great insurance, freaking awesome 401k (in less than two years I had already amassed 15k in the 401), hardly a drop of stress, etc.

You can do this in America.  Minimum wage?  Jeeze I couldn't live anywhere near that.  And I'm not rich, I don't hardly ever buy anything, I stress about bills all the time.

So now I'm looking for a secondary job which I plan to work at for at least a few years while I eliminate all of our debt and build us up a bank account that provides us some security.  After I get that accomplished I can look over my job prospects and see what my next move is.

I'm not going to just sit around bitching because some jerks are paying their employees crappy wages.  And I'm sure as hell not going to be an employee for any of those jerks.  That's entry level crap.  Let the kids deal with that.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:I do think

Watcher wrote:

I do think that a lot of the bigwigs are raping our economy.  I'm firmly behind the idea of fixing that.

What gets under my skin is when someone sits around working in a craptastic job for craptastic wages and takes out their frustrations on small business owners.  I've heard it so many times from people that barely have a high school education, aren't doing anything to improve their lot in life, and would rather just complain all day.

When I got out of the Navy in the beginning of '03 the economy was not good.  Three years previous other guys in my rate where getting free steak dinners from potential employers and walking off the ship for the last time with a job already waiting on them.  When I got out I would go to an interview where they were hiring 3 or 4 people and there were 30 other people coming out of the Navy in my same rate sitting in the waiting room.  Just not a good situation.

So I applied for my GI Bill and went to school.  I got an Associates in IT and during that my first child was born.

After I received my Assoc I moved my family back to Texas and ended up in a job where the pay was lousy, the owner was a Billionaire, and the health insurance that I paid a huge chunk of my crappy paycheck too was worse than worthless.

The Health Insurance would deny every claim.  Every single one.  For anything.  Just really bad.

So what did I do?  I continued working full time, I went to school full time, and I helped out with now two little ones in diapers.  I came home every day and cleaned the kitchen, wiped butts, etc., etc.  But I still managed to make a 4.84 GPA out of a 5.0 grading scale.

So I got my Bachelor's in IT.  By the time I had that my pay at that job was 25% higher than it was starting off but still not good pay.  I wanted a higher position that made more money.  They denied it to me.

So I took my new degree and experience there and found another job with much better health insurance and an immediate 20% pay increase.  What was funny was that while I was working on finding that job I sat around listening to a coworker bitch all day long every day about how crappy our jobs were and how there were "no other jobs out there".  While he sat there and bitched I got a better job.

I worked at that new job for a year and a half (super stressful environment) and then moved on to another job with another 25% pay increase, great insurance, freaking awesome 401k (in less than two years I had already amassed 15k in the 401), hardly a drop of stress, etc.

You can do this in America.  Minimum wage?  Jeeze I couldn't live anywhere near that.  And I'm not rich, I don't hardly ever buy anything, I stress about bills all the time.

So now I'm looking for a secondary job which I plan to work at for at least a few years while I eliminate all of our debt and build us up a bank account that provides us some security.  After I get that accomplished I can look over my job prospects and see what my next move is.

I'm not going to just sit around bitching because some jerks are paying their employees crappy wages.  And I'm sure as hell not going to be an employee for any of those jerks.  That's entry level crap.  Let the kids deal with that.

 

APPLAUSE FOR YOU!!!!!

 

I have a similar story.  I graduated from college back in the dark ages...1989.  The economy sucked then.  My first job was in sales and had a base salary (training wage later to go to strait commission) of just $12,000.  The guy was an ok guy but his business was not doing good.  I left there, went to work in sales selling institutional janitorial cleaning supplies and chemicals to contract and institutional accounts.  That boss was an idiot and ran off good sales people and consequently he lost his ass and sold out and became the manager and they fired his ass.  I later worked as a manufacturers rep organization selling outdoor sporting goods over a large 4 state region.  I enjoyed that and the boss was wonderful to work for as he never said a cross word to me or gave me short shrift on anything and we are even friends to this day many years later.  The only problem was that for anyone to make any money in that industry you either had to be a direct rep (one who owned the agency) or a manufacturer.  I worked selling large capital equipment and the bosses only way of teaching you anything was yelling at you like a marine corp drill instructor.  I left there and got into business for myself and have never looked back.  That was 11 years ago.  That is not everything I have done, merely a thumbnail sketch of what I have done.  You don't HAVE to work for someplace shitty, you can go elsewhere. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout

Burnedout wrote:

 

 

 

 

Quote:

1.If raises are given for earning them there would be less of an issue. Most raises are given out based on how well the person trying for the raise kisses ass. Or in the case of the corporate boards and Congress - they vote it for themselves.

That is why people are free to work else where.  Also, if the bosses are shitty, why whine...fuck with them personally....I have when I worked a job and before i got into business for myself.  Besides, what if that is all people really want to earn? 

Quote:
2. There is almost no government regulation now so job growth should be through the roof by your logic. Why isn't that happening?

Ahhh....tell me your kidding right?  Have you ever tried to go into something as timeless as farming?  Try going over 2200....YES...2200 pages of regulations and some of them from different agencies that conflict.  That  is just for a SMALL FARM.  Ever try to open a mechanic shop to work on cars?  Try looking at more than 2000 pages there.  "No government regulations" MY ASS. 

Quote:
3. And "job growth" is a buzzword for higher unemployment...

Now you're really joking.  Look at the definitions of "Job Growth" and "Unemployment"....you might find a slightly different definition....Eye-wink

1. Spoken like someone who has never been in the job market - did daddy give you your company?

2. The regulations are on the farmers - not the agribusiness conglomerates who they work for. You like punishing the little guys, huh?

3. I used your dictionary -  you're the one that says that big corporations grow jobs while people are losing jobs in droves. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1. Spoken like someone

Quote:
1. Spoken like someone who has never been in the job market - did daddy give you your company?

Psst...try reading my previous post.

Quote:
2. The regulations are on the farmers - not the agribusiness conglomerates who they work for. You like punishing the little guys, huh?

I dare you to go and tell a farmer his farm is not a business.

Quote:
3. I used your dictionary -  you're the one that says that big corporations grow jobs while people are losing jobs in droves.

Ahh....show me where I said "big corporations" grow jobs.....try learning to read.....Eye-wink


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Quote:1.

Burnedout wrote:

Quote:
1. Spoken like someone who has never been in the job market - did daddy give you your company?

Psst...try reading my previous post.

Quote:
2. The regulations are on the farmers - not the agribusiness conglomerates who they work for. You like punishing the little guys, huh?

I dare you to go and tell a farmer his farm is not a business.

Quote:
3. I used your dictionary -  you're the one that says that big corporations grow jobs while people are losing jobs in droves.

Ahh....show me where I said "big corporations" grow jobs.....try learning to read.....Eye-wink

I did. You're incorrect in your assumptions.

Should I go look in the mirror or find another farmer? 

If I got that last wrong I apologize.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Quote:1.If

Burnedout wrote:

Quote:

1.If raises are given for earning them there would be less of an issue. Most raises are given out based on how well the person trying for the raise kisses ass. Or in the case of the corporate boards and Congress - they vote it for themselves.

That is why people are free to work else where.  Also, if the bosses are shitty, why whine...fuck with them personally....I have when I worked a job and before i got into business for myself.  Besides, what if that is all people really want to earn?

People are free to work elsewhere the same way that poor people are free to sleep in a nice warm bed.  Which is to say, there's nothing which insures that people =can= work elsewhere.

I'm pushing 50.  I worked on software that makes the Internet run in a reasonable manner.  I have a C.V. that is so impressive, there are people who just plain don't believe it's real, but I have enough government documents proving it's real that I have been known to attach them to my resume to make sure people get that it's a real C.V.

Do you want to know how hard it is for a 50 year old, female, highly experienced software engineer to get a job in software engineering?  Let me put it another way -- I don't know =anyone= who is over 40, well-experienced in the software engineering field, who has been laid off =and= gone back to find another job in their previous field.  NONE.  I know very few =women= who manage to stay in software development within software engineering, many of them being pushed into non-development positions.  I was in a department with 120 or so other engineers during a reduction in force.  Of the 10 people who were transferred out to other areas, 9 were women, and the other was a gay man with a similarly impressive background.  Of the remaining 110 engineers, let's just say that the percentage of the group that were women or queers went down by a LOT.  As in, I think there were 3 or 4 women left, and no openly gay or lesbian engineers.

Quote:
Quote:
2. There is almost no government regulation now so job growth should be through the roof by your logic. Why isn't that happening?

Ahhh....tell me your kidding right?  Have you ever tried to go into something as timeless as farming?  Try going over 2200....YES...2200 pages of regulations and some of them from different agencies that conflict.  That  is just for a SMALL FARM.  Ever try to open a mechanic shop to work on cars?  Try looking at more than 2000 pages there.  "No government regulations" MY ASS.

He's not at all kidding.

Most government regulations can be summed up as "If it seems illegal, it probably is."

My company makes stuff -- software and electronic hardware, with some "non-electronic" hardware as well.  I avoid all manner of regulations by doing "RoHS Compliant" manufacturing.  Other parts of what I make are fabricated by others using my designs, and they have to deal with the regulations.  My purchasing costs are still well-below what I'd be paying if I bought off-the-shelf, so I must be doing something right.  I have fewer than whatever the limit of employees is before the employment related regulations kick in.  Many of those regulations can be avoided by outsourcing HR and payroll duties to any number of 3rd parties.  Because small businesses can't afford full-time payroll and HR staffs, this is a win-win anyway.

Quote:
Quote:
3. And "job growth" is a buzzword for higher unemployment...

Now you're really joking.  Look at the definitions of "Job Growth" and "Unemployment"....you might find a slightly different definition....Eye-wink

I'm not sure what he's referring to, but most of what the "Job Creators" are all for is finding ways to maintain high unemployment as a means of driving wages down.  That's been the trend for about 15 years now, ever since companies discovered "Off-Shoring" in earnest.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

Quote:

1.If raises are given for earning them there would be less of an issue. Most raises are given out based on how well the person trying for the raise kisses ass. Or in the case of the corporate boards and Congress - they vote it for themselves.

That is why people are free to work else where.  Also, if the bosses are shitty, why whine...fuck with them personally....I have when I worked a job and before i got into business for myself.  Besides, what if that is all people really want to earn?

People are free to work elsewhere the same way that poor people are free to sleep in a nice warm bed.  Which is to say, there's nothing which insures that people =can= work elsewhere.

I'm pushing 50.  I worked on software that makes the Internet run in a reasonable manner.  I have a C.V. that is so impressive, there are people who just plain don't believe it's real, but I have enough government documents proving it's real that I have been known to attach them to my resume to make sure people get that it's a real C.V.

Do you want to know how hard it is for a 50 year old, female, highly experienced software engineer to get a job in software engineering?  Let me put it another way -- I don't know =anyone= who is over 40, well-experienced in the software engineering field, who has been laid off =and= gone back to find another job in their previous field.  NONE.  I know very few =women= who manage to stay in software development within software engineering, many of them being pushed into non-development positions.  I was in a department with 120 or so other engineers during a reduction in force.  Of the 10 people who were transferred out to other areas, 9 were women, and the other was a gay man with a similarly impressive background.  Of the remaining 110 engineers, let's just say that the percentage of the group that were women or queers went down by a LOT.  As in, I think there were 3 or 4 women left, and no openly gay or lesbian engineers.

Quote:
Quote:
2. There is almost no government regulation now so job growth should be through the roof by your logic. Why isn't that happening?

Ahhh....tell me your kidding right?  Have you ever tried to go into something as timeless as farming?  Try going over 2200....YES...2200 pages of regulations and some of them from different agencies that conflict.  That  is just for a SMALL FARM.  Ever try to open a mechanic shop to work on cars?  Try looking at more than 2000 pages there.  "No government regulations" MY ASS.

He's not at all kidding.

Most government regulations can be summed up as "If it seems illegal, it probably is."

My company makes stuff -- software and electronic hardware, with some "non-electronic" hardware as well.  I avoid all manner of regulations by doing "RoHS Compliant" manufacturing.  Other parts of what I make are fabricated by others using my designs, and they have to deal with the regulations.  My purchasing costs are still well-below what I'd be paying if I bought off-the-shelf, so I must be doing something right.  I have fewer than whatever the limit of employees is before the employment related regulations kick in.  Many of those regulations can be avoided by outsourcing HR and payroll duties to any number of 3rd parties.  Because small businesses can't afford full-time payroll and HR staffs, this is a win-win anyway.

Quote:
Quote:
3. And "job growth" is a buzzword for higher unemployment...

Now you're really joking.  Look at the definitions of "Job Growth" and "Unemployment"....you might find a slightly different definition....Eye-wink

I'm not sure what he's referring to, but most of what the "Job Creators" are all for is finding ways to maintain high unemployment as a means of driving wages down.  That's been the trend for about 15 years now, ever since companies discovered "Off-Shoring" in earnest.

Thanks Furry. That's what I was shooting for. Next time I'll think it and let you say it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

Quote:

1.If raises are given for earning them there would be less of an issue. Most raises are given out based on how well the person trying for the raise kisses ass. Or in the case of the corporate boards and Congress - they vote it for themselves.

That is why people are free to work else where.  Also, if the bosses are shitty, why whine...fuck with them personally....I have when I worked a job and before i got into business for myself.  Besides, what if that is all people really want to earn?

People are free to work elsewhere the same way that poor people are free to sleep in a nice warm bed.  Which is to say, there's nothing which insures that people =can= work elsewhere.

I'm pushing 50.  I worked on software that makes the Internet run in a reasonable manner.  I have a C.V. that is so impressive, there are people who just plain don't believe it's real, but I have enough government documents proving it's real that I have been known to attach them to my resume to make sure people get that it's a real C.V.

Do you want to know how hard it is for a 50 year old, female, highly experienced software engineer to get a job in software engineering?  Let me put it another way -- I don't know =anyone= who is over 40, well-experienced in the software engineering field, who has been laid off =and= gone back to find another job in their previous field.  NONE.  I know very few =women= who manage to stay in software development within software engineering, many of them being pushed into non-development positions.  I was in a department with 120 or so other engineers during a reduction in force.  Of the 10 people who were transferred out to other areas, 9 were women, and the other was a gay man with a similarly impressive background.  Of the remaining 110 engineers, let's just say that the percentage of the group that were women or queers went down by a LOT.  As in, I think there were 3 or 4 women left, and no openly gay or lesbian engineers.

Quote:
Quote:
2. There is almost no government regulation now so job growth should be through the roof by your logic. Why isn't that happening?

Ahhh....tell me your kidding right?  Have you ever tried to go into something as timeless as farming?  Try going over 2200....YES...2200 pages of regulations and some of them from different agencies that conflict.  That  is just for a SMALL FARM.  Ever try to open a mechanic shop to work on cars?  Try looking at more than 2000 pages there.  "No government regulations" MY ASS.

He's not at all kidding.

Most government regulations can be summed up as "If it seems illegal, it probably is."

My company makes stuff -- software and electronic hardware, with some "non-electronic" hardware as well.  I avoid all manner of regulations by doing "RoHS Compliant" manufacturing.  Other parts of what I make are fabricated by others using my designs, and they have to deal with the regulations.  My purchasing costs are still well-below what I'd be paying if I bought off-the-shelf, so I must be doing something right.  I have fewer than whatever the limit of employees is before the employment related regulations kick in.  Many of those regulations can be avoided by outsourcing HR and payroll duties to any number of 3rd parties.  Because small businesses can't afford full-time payroll and HR staffs, this is a win-win anyway.

Quote:
Quote:
3. And "job growth" is a buzzword for higher unemployment...

Now you're really joking.  Look at the definitions of "Job Growth" and "Unemployment"....you might find a slightly different definition....Eye-wink

I'm not sure what he's referring to, but most of what the "Job Creators" are all for is finding ways to maintain high unemployment as a means of driving wages down.  That's been the trend for about 15 years now, ever since companies discovered "Off-Shoring" in earnest.

Not trying to be snarky here....but seriously....have you ever considered going into your own business?  You have the ability and credentials to go the self employment route.  I know of MANY contract engineers in other fields who do that and do quite well.  I know one who is an engineer, though not in your field, but he employs other engineers.  He is a mining engineer.  Also, if you can get into medical software, perhaps as a consultant or trouble shooter, you can make some big bucks.  My sister works for a medical software company and she has use contractors all the time.  No kidding. 

 

As for the lower wages you are referring to.  There is a way to protect American workers...do what has been done all through the history of the USA, use tarrifs on foreign goods to be equal with that of American goods, not higher, not to punish them, but to match price wise what we use here.  That alone used to pay for our military. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 And all you need is

 And all you need is start-up capital which is difficult when you have to decide which bills to pay...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Burnedout
Posts: 165
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: And all you

jcgadfly wrote:

 And all you need is start-up capital which is difficult when you have to decide which bills to pay...

 

Not necessarily.  You can start out by leasing it by the month.  If you get a client or two, that will get you going. 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Thanks Furry.

jcgadfly wrote:

Thanks Furry. That's what I was shooting for. Next time I'll think it and let you say it.

Not G-d, can't read your mind Eye-wink

But seriously -- they know =exactly= what they are doing and they know =exactly= why it's destructive to the economy.  These aren't stupid people -- they know that if they keep going in the direction they are going there will either be armed insurrection (very likely in the next 2 to 5 years) or the Sheeple will relent.

I'm putting my money on Civil War in a few years.  No society has =ever= survived this level of economic inequality without civil war of some sort breaking out, and the Monied Elite are so deluded as to believe the Sheeple can't shoot straight because they are a bunch of whiny Liberals.

I have clients who are End Of The Worlders and when I tell them they'd better own a rifle with a scope and be able to shoot people from 300+ yards, they look at me like I'm insane.  If I was a billionaire, I'd be working on my sniper skills because that's what they need to be working on, not their investment portfolio.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:jcgadfly

Burnedout wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 And all you need is start-up capital which is difficult when you have to decide which bills to pay...

Not necessarily.  You can start out by leasing it by the month.  If you get a client or two, that will get you going. 

You're dead wrong -- when I started my company I was told that not only did I have =zero= credit, I wouldn't have any credit for the first few years.

I tried the SBA route, but even though SBA loans are supposed to be a last resort for small businesses, they require some amount of credit, which many small business owners don't and won't have.

The are major structural obstacles to even =starting= a real company.  Other obstacles are more "cultural" where large companies know that small companies are desperate for clients and they use that to negotiate pricing that results in insufficient cash flow to actually grow.  The result can be higher volumes, but the margins can be forced to be razor thin, driving many new businesses OUT of business the first time there is an unexpected expense.

My first company was bankrupted by such a client -- I explained that I might not be able to get him the results he wanted, and I told him that I was going to try my best, but that if I failed, he needed to pay my hourly rate anyway.  The alternative would have been hiring someone far more expensive and not trying to save many thousands of dollars.  When I finally gave up, I gave him an invoice, which he refused to pay.  I threw in the towel and wound up doing other work for someone else.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: And all you

jcgadfly wrote:

 And all you need is start-up capital which is difficult when you have to decide which bills to pay...

The most successful route to starting a new business is working part time, after a regular paying job.

But that requires a regular paying job.

In the present economy, businesses are using their economic power to hold down wages by holding down employment -- any industry that can be outsourced is using that threat to hold wages as flat, or declining, as possible.  Combined with economic extortion that businesses uses against smaller businesses, the result is an environment that is extremely hostile to new business growth, all without any interference at all from business.

Banks tried this stunt back in the 1800's and trashed the economy in the process.  It wasn't until the 1990's when they regained the sort of unbridled power they needed to once again hold the economy hostage, which they are doing an excellent job of doing.  Coupled with the abysmal educational system -- only the rich can afford to pay for a real education in which their children can see through the Neo-Con economic B.S. -- we're boned.

Consider this -- employees are a TAX DEDUCTION.  But what are the "Jobs Creators" demanding?  Lower taxes.  Why do they want lower taxes?  So they don't have to hire employees and can rake in excess profits without them being taxed.  Lower overhead (fewer employees) means more net income before taxes, but with high tax rates, they don't get to keep as much.  So, they want lower taxes in order to reap the benefits of exploiting cheap labor in India and China, while keeping prices at the same level they'd be at if American or 1st World labor was used.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:.It's

FurryCatHerder wrote:

.It's not the disparity in income at all for me -- it's the flagrant lies and the blatant exploitation of the United States for the personal gain of a few.

It all started when "Union" became a dirty word and when "Cheaper!" became a mantra.

Why is Union any different than a corporation that tries to create a monopoly in order to set prices?

Except of course when you go shopping. The mantra was driven by consumers like yourself.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The only power employees have to counteract management is organization -- solidarity between members of the working class.  When the race to the bottom for "price" started it was a foregone conclusion that unemployment was going to rise and the economy was going to crumble.  I spent a bit of time on the phone with my cable television company asking them why they thought it was okay to charge me more than they charge some new customer.  The reason "Why" is because they can.  Because they know that =reasonable= people don't dump their service providers every chance they get, just so they can get a better deal for a limited period of time.  "Loyalty" is completely obsolete as a concept.  "Get while the getting is good!" is the new business plan.

But the corporations can go to Mexico or some other such place desperate for any kind of work at any kind of wage without Unions. The corporation can install automation equipment to eliminate high wage union jobs. So unions are pointless they kill their own jobs.

So isn't the real enemy too much competition in the world driven by overpopulation?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:. But the

Vastet wrote:
. But the majority of those profits should be reinvested instead of locked in a rich assholes bank. Noone on the planet has a credible argument for someone taking home a billion dollars, enough to feed a billion people for anywhere between a day and indefinitely.

Except me of course.

Just feeding the poor creates a massive moral hazard. You fill their bellies once then what? The rich whose money took change their behavior so you can't take any more. The poor just keep their 'ghetto mentality' that leads to people with no job skill, no work ethic and having large families they can't afford.

Depends on what is done with the 'billion dollars' and how they made the billion. They often reinvent in new companies, hiring people. The rich are the only ones that can afford to invest in technology and infrastructure. If you give money to the poor, all you have is more more money trying to buy the same amount of limited food in the world. So all you do is drive up prices of basic commodities and fail to do any investment. The money would just end up with big business anyways because the poor would spend it all right away.

The problem of the rich is allowing them to monopolize natural resources the problem of the poor is allowing them to not develop any job skills and increase population pressures. The only solution is don't let rich buy up natural resources and don't allow overpopulation by the poor.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:FurryCatHerder

EXC wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

.It's not the disparity in income at all for me -- it's the flagrant lies and the blatant exploitation of the United States for the personal gain of a few.

It all started when "Union" became a dirty word and when "Cheaper!" became a mantra.

Why is Union any different than a corporation that tries to create a monopoly in order to set prices?

A union is a bunch of people, acting together, for their own interests.  As a group, a union presents a more equal "bargaining force" than any one individual employee.  That's all.  It's just Freedom of Association.  A basic Human Right Eye-wink

Quote:
Except of course when you go shopping. The mantra was driven by consumers like yourself.

Actually ... not.  I recognized from the time I was a teenager that if you shop for =value= and not for =price= that everything tends to work out better in the long run.  "Value based" purchases tend to reduce total cost of ownership, while "cost based" purchases tend to reduce =current= costs with the possibility of far greater long term ("total cost&quotEye-wink expenses.

Or put another way -- the most recent piece of Not Cheap Chinese Crap electronic gear that broke was a cassette deck I bought in 1989.  Did I pay a pretty penny for it 22 years ago?  Yup.  Did it last until well past the point where most people were even bothering with cassette tapes?  Yup.  Could I likely have it repaired so it would last another 10 or 20 years?  Yup -- except that I pretty much don't use cassette tapes anymore.

Quote:
But the corporations can go to Mexico or some other such place desperate for any kind of work at any kind of wage without Unions. The corporation can install automation equipment to eliminate high wage union jobs. So unions are pointless they kill their own jobs.

"Automation kills jobs" is a myth -- someone has to build the machines that makes the stuff.  Someone has to service the machines.  Someone has to operate or supervise the machines.  Automation increases the level of education needed, but "life" has already done that.  We don't seem to have fallen completely apart as a civilization because machines are doing what people once did, or what people could never do.

Quote:
So isn't the real enemy too much competition in the world driven by overpopulation?

Not at all -- if you look at India and China, the economic issues caused by out-sourcing are caused by companies that are sending jobs to places which don't have "consumers".  The solution is simple -- get India and China to modernize their own countries.  Consume internally.  Build their own infrastructure for themselves.  With something like 2.5 billion people, there are plenty of business opportunities INTERNALLY, and plenty of social good that could come about by doing so.  The vast majority of people in both India and China don't have clean, running drinking water.  Many don't have electricity, access to health care, clean air, clean water, or clean much of anything else.

What they are doing is UNSUSTAINABLE, and is only being done to maximize corporate profits for Western businesses.  If they'd focus on their own people, their standard of living would rise and Western jobs would cease being farmed out to the lowest bidder, which is typically either slave labor or close to it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Ask the ex small

cj wrote:

Ask the ex small business owners in Ephrata, WA how easy it was to compete when Walmart moved into to town.  The local hardware stores, gift shops, grocery stores (even the Safeway) and health clinics all closed soon after Wally opened its doors.  When they were all out, the prices at Walmart took a big jump.  Surprise, surprise.

Prices based on commodities are always going up because the Fed institutes an illegal tax by just 'printing money' and giving it away to banks, thereby creating inflation. Also because we have illegal immigration driving up prices and driving down wages. But the people of your political persuasion don't seem to do anything about these problems.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:.A

FurryCatHerder wrote:

.A union is a bunch of people, acting together, for their own interests.  As a group, a union presents a more equal "bargaining force" than any one individual employee.  That's all.  It's just Freedom of Association.  A basic Human Right Eye-wink

But of course workers don't have a right of non-association with a Union. When will that become a 'basic human right'? Is there a magic sky daddy creating these 'rights'? Is intimidation people who cross picket lines with violence part the 'basic human right'?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Actually ... not.  I recognized from the time I was a teenager that if you shop for =value= and not for =price= that everything tends to work out better in the long run.  "Value based" purchases tend to reduce total cost of ownership, while "cost based" purchases tend to reduce =current= costs with the possibility of far greater long term ("total cost&quotEye-wink expenses.

Or put another way -- the most recent piece of Not Cheap Chinese Crap electronic gear that broke was a cassette deck I bought in 1989.  Did I pay a pretty penny for it 22 years ago?  Yup.  Did it last until well past the point where most people were even bothering with cassette tapes?  Yup.  Could I likely have it repaired so it would last another 10 or 20 years?  Yup -- except that I pretty much don't use cassette tapes anymore.

How does buying union add value? All it does is add cost. Unions protect the jobs of crappy workers making it difficult to fire them.  Your buy union theory doesn't hold water. Detroit was putting out crappy cars from union plants while Japan succeeded with technology and innovation without Unions. That's how we lost the auto industry.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

"Automation kills jobs" is a myth -- someone has to build the machines that makes the stuff. 

It kills Union jobs.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Someone has to service the machines.  Someone has to operate or supervise the machines.  Automation increases the level of education needed, but "life" has already done that.  We don't seem to have fallen completely apart as a civilization because machines are doing what people once did, or what people could never do.

And the problem is now our schools don't produce workers that can design, build, program and maintain these machines. Thanks the teachers' unions, we can't fire the teachers and schools responsible for this mess.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Not at all -- if you look at India and China, the economic issues caused by out-sourcing are caused by companies that are sending jobs to places which don't have "consumers". 

Because these countries are even more overpopulated with poor people. There are a great place to look for low wage workers. So overpopulation is the enemy, not coorporations. Outsourcing is just a symptom of the real problem of an overpopulated planet.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The solution is simple -- get India and China to modernize their own countries.  Consume internally.  Build their own infrastructure for themselves.  With something like 2.5 billion people, there are plenty of business opportunities INTERNALLY, and plenty of social good that could come about by doing so.  The vast majority of people in both India and China don't have clean, running drinking water.  Many don't have electricity, access to health care, clean air, clean water, or clean much of anything else.

How? The USA is broke. The left all want to tax the shit out the rich so they won't have any money to invest.

If you're a poor guy in India with a bunch of mouths to feed, what can you do except buy the cheapest food you can find and whatever outsourced job you can take, you only consume what you need to survive. China is finally on the road to real solution with a one child policy. The only hope to end all the economic despair in the world is for other coutries to start mandatory family planning.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

What they are doing is UNSUSTAINABLE, and is only being done to maximize corporate profits for Western businesses.  If they'd focus on their own people, their standard of living would rise and Western jobs would cease being farmed out to the lowest bidder, which is typically either slave labor or close to it.

Governments don't have magic wands. They only have men with guns to force people to do or not do something. What specifically should they do they are not doing now?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:FurryCatHerder

EXC wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

.A union is a bunch of people, acting together, for their own interests.  As a group, a union presents a more equal "bargaining force" than any one individual employee.  That's all.  It's just Freedom of Association.  A basic Human Right Eye-wink

But of course workers don't have a right of non-association with a Union. When will that become a 'basic human right'? Is there a magic sky daddy creating these 'rights'? Is intimidation people who cross picket lines with violence part the 'basic human right'?

They don't? Ever heard of open shops? Non -union workers get the benefits of union membership even if they speak out against it. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Actually ... not.  I recognized from the time I was a teenager that if you shop for =value= and not for =price= that everything tends to work out better in the long run.  "Value based" purchases tend to reduce total cost of ownership, while "cost based" purchases tend to reduce =current= costs with the possibility of far greater long term ("total cost&quotEye-wink expenses.

Or put another way -- the most recent piece of Not Cheap Chinese Crap electronic gear that broke was a cassette deck I bought in 1989.  Did I pay a pretty penny for it 22 years ago?  Yup.  Did it last until well past the point where most people were even bothering with cassette tapes?  Yup.  Could I likely have it repaired so it would last another 10 or 20 years?  Yup -- except that I pretty much don't use cassette tapes anymore.

How does buying union add value? All it does is add cost. Unions protect the jobs of crappy workers making it difficult to fire them.  Your buy union theory doesn't hold water. Detroit was putting out crappy cars from union plants while Japan succeeded with technology and innovation without Unions. That's how we lost the auto industry.

Back when corporations thought they benefited from having good materials put into a good product, buying union meant buying value. Now that it is far more important to make cheap crap so that it needs to be replaced I agree with you.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

"Automation kills jobs" is a myth -- someone has to build the machines that makes the stuff. 

It kills Union jobs.

Because corps believe it cheaper to pay a recent college grad than to train a worker who's familiar with the product.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Someone has to service the machines.  Someone has to operate or supervise the machines.  Automation increases the level of education needed, but "life" has already done that.  We don't seem to have fallen completely apart as a civilization because machines are doing what people once did, or what people could never do.

And the problem is now our schools don't produce workers that can design, build, program and maintain these machines. Thanks the teachers' unions, we can't fire the teachers and schools responsible for this mess.

Not a teacher's union problem. That's a problem of a government that insists that regurgitating for a standardized test is far more important than teaching skill and critical thinking.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Not at all -- if you look at India and China, the economic issues caused by out-sourcing are caused by companies that are sending jobs to places which don't have "consumers". 

Because these countries are even more overpopulated with poor people. There are a great place to look for low wage workers. So overpopulation is the enemy, not coorporations. Outsourcing is just a symptom of the real problem of an overpopulated planet.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The solution is simple -- get India and China to modernize their own countries.  Consume internally.  Build their own infrastructure for themselves.  With something like 2.5 billion people, there are plenty of business opportunities INTERNALLY, and plenty of social good that could come about by doing so.  The vast majority of people in both India and China don't have clean, running drinking water.  Many don't have electricity, access to health care, clean air, clean water, or clean much of anything else.

How? The USA is broke. The left all want to tax the shit out the rich so they won't have any money to invest.

If you're a poor guy in India with a bunch of mouths to feed, what can you do except buy the cheapest food you can find and whatever outsourced job you can take, you only consume what you need to survive. China is finally on the road to real solution with a one child policy. The only hope to end all the economic despair in the world is for other coutries to start mandatory family planning.

Moving up the tiny percentage to Clinton's levels would hardly break all the rich people. Of course, it's forgotten that at those tax levels the country prospered. You also assume that the outsourcing corps are actually helping the people in those countries prosper. The people who work for those companies get enough to maintain their level of squalor at best.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

What they are doing is UNSUSTAINABLE, and is only being done to maximize corporate profits for Western businesses.  If they'd focus on their own people, their standard of living would rise and Western jobs would cease being farmed out to the lowest bidder, which is typically either slave labor or close to it.

Governments don't have magic wands. They only have men with guns to force people to do or not do something. What specifically should they do they are not doing now?

Providing the basics (Shelter, Healthcare, Education and Food) for all Americans would be a good start. No guns required.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin