PDA

View Full Version : New recession or just stagflation?



WILDJOKER5
05-29-2014, 07:59 PM
Well, 5 years of this poor economy and yet nothing that the dems have done has produced a true recovery. More people in poverty, dismal GDP growth, more people out of work and on government assistance than ever before. So what do we do? Deny or slow down the production of raw materials on federal lands. Deny the building of a pipeline from Canada. Push higher minimum wages that unqualified, low skilled employees don't deserve. Fight for even MORE under skilled, unqualified, and mostly non-English speaking illegal immigrants to have amnesty for breaking the law to flood welfare and food stamp market while looking for those same jobs that Americans can't even get hired for. Nah, blame Bush, blame "Trickle-down economics", but whatever you do, don't blame Obama, the savior of the nation.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/05/29/flawed-policies-lead-to-setback-in-growth/

GeoDude
05-29-2014, 08:18 PM
Well, 5 years of this poor economy and yet nothing that the dems have done has produced a true recovery. More people in poverty, dismal GDP growth, more people out of work and on government assistance than ever before. So what do we do? Deny or slow down the production of raw materials on federal lands. Deny the building of a pipeline from Canada. Push higher minimum wages that unqualified, low skilled employees don't deserve. Fight for even MORE under skilled, unqualified, and mostly non-English speaking illegal immigrants to have amnesty for breaking the law to flood welfare and food stamp market while looking for those same jobs that Americans can't even get hired for. Nah, blame Bush, blame "Trickle-down economics", but whatever you do, don't blame Obama, the savior of the nation.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/05/29/flawed-policies-lead-to-setback-in-growth/

So tell me - who do you think "deserves" a living wage that can actually support a family?

Also tell me about all these extra workers that McDonalds hires for no reason. If a McDonalds needs 6 workers a shift to function properly - they're going to have 6. Not 5. Not 7. 6. It is interesting that some Conservatives push this myth so aggressively. And what's funny, is that McDonalds and other corporations notorious for mistreating their workers will actually encourage them to take public assistance. So you're not even saving anything by giving them shit pay.

Rusty Jones
05-29-2014, 08:36 PM
WJ5 bitches about the increase in public assistance, yet can't grasp the fact that low wages that places like Walmart and McDonald's pay are exactly WHY. If these places don't pay living wages, then taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab from there in the form of SNAP, Section 8 housing, free school lunches, Medicaid, etc. But... conservatives never want to talk about THAT, do they?

mikezulu1
05-29-2014, 10:25 PM
Well, 5 years of this poor economy and yet nothing that the dems have done has produced a true recovery. More people in poverty, dismal GDP growth, more people out of work and on government assistance than ever before. So what do we do? Deny or slow down the production of raw materials on federal lands. Deny the building of a pipeline from Canada. Push higher minimum wages that unqualified, low skilled employees don't deserve. Fight for even MORE under skilled, unqualified, and mostly non-English speaking illegal immigrants to have amnesty for breaking the law to flood welfare and food stamp market while looking for those same jobs that Americans can't even get hired for. Nah, blame Bush, blame "Trickle-down economics", but whatever you do, don't blame Obama, the savior of the nation.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/05/29/flawed-policies-lead-to-setback-in-growth/


What do we do? How about we tell the corporations that are reaping record profits to hire more workers? How about if you work full time for a multi BILLION dollar company you are ineligible for govt benefits. How about we make the companies that reap billions in profits pay the actual tax rate they are supposed to.

from 2008-2010 the 280 most profitable corporations on the fortune 500 list paid an effective tax rate of 18.5% not the 35% they should have. 78 of those companies paid ZERO taxes....thats right ZERO those on the right liked to talk about the 48% that dont pay but they never mention that.

GE paid an effective tax rate of 2.3% on 81 BILLION in profits from 2002-2011 2.3 fucking percent.

so companies are making more money than ANY TIME IN RECORDED HISTORY. Paying mid-teens (if we are lucky) in taxes, and refuse to hire employees or raise wages and thats the GOVERNMENTS fault? Get outta here with that bullshit.

MitchellJD1969
05-29-2014, 11:04 PM
So tell me - who do you think "deserves" a living wage that can actually support a family?

Also tell me about all these extra workers that McDonalds hires for no reason. If a McDonalds needs 6 workers a shift to function properly - they're going to have 6. Not 5. Not 7. 6. It is interesting that some Conservatives push this myth so aggressively. And what's funny, is that McDonalds and other corporations notorious for mistreating their workers will actually encourage them to take public assistance. So you're not even saving anything by giving them shit pay.

It's a sad state of affairs for our economy and country when a job that has been historically an entry level position is now considered to be a primary job to support a family. But anyways...you can raise the minimum wage to whatever you consider a "living wage," but eventually inflation will degrade your wage value until you are pretty much in the same boat you were at the beginning before you raised the minimum wage. If raising the minimum wage is such a great idea, then why havnt the last few times it was raised solved the problem?

GeoDude
05-29-2014, 11:25 PM
It's a sad state of affairs for our economy and country when a job that has been historically an entry level position is now considered to be a primary job to support a family. But anyways...you can raise the minimum wage to whatever you consider a "living wage," but eventually inflation will degrade your wage value until you are pretty much in the same boat you were at the beginning before you raised the minimum wage. If raising the minimum wage is such a great idea, then why havnt the last few times it was raised solved the problem?

You're funny!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwywb5ySQP1r4d28vo1_500.jpg

mikezulu1
05-30-2014, 12:03 AM
You're funny!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwywb5ySQP1r4d28vo1_500.jpg

whoa!whoa!whoa! dont be coming all up in this obama bashing session with all these facts! That will not be tolerated..your chart is clearly a liberal and probably on welfare...Benghazi!!!!

sandsjames
05-30-2014, 12:43 AM
You're funny!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwywb5ySQP1r4d28vo1_500.jpg

What does this have to do with the post you quoted? It's about what happens to the economy if everyone makes more...your graph is not.

GeoDude
05-30-2014, 04:33 AM
What does this have to do with the post you quoted? It's about what happens to the economy if everyone makes more...your graph is not.

CEO pay has gone up over 400%... worker wages have gone up hardly at all.

garhkal
05-30-2014, 06:20 AM
Add to that when a worker is "let go" say due to downsizing, they are given a small severance package. Where as those executives on average will get 10-20 times that amt or more.

Look at the Oil companies. Gas today went up from 370 or so, to 3.99 a gal for regular in most of Columbus. But yet the price of oil a barrel from yesterday to today went up only less than 1 percent. The oil execs are raking in the bucks.

sandsjames
05-30-2014, 11:23 AM
CEO pay has gone up over 400%... worker wages have gone up hardly at all.
Gotcha....though I thought his post was about what would happen to the economy if everyone started making more, not the difference between exec pay and worker pay.

MitchellJD1969
05-30-2014, 01:03 PM
You're funny!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwywb5ySQP1r4d28vo1_500.jpg


Yeah I know...Im freaking hilarious...so hilarious that the dollar I have in my pocket right now pretty much isnt worth the paper its printed on.

Mizlou....where in my post did I bash Obama? Show me or STFU.

hustonj
05-30-2014, 01:58 PM
It's a sad state of affairs for our economy and country when a job that has been historically an entry level position is now considered to be a primary job to support a family. But anyways...you can raise the minimum wage to whatever you consider a "living wage," but eventually inflation will degrade your wage value until you are pretty much in the same boat you were at the beginning before you raised the minimum wage.

My wife and I both had full-time jobs at (JUST) better than minimum wage when I enlisted back in 1985. As an E-1 under 4 months (with BAS & BAQ since I was already married), my cash compensation was MORE than the 2 of us were earning together.

The proposed $15 an hour minimum wage would make a full-time minimum wage worker receive MORE cash compensation than an E-1 under 4 months with basic BAH & BAS today.

I agree that minimum wage jobs were never intended to support families.

Rusty Jones
05-30-2014, 02:54 PM
I agree that minimum wage jobs were never intended to support families.

Minimum wage could support families back in the 1970's and earlier.

Rusty Jones
05-30-2014, 03:08 PM
E1 joins the military straight out of high school, married to his high school sweetheart. They have one child together. He's from North Carolina, and takes orders to Fort Bragg in order to be close to home.

His pay:

Base pay: $1532.00 (before taxes)
BAH: $1071.00
BAS: $ 357.55

Now, because BAH and BAS are untaxed, we need the pre-tax value of these amounts in order to get the true value of this E1's salary.

So we add 1071 + 357.55 = 1428.55

We use the gross up calculator at paycheckcity.com, and have him claiming married and two (himself and the child) on both federal and North Carolina deductions - which yield a gross value of 1609.36. Add that to the base pay, and you get $3141.36. Multiply this times twelve, and our 18 year old kid with only a high school diploma makes $37,696.32 a year... or just over $18.12 an hour (before anyone goes on that 24/7 bullshit or don't get paid overtime, save it - military personnel are SALARIED).

When I was a GS-7 back in 2012, I was worse of than that E1 is now... certainly worse off than an E1 in Norfolk at the time, where BAH is higher. My salary was only about $1K a year higher than this hypothetical E1 at Fort Bragg, but he gets Tricare for FREE. No healthcare premiums, and he also doesn't have to pay into his retirement. So that amount that you see for the gross value of his salary could technically be raised even higher in order to account for the premiums that we would have to pay for items of similar value.

WILDJOKER5
05-30-2014, 04:57 PM
So tell me - who do you think "deserves" a living wage that can actually support a family?Its not about who deserves a "living" wage to support a family, its about who HAS a living wage to start a family. Sorry, but not everyone can afford to start a family, and thats not the employers fault. If you are not special, have no skills, dont stay in school, or had a kid before you finished school, its not the employers responsibility to pay you to cover the cost of having a kid.


Also tell me about all these extra workers that McDonalds hires for no reason. If a McDonalds needs 6 workers a shift to function properly - they're going to have 6. Not 5. Not 7. 6. It is interesting that some Conservatives push this myth so aggressively. And what's funny, is that McDonalds and other corporations notorious for mistreating their workers will actually encourage them to take public assistance. So you're not even saving anything by giving them shit pay.
Why must every progressive bring up McDs? We have been over this a million times when you guys blame the CEO for the pay of basic employee. The CEO of McD is not incharge of what that pay is, nor does he care. Its the SMALL BUSINESS owner who opened the franchise with their own money that delegates that responsibility to the store manager if they arent the manager themselves. Anyways, to get back on subject that you so bluntly steared us away from, do you honestly think that if McD workers got paid more, the more educated jobs would start hiring more? If a burger flipper made $15/hr, drilling for natural gas or the keystone pipeline would be created? Here is my opinion....NO. Just like on an AF base, without the planes/maintenece, there is no need for the finance, TMO, services, etc. They are not the main focus of bases, they are "services". The second thought, the support. Yes, they keep the MX or training or what ever the main mission of the base from doing those jobs, but they are not the focus. McD is the same really, they just allow those who are too rushed or lazy to make their own food to get something on the go. McD is not the main driver behind America's economy, nor will it ever be.

WILDJOKER5
05-30-2014, 05:00 PM
WJ5 bitches about the increase in public assistance, yet can't grasp the fact that low wages that places like Walmart and McDonald's pay are exactly WHY. If these places don't pay living wages, then taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab from there in the form of SNAP, Section 8 housing, free school lunches, Medicaid, etc. But... conservatives never want to talk about THAT, do they?

Thats because conservatives focus on how that is the growing byproduct of offering those services to those who were too impulsive and reckless and unrestrained to cause themselves to be in the position of not being educated and skilled to get a liveable paying job BEFORE they made a family.

Rusty Jones
05-30-2014, 05:46 PM
Thats because conservatives focus on how that is the growing byproduct of offering those services to those who were too impulsive and reckless and unrestrained to cause themselves to be in the position of not being educated and skilled to get a liveable paying job BEFORE they made a family.

I know that conservatives don't get laid enough to understand this (hence why you guys are so angry and tightly wound), but LIFE HAPPENS.

WILDJOKER5
05-30-2014, 06:00 PM
Add to that when a worker is "let go" say due to downsizing, they are given a small severance package. Where as those executives on average will get 10-20 times that amt or more.

Look at the Oil companies. Gas today went up from 370 or so, to 3.99 a gal for regular in most of Columbus. But yet the price of oil a barrel from yesterday to today went up only less than 1 percent. The oil execs are raking in the bucks.

And the government rakes in even more.

WILDJOKER5
05-30-2014, 06:02 PM
What do we do? How about we tell the corporations that are reaping record profits to hire more workers? How about if you work full time for a multi BILLION dollar company you are ineligible for govt benefits. How about we make the companies that reap billions in profits pay the actual tax rate they are supposed to.

from 2008-2010 the 280 most profitable corporations on the fortune 500 list paid an effective tax rate of 18.5% not the 35% they should have. 78 of those companies paid ZERO taxes....thats right ZERO those on the right liked to talk about the 48% that dont pay but they never mention that.

GE paid an effective tax rate of 2.3% on 81 BILLION in profits from 2002-2011 2.3 fucking percent.

so companies are making more money than ANY TIME IN RECORDED HISTORY. Paying mid-teens (if we are lucky) in taxes, and refuse to hire employees or raise wages and thats the GOVERNMENTS fault? Get outta here with that bullshit.

So you dont think that the people who run these businesses deserve to be compensated for leadership? Makes me wonder why there isnt more of a cry out for the POTUS to stop taking the multimillion dollar vacations every other month since his leadership is abismal and hasnt done anything near what the CEOs of companies do to earn their pay.

WILDJOKER5
05-30-2014, 06:08 PM
Minimum wage could support families back in the 1970's and earlier.

Our dollar was also worth more and people didnt buy homes until they saved for one. Whats your point? Min wage paid to you back then with the quaters made of silver like back then would be worth $22/hr now. So, why is it that we went off the gold standard again?

I find it funny that back in the 50's, putting you money under your mattress (especially coins) turned out to be a better investment than a savings account in a bank. While you get 1-2% interest in the bank, the fed is keeping inflation at 3% or more and you actually lose money while this QE is going on. Your money doesnt have the purchasing power like silver or gold does thanks to the devaluation of the dollar.

WILDJOKER5
05-30-2014, 06:10 PM
I know that conservatives don't get laid enough to understand this (hence why you guys are so angry and tightly wound), but LIFE HAPPENS.

Going to name callign huh? Dont want to get too off track here, but remember the kid last Friday who shot up a bunch of people in Cali because he was a virgin? Yeah, not so much a conservative. ;)

Rusty Jones
05-30-2014, 06:17 PM
Going to name callign huh? Dont want to get too off track here, but remember the kid last Friday who shot up a bunch of people in Cali because he was a virgin? Yeah, not so much a conservative. ;)

What's the name that I called someone? Conservative? And how, praytell, do you know this kid's political leaninings?

WILDJOKER5
05-30-2014, 06:49 PM
What's the name that I called someone? Conservative? And how, praytell, do you know this kid's political leaninings?

Ok, not name calling, charater assassination.

I am not going to get off track with answering your other question on this thread.

So anyways, the rest of my statements. Just because Joe impulsively goes out and buys a Lexus or Mercades, doesnt mean its the resposibility of emplyer A to pay Joe more money. Just like its not the employer's responsibility to pay Jane more just because she went out and impulsively had sex which produced a child. You wouldnt want Joe's car payment covered by tax payer's dollars, why should Jane's poor decission be covered as well.

In reality, Joe may want that nice car, but no one will give him a loan or subsidise the purchase if he cant afford to pay for it. Typically, Joe wont even try to get that car or he will save his money for that car, or work for a better paying job before he gets that car. We have made it too easy for Jane to take the same percautions and prudence in the thought process of having sex. Not only because of the way our shows glamorize and sell sex, but because there are no "hard times" for those who make the unwise choice of having sex before marriage or even before they have a job to support a kid or even to afford the very basic contraceptives.

I find it amuzing how the left wines and blames violent video games for mass shootings, but when it comes to sex and the way its on about every TV show now, all you hear is crickets. Well, you hear them making even more TV shows with even more sexual references and semi-sex scenes on basic cable.

Lastly, you guys have all been blaming conservatives and the GOP for what the "evil rich" are doing to the down trodden poor, yet fail to realize that Dems are the party of the rich voted in by their base which is the poor, uneducated, and low skilled. 8 of the top 10 wealthiest districts are democrats. The wealthiest congressmen/woman are democrats. 36 of the poorest 39 districts are also democrats. So why keep blaming the GOP for what "the rich" business owners do when its democrats that get the heaviest support from the rich and they are also "the rich"?

MitchellJD1969
05-30-2014, 07:02 PM
Ok, not name calling, charater assassination.

I am not going to get off track with answering your other question on this thread.

So anyways, the rest of my statements. Just because Joe impulsively goes out and buys a Lexus or Mercades, doesnt mean its the resposibility of emplyer A to pay Joe more money. Just like its not the employer's responsibility to pay Jane more just because she went out and impulsively had sex which produced a child. You wouldnt want Joe's car payment covered by tax payer's dollars, why should Jane's poor decission be covered as well.

In reality, Joe may want that nice car, but no one will give him a loan or subsidise the purchase if he cant afford to pay for it. Typically, Joe wont even try to get that car or he will save his money for that car, or work for a better paying job before he gets that car. We have made it too easy for Jane to take the same percautions and prudence in the thought process of having sex. Not only because of the way our shows glamorize and sell sex, but because there are no "hard times" for those who make the unwise choice of having sex before marriage or even before they have a job to support a kid or even to afford the very basic contraceptives.

I find it amuzing how the left wines and blames violent video games for mass shootings, but when it comes to sex and the way its on about every TV show now, all you hear is crickets. Well, you hear them making even more TV shows with even more sexual references and semi-sex scenes on basic cable.

Lastly, you guys have all been blaming conservatives and the GOP for what the "evil rich" are doing to the down trodden poor, yet fail to realize that Dems are the party of the rich voted in by their base which is the poor, uneducated, and low skilled. 8 of the top 10 wealthiest districts are democrats. The wealthiest congressmen/woman are democrats. 36 of the poorest 39 districts are also democrats. So why keep blaming the GOP for what "the rich" business owners do when its democrats that get the heaviest support from the rich and they are also "the rich"?

all animals are equal but some are more equal than others...the sad thing is that i have come to despise the right just as much as the left.

hustonj
05-30-2014, 07:46 PM
So, did Rusty Jones not understand the statement that I was comparing cash compensation?

I was very clear where the numbers I used came from, and that should say quite a bit about the inherent limits of their meaning.

Now, since Rusty Jones wants to try to compare the fuull value of the compensation packages, and not just the cash-to-cash comparison, where is the mention of the military medical care? TA? Financial Advisor services? GI Bill? Etc.

I know there's no statement in the post that he replied to to this effect, but I have long stated that the enlisted military is far better comepnsated than the majority of enlisted members think they are.

Anything which makes minimum wage compensation even comparable to what is comfortable compensation in exchange for active military service is a clear indication that our society consideres Airmen, Marines, Sailors and Soldiers who go into combat zones to be worth about the same to soceity as the guy flipping burgers in the suburbs. Arguing about the details on how close the comparison is ignores the inherent meaning of them being comparable in the first place!

garhkal
05-30-2014, 08:05 PM
And the government rakes in even more.

Exactly. Its almost like the WANTS gas prices to skyrocket. just so they can rake bookou bucks in taxes.

GeoDude
05-30-2014, 08:19 PM
Yeah I know...Im freaking hilarious...so hilarious that the dollar I have in my pocket right now pretty much isnt worth the paper its printed on.

Mizlou....where in my post did I bash Obama? Show me or STFU.

Its good to know that you'll fight to the last breath to keep your fellow workers from getting a pay raise, but you'll remain silent when CEOs give multi-million pay raises to themselves... right before giving a speech about "making sacrifices".


Its not about who deserves a "living" wage to support a family, its about who HAS a living wage to start a family. Sorry, but not everyone can afford to start a family, and thats not the employers fault. If you are not special, have no skills, dont stay in school, or had a kid before you finished school, its not the employers responsibility to pay you to cover the cost of having a kid.


[QUOTE]Why must every progressive bring up McDs? We have been over this a million times when you guys blame the CEO for the pay of basic employee. The CEO of McD is not incharge of what that pay is, nor does he care. Its the SMALL BUSINESS owner who opened the franchise with their own money that delegates that responsibility to the store manager if they arent the manager themselves. Anyways, to get back on subject that you so bluntly steared us away from, do you honestly think that if McD workers got paid more, the more educated jobs would start hiring more? If a burger flipper made $15/hr, drilling for natural gas or the keystone pipeline would be created? Here is my opinion....NO. Just like on an AF base, without the planes/maintenece, there is no need for the finance, TMO, services, etc. They are not the main focus of bases, they are "services". The second thought, the support. Yes, they keep the MX or training or what ever the main mission of the base from doing those jobs, but they are not the focus. McD is the same really, they just allow those who are too rushed or lazy to make their own food to get something on the go. McD is not the main driver behind America's economy, nor will it ever be.

So I take it you have no idea what a franchise is or how it works?

I do wonder though why every post you make is dripping with hatred for lower income Americans.


Thats because conservatives focus on how that is the growing byproduct of offering those services to those who were too impulsive and reckless and unrestrained to cause themselves to be in the position of not being educated and skilled to get a liveable paying job BEFORE they made a family.

So basically - you admit that your economic model does not work unless 40-60% of the population doesn't breed?


So you dont think that the people who run these businesses deserve to be compensated for leadership? Makes me wonder why there isnt more of a cry out for the POTUS to stop taking the multimillion dollar vacations every other month since his leadership is abismal and hasnt done anything near what the CEOs of companies do to earn their pay.

No public official, military or otherwise - including Obama - takes in even remotely close to what a CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes. Thank you for showing your true loyalties.


Our dollar was also worth more and people didnt buy homes until they saved for one. Whats your point? Min wage paid to you back then with the quaters made of silver like back then would be worth $22/hr now. So, why is it that we went off the gold standard again?

I find it funny that back in the 50's, putting you money under your mattress (especially coins) turned out to be a better investment than a savings account in a bank. While you get 1-2% interest in the bank, the fed is keeping inflation at 3% or more and you actually lose money while this QE is going on. Your money doesnt have the purchasing power like silver or gold does thanks to the devaluation of the dollar.

Yes. If you opened a bank account and never took any money out - you could technically lose money over a period of decades. However, in the real world outside of conservative fantasy land - that bank account isn't a closed system. Your mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc etc - all also lose worth over time. That's why fiscal inflation exists in the first place, to prevent debt inflation.

You probably haven't experienced any of this - because you spent most or all of your adult life in the largest socialist system in America - the US military. Real world sucks.


Ok, not name calling, charater assassination.

I am not going to get off track with answering your other question on this thread.

So anyways, the rest of my statements. Just because Joe impulsively goes out and buys a Lexus or Mercades, doesnt mean its the resposibility of emplyer A to pay Joe more money. Just like its not the employer's responsibility to pay Jane more just because she went out and impulsively had sex which produced a child. You wouldnt want Joe's car payment covered by tax payer's dollars, why should Jane's poor decission be covered as well.

In reality, Joe may want that nice car, but no one will give him a loan or subsidise the purchase if he cant afford to pay for it. Typically, Joe wont even try to get that car or he will save his money for that car, or work for a better paying job before he gets that car. We have made it too easy for Jane to take the same percautions and prudence in the thought process of having sex. Not only because of the way our shows glamorize and sell sex, but because there are no "hard times" for those who make the unwise choice of having sex before marriage or even before they have a job to support a kid or even to afford the very basic contraceptives.

I find it amuzing how the left wines and blames violent video games for mass shootings, but when it comes to sex and the way its on about every TV show now, all you hear is crickets. Well, you hear them making even more TV shows with even more sexual references and semi-sex scenes on basic cable.

Lastly, you guys have all been blaming conservatives and the GOP for what the "evil rich" are doing to the down trodden poor, yet fail to realize that Dems are the party of the rich voted in by their base which is the poor, uneducated, and low skilled. 8 of the top 10 wealthiest districts are democrats. The wealthiest congressmen/woman are democrats. 36 of the poorest 39 districts are also democrats. So why keep blaming the GOP for what "the rich" business owners do when its democrats that get the heaviest support from the rich and they are also "the rich"?

Do you feel better getting that rant out of your system?


So, did Rusty Jones not understand the statement that I was comparing cash compensation?

I was very clear where the numbers I used came from, and that should say quite a bit about the inherent limits of their meaning.

Now, since Rusty Jones wants to try to compare the fuull value of the compensation packages, and not just the cash-to-cash comparison, where is the mention of the military medical care? TA? Financial Advisor services? GI Bill? Etc.

I know there's no statement in the post that he replied to to this effect, but I have long stated that the enlisted military is far better comepnsated than the majority of enlisted members think they are.

Anything which makes minimum wage compensation even comparable to what is comfortable compensation in exchange for active military service is a clear indication that our society consideres Airmen, Marines, Sailors and Soldiers who go into combat zones to be worth about the same to soceity as the guy flipping burgers in the suburbs. Arguing about the details on how close the comparison is ignores the inherent meaning of them being comparable in the first place!

So a guy who flips burgers in the Air Force should be payed two, three or even four times more than what his civilian counterpart makes? And please spare me the "combat" rhetoric. The vast majority of military members never see combat.

hustonj
05-30-2014, 08:40 PM
So a guy who flips burgers in the Air Force should be payed two, three or even four times more than what his civilian counterpart makes? And please spare me the "combat" rhetoric. The vast majority of military members never see combat.

People who enlist in the military contractually give someone else (the military) control of their lives for a period of time in exchange for specific compensation - which is the definition of Indentured Servitude, in case you need that pointed out.

When someone enlists, they agree to be put in harm's way.

Blaming the guy who signs up to be used by th emilitary for how the military uses him is kinda short-sighted. Indenutred Servants don't have the ability to walk out and find something else.

Spare me the assumptions about how few people experience combat when we have been busy generating combat veterans for about two decades, without ever entering a war! See how easy (and pointless) that kind of dismissive statement is to make? Try interacting like an adult. Thank you in advance.

sandsjames
05-30-2014, 08:44 PM
So a guy who flips burgers in the Air Force should be payed two, three or even four times more than what his civilian counterpart makes? And please spare me the "combat" rhetoric. The vast majority of military members never see combat.Of course, because there is zero difference between someone working at McDonalds and someone working in the chow hall? (By the way, the services people do not spend all their time working in one location. They move around to different facilities, different responsibilities, etc).

And as far as how much they should get paid? It's about recruitment. I'm sure if McD's needed to ensure they had enough employees they might think about raising wages.

I wish I was a little brighter about economics and was able to see what would happen if all the lower income jobs paid more. One one hand, it sounds good. Everyone has more money, less poor people. On the other hand, everyone has more money, inflation happens, so everyone has less value to their money. Again, I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic so I don't know what the turnout would be.

What I do know is that, no matter what happens with wages, there will always be poor people and the rest of us should do what we need to do to help them. Not so much on a macro level, but on a personal level. That's the only way things will ever improve.

Rusty Jones
05-30-2014, 08:54 PM
Of course, because there is zero difference between someone working at McDonalds and someone working in the chow hall? (By the way, the services people do not spend all their time working in one location. They move around to different facilities, different responsibilities, etc).

And as far as how much they should get paid? It's about recruitment. I'm sure if McD's needed to ensure they had enough employees they might think about raising wages.

I wish I was a little brighter about economics and was able to see what would happen if all the lower income jobs paid more. One one hand, it sounds good. Everyone has more money, less poor people. On the other hand, everyone has more money, inflation happens, so everyone has less value to their money. Again, I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic so I don't know what the turnout would be.

What I do know is that, no matter what happens with wages, there will always be poor people and the rest of us should do what we need to do to help them. Not so much on a macro level, but on a personal level. That's the only way things will ever improve.

Minimum wage in Australia is $16/hr (in USD), and the prices of the goods are roughly the same as in the US. The amount of money in circulation is what matters the most.

Interestingly enough, McDonald's recently announced that it paid $20 billion in dividends. $20 billion - with a B! Yet it can't afford to raise wages??? Shave a little off of that, and raise the wages - inflation won't happen, because the money is coming from other money that's already in circulation.

hustonj
05-30-2014, 08:59 PM
What I do know is that, no matter what happens with wages, there will always be poor people and the rest of us should do what we need to do to help them. Not so much on a macro level, but on a personal level. That's the only way things will ever improve.

The problem is more that our colleges, lawyers, and stockholders have all refused to accept any of the rules the Great Industrialists stated clearly (and tried to implement, despite what modern union supoprters will tell you):

You have to make products that your employees will want to have/use.

You have to sell your products at the lowest price possible (without compromising your desired quality from above) in order to help attract customers.

You have to pay your employees well enough that they can choose to purchase your products. You have to build and expand the economy in which your business can thrive.



Modern business schools, stockholders and lawyers all tell businesses today that nothing matters but short-term profibility. The stock-holders MUST have the highest short-term dividends possible. Purchasing a large corporation, gutting it and selling off the pieces to generate short-term profit (and destroying a product line) is considered a brilliant business win instead of destroying a business.

Until (or unless) we can refocus our busniess experts on building the economy in which their business can thrive long-term (instead of raping the economy for short-term profits), the exaggerated size of our current income inequality will not get any better. Significantly raising the minimum wage will just lead to bad inflation, moving where the "bottom" income is on the chart without actually providing any long-term benefits in exchange.

Just an opinion, of course.

GeoDude
05-30-2014, 09:34 PM
People who enlist in the military contractually give someone else (the military) control of their lives for a period of time in exchange for specific compensation - which is the definition of Indentured Servitude, in case you need that pointed out.

When someone enlists, they agree to be put in harm's way.

Blaming the guy who signs up to be used by th emilitary for how the military uses him is kinda short-sighted. Indenutred Servants don't have the ability to walk out and find something else.

Or MAYBE - the pay military members receive is more fair - and civilians are being paid too low.


Spare me the assumptions about how few people experience combat when we have been busy generating combat veterans for about two decades, without ever entering a war! See how easy (and pointless) that kind of dismissive statement is to make? Try interacting like an adult. Thank you in advance.

Sorry - but the guy who hung out at Kandahar for 3 months isn't taking the same level of risk as the guy sleeping on a rock in Marjah for 9 months (though interestingly, they both get paid the same)


Of course, because there is zero difference between someone working at McDonalds and someone working in the chow hall? (By the way, the services people do not spend all their time working in one location. They move around to different facilities, different responsibilities, etc).

And as far as how much they should get paid? It's about recruitment. I'm sure if McD's needed to ensure they had enough employees they might think about raising wages.

I wish I was a little brighter about economics and was able to see what would happen if all the lower income jobs paid more. One one hand, it sounds good. Everyone has more money, less poor people. On the other hand, everyone has more money, inflation happens, so everyone has less value to their money. Again, I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic so I don't know what the turnout would be.

What I do know is that, no matter what happens with wages, there will always be poor people and the rest of us should do what we need to do to help them. Not so much on a macro level, but on a personal level. That's the only way things will ever improve.

Reserve army of labor. Mcdonalds has no need to raise wages, because they will consistently get far more applicants for jobs than they need.


The problem is more that our colleges, lawyers, and stockholders have all refused to accept any of the rules the Great Industrialists stated clearly (and tried to implement, despite what modern union supoprters will tell you)

The "great industrialists" as you call them were also allowed to call in the National Guard and the Army Air Corps to kill their employees if they tried to strike or unionize. Brute force is an effective way to keep the profit margin high. ;)

MitchellJD1969
05-30-2014, 10:14 PM
Its good to know that you'll fight to the last breath to keep your fellow workers from getting a pay raise, but you'll remain silent when CEOs give multi-million pay raises to themselves... right before giving a speech about "making sacrifices".

[QUOTE=WILDJOKER5;342069]Its not about who deserves a "living" wage to support a family, its about who HAS a living wage to start a family. Sorry, but not everyone can afford to start a family, and thats not the employers fault. If you are not special, have no skills, dont stay in school, or had a kid before you finished school, its not the employers responsibility to pay you to cover the cost of having a kid.




So I take it you have no idea what a franchise is or how it works?

I do wonder though why every post you make is dripping with hatred for lower income Americans.



So basically - you admit that your economic model does not work unless 40-60% of the population doesn't breed?



No public official, military or otherwise - including Obama - takes in even remotely close to what a CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes. Thank you for showing your true loyalties.



Yes. If you opened a bank account and never took any money out - you could technically lose money over a period of decades. However, in the real world outside of conservative fantasy land - that bank account isn't a closed system. Your mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc etc - all also lose worth over time. That's why fiscal inflation exists in the first place, to prevent debt inflation.

You probably haven't experienced any of this - because you spent most or all of your adult life in the largest socialist system in America - the US military. Real world sucks.



Do you feel better getting that rant out of your system?



So a guy who flips burgers in the Air Force should be payed two, three or even four times more than what his civilian counterpart makes? And please spare me the "combat" rhetoric. The vast majority of military members never see combat.

What good is a pay raise when given time you will be in the same situation as before because costs/prices have adjusted to the new wages?

Anyways...judging by your responses to those who dont think like you...you seem to be a sanctimonious douchebag...just sayin...

sandsjames
05-30-2014, 10:23 PM
Minimum wage in Australia is $16/hr (in USD), and the prices of the goods are roughly the same as in the US. The amount of money in circulation is what matters the most.

Interestingly enough, McDonald's recently announced that it paid $20 billion in dividends. $20 billion - with a B! Yet it can't afford to raise wages??? Shave a little off of that, and raise the wages - inflation won't happen, because the money is coming from other money that's already in circulation.

They could afford to raise wages, they just don't have to because they are never going to be short of employees...unless people decided to quit giving business to places that don't play their employees a living wage. Why leave it up to the government? If everyone who was concerned about the wages quit frequenting the places that pay shitty then the businesses might actually have to make a change. Unfortunately, even those who constantly complain about rich CEOs/execs still eat at McDs, buy stuff at Walmart, use fuel in vehicles for more than just the necessities, etc. Until we, as a society, stop contributing there won't be a change, no matter what the government does.

GeoDude
05-30-2014, 11:46 PM
They could afford to raise wages, they just don't have to because they are never going to be short of employees...unless people decided to quit giving business to places that don't play their employees a living wage. Why leave it up to the government? If everyone who was concerned about the wages quit frequenting the places that pay shitty then the businesses might actually have to make a change. Unfortunately, even those who constantly complain about rich CEOs/execs still eat at McDs, buy stuff at Walmart, use fuel in vehicles for more than just the necessities, etc. Until we, as a society, stop contributing there won't be a change, no matter what the government does.

Might as well eat there - since my tax dollars are paying to keep those places in business, right? ;)

Corporate welfare is just lovely, isn't it?



What good is a pay raise when given time you will be in the same situation as before because costs/prices have adjusted to the new wages?

Do you even know what inflation is? Its not the same thing as raising wages. Pick up an economics textbook, then get back to me.


Anyways...judging by your responses to those who dont think like you...you seem to be a sanctimonious douchebag...just sayin...

Your emotional defense of the richest members of this country is cute, but all the while humorous.

garhkal
05-31-2014, 07:59 AM
Minimum wage in Australia is $16/hr (in USD), and the prices of the goods are roughly the same as in the US. The amount of money in circulation is what matters the most.

Interestingly enough, McDonald's recently announced that it paid $20 billion in dividends. $20 billion - with a B! Yet it can't afford to raise wages??? Shave a little off of that, and raise the wages - inflation won't happen, because the money is coming from other money that's already in circulation.

It paid so much in dividends due to all its share holders. Try asking them to 'give up a little' so everyone else can get a higher wage.

WILDJOKER5
05-31-2014, 03:23 PM
all animals are equal but some are more equal than others...the sad thing is that i have come to despise the right just as much as the left.

To be fair, that is the rhetoric of the left. The "right" (not sure what right you despise) only says "all animals have the equal right to try, not equal right to be successful". I am with you that there are a lot on the right that I don't agree with, most of the stuff I say comes from my own research, no matter how much it sounds like someone else's words. But with 6 billion people in the world, 300M in the US, I am sure it sounds familiar.

GeoDude
05-31-2014, 03:42 PM
all animals are equal but some are more equal than others...the sad thing is that i have come to despise the right just as much as the left.


To be fair, that is the rhetoric of the left. The "right" (not sure what right you despise) only says "all animals have the equal right to try, not equal right to be successful". I am with you that there are a lot on the right that I don't agree with, most of the stuff I say comes from my own research, no matter how much it sounds like someone else's words. But with 6 billion people in the world, 300M in the US, I am sure it sounds familiar.

I love how right wingers all quote George Orwell/Eric Blair, apparently not realizing that he was a hardcore socialist who despised conservatism. Try reading his other books, not just Animal farm or 1984, and you'll get a much clearer understanding of what he actually believed and advocated for.

WILDJOKER5
05-31-2014, 03:52 PM
So I take it you have no idea what a franchise is or how it works?Where do you get that from? Does the CEO tell the franchise owner how little or much he can pay the employees when the franchise owner applies for the right to use the name "McD"? Typically, the franchise owner pays a fee to "rent" the name, its part of his business expense because the name recognition is what brings in most of the business. How the franchise owner runs the store after that is left up to him/her because what CEO wants to micro manage over 100,000 stores in every corner of the world with so many laws? But please, go a head and show me how I don't know about how franchises work instead of actually providing facts that countered my statement.


I do wonder though why every post you make is dripping with hatred for lower income Americans.
Again, where do you get this from? Providing facts is not hatred. You set yourself up before you try and take care of someone else, that is how a responsible person does it.



So basically - you admit that your economic model does not work unless 40-60% of the population doesn't breed?What is this hog wash of 40-60% of the population BS come from? Just throwing around numbers here? Try taking some time to explain yourself, or I will make the conclusion for you.


No public official, military or otherwise - including Obama - takes in even remotely close to what a CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes. Thank you for showing your true loyalties.No public official even comes close to growing the economy like a private CEO of a fortune 500 company does. Without them, the government has no one to take money from to live like a CEO like Obama does. CEO's don't lose their companies $7 Trillion in 5 years and keep their jobs either. CEOs aren't the ones that increase inflation and make their workers poorer. CEO's can't forcibly take money from your paycheck and give it to the person not working like the government can. Why should I be loyal to the government? I am not loyal to a CEO either. I am loyal to myself and my family only. I don't lay back and expect my employer to provide my retirement, or healthcare when I leave their service, that is MY job to take care of MYSELF.


Yes. If you opened a bank account and never took any money out - you could technically lose money over a period of decades. However, in the real world outside of conservative fantasy land - that bank account isn't a closed system. Your mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc etc - all also lose worth over time. That's why fiscal inflation exists in the first place, to prevent debt inflation.You lose money over a year in the bank. If you had $100 in there on Jan 2013, by Jan 2014, you have $102 but the inflation makes that you are $1 lower than what you started at. This isn't fantasy, this is reality. Its called theft, and if you don't think $1 matters, then you don't see the overall big picture of 300 million people each year losing that $1. And this is a very low estimate. They have been doing this for over 100 years now.

As far as "debt inflation", you mean interest right? You do know that before our money was as worthless as it is now, people actually saved for what they wanted and fed reserve was still started. What I find hilarious is how progressives "hate monopolies", but are perfectly fine with the government sanctioned monopoly of the fed reserve. And it has absolutely no tie to the federal government what so ever.


You probably haven't experienced any of this - because you spent most or all of your adult life in the largest socialist system in America - the US military. Real world sucks.Ah yes, the charter assassination attempt again. So are you saying the way the military system ran is what makes you think being more of a socialist country is the way to go? I mean seriously, what is the point of your statement here other than to try a degrade my POV?


Do you feel better getting that rant out of your system?Nice how you dodge all questions presented with that little condescending remark. Guessing you can't answer. So yes, I feel better now that you only sit and troll without any input or refuting facts.

WILDJOKER5
05-31-2014, 03:56 PM
Of course, because there is zero difference between someone working at McDonalds and someone working in the chow hall? (By the way, the services people do not spend all their time working in one location. They move around to different facilities, different responsibilities, etc).

And as far as how much they should get paid? It's about recruitment. I'm sure if McD's needed to ensure they had enough employees they might think about raising wages.

I wish I was a little brighter about economics and was able to see what would happen if all the lower income jobs paid more. One one hand, it sounds good. Everyone has more money, less poor people. On the other hand, everyone has more money, inflation happens, so everyone has less value to their money. Again, I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic so I don't know what the turnout would be.

What I do know is that, no matter what happens with wages, there will always be poor people and the rest of us should do what we need to do to help them. Not so much on a macro level, but on a personal level. That's the only way things will ever improve.

Pushing the poor up to the middle class through government force is like trying to push a rope. The more you raise the min wage, the more people collect at the bottom and the bigger to "poor" population becomes.

WILDJOKER5
05-31-2014, 04:06 PM
Minimum wage in Australia is $16/hr (in USD), and the prices of the goods are roughly the same as in the US. The amount of money in circulation is what matters the most.They also don't have a immigration problem like we do with millions of unskilled workers ready to take the job when someone gets fed up and leaves. Australia is very strict on illegal immigration and its even harder to get there.


Interestingly enough, McDonald's recently announced that it paid $20 billion in dividends. $20 billion - with a B! Yet it can't afford to raise wages??? Shave a little off of that, and raise the wages - inflation won't happen, because the money is coming from other money that's already in circulation.
$20 billion in dividends, is that all to wealthy, multi-millionaires? Are you ready to take money out of the hands of middle class people who saved their paychecks to invest in companies like McD? Don't be naive, not everyone that is an investor is well off as you are fed the stereotype. Sorry, but employees are a resource, and we have been creating more and more under skilled workers that are only qualified to work at McD since LBJ passed "the great society". Now the resource pool for cashiers who can't do math in their head, cooks who can't figure out the difference between bacon and sausage, and even managers who can't write in proper english is endless. Not to mention, the other 12 million illegals that are just waiting to get amnesty and will work for what ever they can get because $8/hr is better than the $2/hr they had been making and living on.

sandsjames
05-31-2014, 04:06 PM
Pushing the poor up to the middle class through government force is like trying to push a rope. The more you raise the min wage, the more people collect at the bottom and the bigger to "poor" population becomes.

Again, I'm not an economist. There are people who are much more educated on the topic than the both of us. There are studies that show what you say to be true...there are also studies that show what you say to be false. Maybe both systems work, maybe neither. But our government is somewhere in the middle, no matter which party is in power.

WILDJOKER5
05-31-2014, 04:21 PM
I love how right wingers all quote George Orwell/Eric Blair, apparently not realizing that he was a hardcore socialist who despised conservatism. Try reading his other books, not just Animal farm or 1984, and you'll get a much clearer understanding of what he actually believed and advocated for.

I find it sad that you think conservatism and capitalism/free marketist are synonyms. "Conservatism" is the philosophy of doing the something as you have always done. The GOP are considered conservatism because they have been doing the same thing and kept the same philosophy for 150 years. 150 years ago, it was called "liberal" to treat everyone the same and make ambiguous laws that didn't specify any one race or gender. It was called "liberal" to be an individual. It was "liberal" to have a small government, as small as it could be. It was "liberal" to be for free markets and they believed that government interference would lead to monopolies and cronyism and corruption. It was "liberal" to allow parents to determine the best way to educate their kids. And, "liberalism" started through the church, the protestants breaking away from Catholics. Does any of this fall in line with what we call a Liberal today?

Not really sure why you quoted me though, I didn't quote anything from those two you mentioned.

WILDJOKER5
05-31-2014, 04:23 PM
Again, I'm not an economist. There are people who are much more educated on the topic than the both of us. There are studies that show what you say to be true...there are also studies that show what you say to be false. Maybe both systems work, maybe neither. But our government is somewhere in the middle, no matter which party is in power.

Studies to show what I said to be false, but all real world application shows those studies to be wrong and down right destructive to countries that implement those studies. Studies of a theory are one thing, study of the history on those beliefs is another.

WILDJOKER5
05-31-2014, 04:48 PM
Nobody has yet touched on the dead economy that this thread started as. Why is it that we are going back to a recession after 5 years of Obamanomics?

garhkal
05-31-2014, 09:17 PM
They also don't have a immigration problem like we do with millions of unskilled workers ready to take the job when someone gets fed up and leaves. Australia is very strict on illegal immigration and its even harder to get there.

Exactly. Maybe we should adopt their stance on immigration. But you can bet if anyone suggested it they would get lambasted by the left for being racist.



$20 billion in dividends, is that all to wealthy, multi-millionaires? Are you ready to take money out of the hands of middle class people who saved their paychecks to invest in companies like McD? Don't be naive, not everyone that is an investor is well off as you are fed the stereotype.

Heck, with how diverse people's 401Ks are, anyone who has one could own stock in Micky D's.

AJBIGJ
06-01-2014, 10:03 PM
Discussions are getting lively again in the MTF, kudos to whatever influenced that!

I think a major source of our current "economic problems" is advocates of a side (both sides actually) tend to be fairly myopic when it comes to an action and the intended results.

Can a country raise its Minimum wage and benefit overall from it? It'd be disingenuous of me to deny that some countries are prosperous with higher minimum wages. What's not necessarily clear is whether A+B=C or if a "contributing factor" one side claims is the cause of prosperity or just a neglible barrier that isn't sufficient to hold back a boom cycle, like using a spoon to stop the rising of the tides.

One doesn't have to be a Friedman nor a Krugman to grasp the basic economics of things. It is the simplicity of "Supply and Demand" itself, where economists tend to disagree are the causality relationships and the resulting effects of a decision, and especially the unintended questions ala Bastiat. The market values a specific group of KSAs at a fairly specific monetary value. Businesses, quite naturally will adjust their compensation accordingly to gain a sufficient labor pool to maintain their operations under minimal cost. That's just common sense. Those who tend to offer greater compensation seek better retention, because it has been proven that for work that entails more skill, the costs of frequently turning over such positions are greater than the costs of simply increasing the compensation levels, so they just raise the cost accordingly. Of course such a dynamic is a lesser concern for lower skilled positions, so the minimum waged positions remain low because they know someone will do the job.

I recall the days when I earned a "minimum wage", back then I was 15 years old and the wage was $4.25 an hour. At 15 years old of course I was not attempting to raise a wife and three kids, I was living under my parent's roof and the earnings went towards just about whatever I desired at the time. I was clearly the individual a "minimum wage" was intended for, and you know what? By the end of the first Summer I had already received a pay increase to $4.75 as my skills and abilities for the position improved. I returned during future Summers and by the end I was earning more than the current Federal Minimum Wage for my labor efforts. This was working under a sole proprietorship and required an amount of physical labor that is less common in this day and age.

The big question in a lot of people's minds is probably why the market value of low-skilled labor is not keeping up with inflation. The answer is simple supply and demand economics. The labor pool tends to exceed the supply of labor positions while the inflation is fairly rapid. So it is fair to say the inflation rate itself is a big part of the problem (that $4.25 State Minimum wage was about 20 years ago, the current Federal Minimum Wage is nearly double that, with some individuals seeking it to become triple that or more). Back then, that $4.25 an hour put a considerable stack of bills for a 15 year old's wallet.

So a big question is what is happening with the labor supply side? That's a good question, we know the population increases, so the big question is whether the labor market has the supply of labor positions to facilitate economic mobility within the work force. Back when I started, I was able to increase my efficacy to the extent that my contributions to the organization I worked under were valued high enough to see a nearly 200% increase in my wages over a period of roughly three years. Not only was I displaying better proficiency with my current responsibilities but I operated in an environment that offered alternatives should I feel I was not being adequately compensated by my current employer.

The big question a person should ask themselves is whether this is the environment we have now? I would say the answer is in some places yes and in other places no. The next question we should ask ourselves are what kind of labor policies exist in the places that have this level of economic mobility look like and thus making them worthy of emulation. I'll give you a hint, I would start at looking in places like Alaska and North Dakota or if we're going internationally I would examine Hong Kong and Switzerland. That would give you a good start. The last places I would be looking are places like California or France because if people watch the trends it is starting to look like people can't get away from those places fast enough.

So back to the conundrum, can a minimum wage be raised significantly without feeling the ill effects of creating a "price floor" in the cost of labor in the market? The answer, looked at holistically is "it depends". What it depends on is where the new price floor happens to be in comparison to the market value of the associated KSAs and the comparative supply and demand of the labor market. What an increase in the minimum wage will result in is a noticable increase in operational cost of that industry. If the burden can be absorbed by a company they may just go ahead and weather the costs. If it cannot then a business will seek out cost-cutting measures, which could be to reduce staff hours of the individual workers, eliminate overtime options, or even reduce staffing. It may also reduce the amount of pay increases absent promotion that an employee receives during their tenure in the associated position, which is typically a disincentive for prolonged retention. Whatever extent is necessary to retain a business's status as a "going concern" in their industry.

The question I think is most crucial to the discussion is not why the "minimum wage" is not also a "living wage" but why people are seeking a "living wage" from a "minimum wage" position? The one thing "wealth inequality" does display accurately is what an individual's potential for upward economic mobility could be, and then the question becomes what factors are stifling an individual's upward mobility between the minimum wage and the top earners of society. Those barriers are the source of our economic woes, and the very thing we should seek to eliminate post-haste.

I would contend that the problem here is a labor demand one, we don't have enough positions available at the low-to-mid skill level to give people the opportunities to grow their skill level beyond the minimum wage equivalent. Also the positions that are available (approximately 3 million according to the Mikeroweworks foundation) are being actively avoided. Remember those "shovel ready" jobs many "Conservatives" like to poke in the President's eye? Yes those types of jobs. Despite the availability of much of that variety of work, they are just sitting unfilled. This is true whether we're talking North Dakota or California. That to me is a very significant problem!

The other side of the coin is an educational one, not that there is insufficient educational opportunities available. The problem is actually an oligopolistic type of problem. Society has the young person 100% convinced that if they pay (or worse borrow) all of that money to seek a higher learning degree there will be a job waiting for them on the other end of the tunnel. This is fraud of a criminal, Ponzi-Scheme level degree that is only accepted because our culture has bought and sold itself on this philosophy.

In truth an education is important but only when it is directed towards a specific purpose with a qualifiable long term return on the investment. A BA in Modern Dance Philosophy may sound cool to someone's friends, but if it gets you the same job as your friends who have already been in the work force for four years it has only bought you a sizeable amount of debt and four years less of working experience-based skills. If you're already in the career of your dreams and are watching a bunch of nude female "artists" smash their boobies against panes of glass for "enlightenment purposes" that's a different story entirely.

GeoDude
06-02-2014, 08:52 AM
I find it sad that you think conservatism and capitalism/free marketist are synonyms. "Conservatism" is the philosophy of doing the something as you have always done. The GOP are considered conservatism because they have been doing the same thing and kept the same philosophy for 150 years. 150 years ago, it was called "liberal" to treat everyone the same and make ambiguous laws that didn't specify any one race or gender. It was called "liberal" to be an individual. It was "liberal" to have a small government, as small as it could be. It was "liberal" to be for free markets and they believed that government interference would lead to monopolies and cronyism and corruption. It was "liberal" to allow parents to determine the best way to educate their kids. And, "liberalism" started through the church, the protestants breaking away from Catholics. Does any of this fall in line with what we call a Liberal today?

Not really sure why you quoted me though, I didn't quote anything from those two you mentioned.

Yes. Conservatives have been wrong every single generation, and have lost every battle to date. Not sure that's what you were trying to get at though. Probably not.

sandsjames
06-02-2014, 01:11 PM
Discussions are getting lively again in the MTF, kudos to whatever influenced that!



Has to be because of me returning from my 30 day "vacation"!!! :)

WILDJOKER5
06-02-2014, 04:35 PM
Yes. Conservatives have been wrong every single generation, and have lost every battle to date. Not sure that's what you were trying to get at though. Probably not.

Wow, the whole post flew right over your head.

GeoDude
06-02-2014, 05:04 PM
Wow, the whole post flew right over your head.

No, I'm just not taking your revisionist diatribe seriously.

WILDJOKER5
06-03-2014, 01:30 PM
No, I'm just not taking your revisionist diatribe seriously.

LOL. My "revisionist diatribe" comes straight from the encyclopedia britanica. The complete "180" happened after Utilitarianism and progressivism came along and failed miserably so they co-oped the word "liberal" with Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Its called history, when you learn it, you start to know that the parties never switched basic philosophies as it was claimed when a few trolls of the KKK democrat switched to being Republicans, just the names. "Conservitive" is not an antonym of "liberal", it just means to sticking to doing things a certain way for a long period of time. The GOP has always made laws that puts everyone on a level playing field under the eyes of the law and court. Even the supposed "voter ID laws" and "Check for papers" laws were ambiguous in nature. The only ones that see race as a defining characteristic of these laws are democrats, as they always have.