Rise of Minimum wage?

[PLAYER57832]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

Unless they're "too big to fail" and must get union bailouts and permanent bailouts for the future.

No, I definitely thought that was a bad idea... and said so many times.

My response would be "then divide them and don't EVER let them get that big again!"

I wasn't referring only to banks.

That justification was used in reference to banks and the bailout. If you want to apply it to your own circumstances, then you will have to detail what you mean.

[Night Strike]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

Unless they're "too big to fail" and must get union bailouts and permanent bailouts for the future.

No, I definitely thought that was a bad idea... and said so many times.

My response would be "then divide them and don't EVER let them get that big again!"

I wasn't referring only to banks.

That justification was used in reference to banks and the bailout. If you want to apply it to your own circumstances, then you will have to detail what you mean.

The car companies being bailed out. We should also stop using tax payer dollars to fund companies that are about to go bankrupt like Solyndra.

[PLAYER57832]

Businesses need to fail or succeed on their own, without my tax support.

Unless they're "too big to fail" and must get union bailouts and permanent bailouts for the future.

No, I definitely thought that was a bad idea... and said so many times.

My response would be "then divide them and don't EVER let them get that big again!"

I wasn't referring only to banks.

That justification was used in reference to banks and the bailout. If you want to apply it to your own circumstances, then you will have to detail what you mean.

The car companies being bailed out. We should also stop using tax payer dollars to fund companies that are about to go bankrupt like Solyndra.

Technically, we bought the car companies. I am not saying it was a great thing, but we did eventually get our money back. It wasn't a flat bail out like the banks get. Whether they are “too big” or not.. that is another question entirely. I think the problem is not so much that these companies have gotten so big on their own, but that they have done so because of tax and other artificial helps that allowed these corporations to pretend they were doing better than they were.
This is part of where I talk about responsibility. Responsibility starts before you cause problems, before you fail. It means systems are set up so that other people are not left “holding the bag” when you fail. If I had my way, we would not just be getting our money back (I think we technically made a very small profit), but the stockholders of GM would be paying the US taxpayers a premium for the distant future in interest and penalties for that loan.

Solyndra had nothing at all to do with “too big to fail” at all. Partly it was a company putting out a product we actually need to support that happened to be very badly managed (and yes, folks should have seen that prior, but then again… a lot of intelligent people invested in both Enron and with Madolf, so people do make mistakes, even when they work for the government). Partly, it was a company trying to compete with China, where they were already making these well below cost… a fact evidenced by the recent bankruptcy of at least one big Chinese company in the field (though I admit being rather suspicious of that.. the “bankruptcy” may really be something else, but that does not matter for us). I do think that the folks making decisions in the government need to be more careful, but I that doesn’t mean there is no place for government subsidies at all. Building technologies we desperately need for the good of society, but that are not currently profitable on their own is a good example. (and any such subsidies MUST be limited in advance—not necessarily limited by time frame, but limited by meeting criteria).

At any rate, I am nervous about the government interfering too much in companies, regulating their sizes and so forth. The government’s role is to regulate damages and impacts that are not inherent to the business, externalities. I am not convinced that size is one of those, except that, as I said above, in many cases these companies have only been able to get as big as they did because of favorable policies at all levels of government.

This is, for example, one reason why I think we need to change the tax codes. A lot of tax items and such heavily favor big companies. The bigger they are, the more benefit. That is dumb.

[Night Strike]

Technically, we bought the car companies. I am not saying it was a great thing, but we did eventually get our money back. It wasn't a flat bail out like the banks get.

Incorrect. Again. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/12/19/its-official-taxpayers-will-lose-big-on-the-gm-bailout

Plus, there's the fact that Chrysler was sold, at a loss, to Fiat....an Italian company. And I thought it was only the evil business owners that were shipping jobs overseas and driving down wages, not the government.

[tzor]

No, but nice try.

Well at least I try nicer.

But your argument that basically boils down to economics are hard and none of them can predict anything anyway, basically boils down to what I said earlier; an appeal to emotion is your only argument.

[thegreekdog]

Player - are you in favor of using government funds to ensure the existence of companies that have failed?

If so, why?
If not, why not?
If you are for some companies and not for others, where do you draw the line?

[BigBallinStalin]

So that's your criticism of economics? (still not seeing it---hell, most of your post is about economics).

No, but some of your interpretation of economics, perhaps.

RE: Sub. effect. PLAYER: "Well, it's happening anyway." And "raising it won't make things worse" (because....? "it's happening already"). What happens when you raise the price of something beyond its market price? Gee, if PLAYER can answer that, then she'd have to change her mind about her position.

That's an awful way to justify something. Sorry but the rest is too tangential for anyone to bother with. I know if I question you on X, Y, and Z, I'll get more fluff and less details or facts.

Since the basic sum of your argument is "bad stuff will happen", yes, it is pretty reasonable. I am saying "this won't make more bad stuff happen and will make some things better".

As for the rest that you call "too tangential"... well, there you go, like I said -- You dismiss that which you fail to understand.

And, per my understanding of economics. Economics is, at its heart, really just a specialized kind of population dynamics statistics. Its very specific. Most pop dy stats start with an assumption/ artificial constraint that essentially says that population or set of populations (for example, a lake) is/are isolated. We know it isn't, but even with computers, figuring the variables for multiple populations at once is too complicated. We can sort of look at a lake as a whole, but in no way shape or form can we really and truly look at something as broad as the Gulf of Mexico, never mind the entire ocean. Economics does something similar. Its necessary, but when you start taking that data to say it overrides all other data, such as natural resource data, such as real illness impacts and such... then you fail.


Oh, and what happens when you raise the price of something beyond market price.. the market adjusts in one way or another. In this case, since people’s basic needs are relatively static, either employers will pay more or do without. If they do without, then other businesses will come around, in time.

If what you said was true, then the government can set prices at whatever rate with no negative consequences.

I see, so according to you setting a bare minimum for wages just means that the entire free market system is thrown out the window?

Playeroy.

[PLAYER57832]

Technically, we bought the car companies. I am not saying it was a great thing, but we did eventually get our money back. It wasn't a flat bail out like the banks get.

Incorrect. Again. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/12/19/its-official-taxpayers-will-lose-big-on-the-gm-bailout

Plus, there's the fact that Chrysler was sold, at a loss, to Fiat....an Italian company. And I thought it was only the evil business owners that were shipping jobs overseas and driving down wages, not the government.

I already said I did not think it was a good thing, but the bank bail out was just that ... a flat bail out with no return for most people. I have heard that subject debated, but I am not going to get into that because its really just a tangent. I do see why you said "too big to fail", and yes it probably is a correct application of the phrase.

The GM deal may or may not have been a bad investment. (and even if we got our money back, it was still not a good investment necessarily) But as bad as that deal was, it was nothing to the pure theft of taxpayer money for the banks.
The solution is to not artificially prop businesses up. I would like to see a limit to huge factories (of all types) for a lot of reasons, but dividing up a factory that produces goods is very different from dividing up a bank where the main "product" is pretty much a "cloud-based" deal now.

[PLAYER57832]

Player - are you in favor of using government funds to ensure the existence of companies that have failed?

That have failed, no.

If not, why not?
If you are for some companies and not for others, where do you draw the line?

I am not for bringing back a failed company, no. In some limited cases , its OK for the government to support beginning industries, but with a lot of cautions and constraints. I am basically opposed to propping up older business, with very few exceptions for truly necessary industries that may not be able to compete with the low wages and such in a few other countries.


I don't see that as a government's role with only a few exceptions -- specifically to maintain a minimum level of necessary businesses and to help develop new technologies.

That was always the argument for steel, but that choice is now basically gone. The US does not really make steel any more. Is that a bad thing? I cannot say for sure, but I do know that a lot of products that were made from steel are now made from plastics, ceramics or even other metal combinations. Also, it seems less likely that we will face another conventional war, so the need to have a supply of steel for our "security" is probably less.

One area where we absolutely do need protection/investment is in agriculture, but absolutely nothing like current agriculture policies. In essence, I would protect the land, not the crops, and encourage sustainable production styles. Agriculture can be a natural "fit" to preserve wildlife and habitats. (using the "less productive" sections, etc. -- trying not to get too details, but I DO understand this industry). this IS necessary because no matter what happens in the future, being able to feed ourselves is key ot our ability to make independent decisions as a country. And no, while tech fixes may help and can modify needs to some extent, we cannot just rest our future on some esoteric potential possibilities. Any king of agriculture takes time to develope. We need to make sure we still have enough land to feed ourselves until we have other means of production fully and completely implementable on the scale needed to feed our country. (not the case now).

Timber lands would be dealt with similarly, but on a much larger and longer scale. In fact, our current National and State Forest systems actually do a decent job of ensuring that we have a continual supply of timber. In some cases the system was utterly abused, needs to be expanded or modified, but that model works for timber because the profit margin for timber production is so very, very low its almost impossible for private companies to hold land for long term timber production (most smaller companies bid on timber on land other people own. The bigger companies don’t always hold the land they log, either… but again, that is complicated). National Forests have evolved as a way to keep private companies in business harvesting timber without the heavy constraints of ownership. In exchange, people get to use the forest for various other uses, and the Forest Service can (since 1978, but most particularly in the recent decades) set aside some lands for non timber needs as well. (wilderness, stream protections, wildlife protection and recreation sites like campgrounds, swimming areas and such).

The problem with the “we need this industry” argument is not that it doesn’t truly exist, its that it is way too often used to mean just “protect OUR pocket books.” Saving the steel industry, back when steel was king is one thing, but preserving GM.. I don’t think its the same thing. I think the standard is legitimate, but we have to be far, far more critical of what we consider vital. One industry we maybe should do more to preserve (not sure, but its something I think worth debating as a country) might be ship building. We still do depend on shipping heavily, but there are very few active shipbuilders still around. Then again, maybe it doesn’t matter..

The other front where the government might need to prop up business is research and development. I have said this before, but most people just have no idea how many of the very big and very important developments in the past century have come originally or even nearly entirely, from government research. Lasers, freeze drying, the cure for malaria … these are just 3 small examples. The government doesn’t hold patents (something I would like to see changed). They do research and then give the patent to a private company or person doing similar research, by law.

Anyway, to find new technologies and new developments means a LOT of “wasted” effort, though I add in the caveat that in many, many cases, it is the “waste” that actually winds up being the true development. The whole field of chaos mathematics came about largely because of weather data, just as an example. Conservatives like to poke fun at research they consider a “waste”, but the real truth is that its just that kind of seemingly ridiculous and silly research that can sometimes lead to the real and true breakthroughs. This doesn’t mean that the bulk of government research needs to go in that direction, but it means that the government needs to carry that kind of research out. (if nothing else, some of these seemingly worthless research endeavors can be decent training grounds for scientists). The bulk of research, though should be directed at potential, real, very big problems. Right now, we truly MUST get a handle on global climate change. We may or may not be able to prevent it, but definitely need to be planning for the eventualities already beginning. We know our sources of oil are limited and held largely by nasty folks. It’s the height of stupidity that we have not already invested heavily into researching for alternatives. There are alternatives that I head about 30 years ago that have not even been tested or investigated yet. Hydrogen is one possibility, though it is looking as though that won’t have the potential it was hoped it might have (then again, there has been comparatively little research investment).

Anyway, once products are developed, there is a testing/experimental period where I am sometimes happy to see tax dollars invested… IF the result is something that will benefit us all.

[thegreekdog]

Good - so you don't support the bailouts of the automotive industry.

[stahrgazer]

Hmm.

Most of you who don't support the automotive bailout probably don't realize the security repercussions of abandoning what is really our last existing manufacturing processes.

For example, the same companies that make bolts for autos also make bolts for tanks, airplanes, etc. Boltmakers have gone out of business in the US because the automotive industry downsized.

When those boltmakers went out of business, there went much of the US ability to manufacture the bolts needed to hold high-tech air systems together (such as was required for the F22 Raptor) and more specifically, the forged tie rods required for the engines.

"Forging" isn't just a process of melting metal, you see. Forging is also a process whereby semi-hard metal is pounded into shape. The pounding adds strength to the product, whereas cutting the shape weakens the product.

It's a specialized process, one that is not productive for airframe, tank body, or engine manufacturers to invest in. The process requires special equipment, equipment frequently made - at least in part - of STEEL.

Similarly, some sheet metal work for things like USAF or USN or USMC equipment is easily a spinoff of the sheet metal work required for autos.

As for steel? Steel is STILL used in most of the military equipment, sometimes as a specialized steel part, sometimes as part of the metal blend for ti alloys.

You may not care if your auto is made in Japan or Pakistan, but you SHOULD care if your military equipment has to be made on foreign soil.

Not to mention all the higher-than-minimum-wage jobs lost if you let your manufacturing sources go.

When I was a kid, I remember folks talking about how one reason Japan's economy, then, had gone to the dogs, and it was because they'd let their manufacturing go. Japan later learned its lesson. The US needs to remember that lesson really fast, because what happened to Japan then is happening to us, now.

While the idea of investing in farmland is nice, a farm isn't going to protect us from North Korea's bombs.

We NEED our manufacturing intact and rather than allowed to shrink more, it needs to grow again.

You may say aircraft like the Raptor aren't as needed anymore, or nuclear subs, or naval ships, because now we have drones. Even Drones must be manufactured from parts like bolts and screws; and even drones probably have steel in them. And a little over a year ago, it required Seal boots on the ground to take out our nation's #1 enemy - and they got there in equipment made partly of steel, using bolts and other equipment that stem from processes used in the automotive industry by workers who made at least a little more than minimum wage.

[Night Strike]

Stahr, how is nationalizing those industries the answer to keeping them? If you REALLY want businesses, especially manufacturing ones, to stay in the US, then you stop the government clamp-down on them. Stop the EPA and others from writing new regulations on them every single year without Congressional approval. Stop raising taxes on the businesses through governmental mandates.

And the problem with the auto-unions isn't just that they make more than minimum wage.....it's that they make obscenely more than their products are worth. Especially with benefits and guaranteed pensions that can never be afforded in perpetuity. If we continue to raise the minimum wage, then we'll be getting a lot more people getting paid more than their products are worth.....which those same people cannot afford.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm.

Most of you who don't support the automotive bailout probably don't realize the security repercussions of abandoning what is really our last existing manufacturing processes.

For example, the same companies that make bolts for autos also make bolts for tanks, airplanes, etc. Boltmakers have gone out of business in the US because the automotive industry downsized.

When those boltmakers went out of business, there went much of the US ability to manufacture the bolts needed to hold high-tech air systems together (such as was required for the F22 Raptor) and more specifically, the forged tie rods required for the engines.

"Forging" isn't just a process of melting metal, you see. Forging is also a process whereby semi-hard metal is pounded into shape. The pounding adds strength to the product, whereas cutting the shape weakens the product.

It's a specialized process, one that is not productive for airframe, tank body, or engine manufacturers to invest in. The process requires special equipment, equipment frequently made - at least in part - of STEEL.

Similarly, some sheet metal work for things like USAF or USN or USMC equipment is easily a spinoff of the sheet metal work required for autos.

As for steel? Steel is STILL used in most of the military equipment, sometimes as a specialized steel part, sometimes as part of the metal blend for ti alloys.

You may not care if your auto is made in Japan or Pakistan, but you SHOULD care if your military equipment has to be made on foreign soil.

Not to mention all the higher-than-minimum-wage jobs lost if you let your manufacturing sources go.

When I was a kid, I remember folks talking about how one reason Japan's economy, then, had gone to the dogs, and it was because they'd let their manufacturing go. Japan later learned its lesson. The US needs to remember that lesson really fast, because what happened to Japan then is happening to us, now.

While the idea of investing in farmland is nice, a farm isn't going to protect us from North Korea's bombs.

We NEED our manufacturing intact and rather than allowed to shrink more, it needs to grow again.

You may say aircraft like the Raptor aren't as needed anymore, or nuclear subs, or naval ships, because now we have drones. Even Drones must be manufactured from parts like bolts and screws; and even drones probably have steel in them. And a little over a year ago, it required Seal boots on the ground to take out our nation's #1 enemy - and they got there in equipment made partly of steel, using bolts and other equipment that stem from processes used in the automotive industry by workers who made at least a little more than minimum wage.

Since I'm pretty much against the current U.S. military complex, this is not an argument that would sway me.

Also - LOL on the red.

[Symmetry]

Stahr- Japan has minimum wage laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#Japan

[PLAYER57832]

Stahr, how is nationalizing those industries the answer to keeping them? If you REALLY want businesses, especially manufacturing ones, to stay in the US, then you stop the government clamp-down on them. Stop the EPA and others from writing new regulations on them every single year without Congressional approval. Stop raising taxes on the businesses through governmental mandates.

I see, so according to you the answer is just to pretend that environmental damage is not happening, that people are not getting injured and to just go ahead and let business get even MORE of a free pass on the services they use, damage they cause.

That is EXACTLY why we are failing.

And the problem with the auto-unions isn't just that they make more than minimum wage.....it's that they make obscenely more than their products are worth. Especially with benefits and guaranteed pensions that can never be afforded in perpetuity. If we continue to raise the minimum wage, then we'll be getting a lot more people getting paid more than their products are worth.....which those same people cannot afford.

"Unreasonable" is a relative term.
In some cases, the union demands might have been unreasonable, BUT.... at the very same time, the investment income of the leaders and investors began to take a far, far greater take.

The problem with the auto industry is pretty much like the problem with ALL industry in this country and, frankly worldwide. When most money is made through investment and not work, then it becomes extremely easy to just devalue the work and the worker.

It is not taxes or environmental regulations that have driven this. Greed, the “need” for a very few people to make multiple millions, regardless of how that money is earned – THAT is the real problem.

We saw something similar in the past – right before the depression. It was no coincidence that one followed the other. Nor is it coincidence that we have just seen major downturns, are having a very hard time getting back up again. When you allow the earners and true creators of products to be so devalued and mere investment to have such huge gain, then decisions are made that just bypass any needs of workers, average people or society.. and its not long before they make decisions that cause the whole system to collapse.

The mortgage crisis was not caused because a guy making 30K for $200K. It was caused because bank managers had so much money vested in just offering mortgages that they were willing to forge papers, tell folks making 30-50K that it was perfectly reasonable for them to get a house for 200K (and note, that in these areas, there were almost no houses for less than that, in many cases the cost of rent was about the same).. and investors who were so willing to believe promises of huge gains that they just ignored or failed to fully investigate. It was caused because people got greedy and greedy people have a way of not paying attention to details.

GM failed, not because unions demanded too much, it failed because people at the top made stupid decisions and were allowed to continue to do so because their income was so removed from the product. Add in a failure to truly support pensions, medical plans in a way that they had promised and, like always, you have the workers taking the hit for decisions made by management… and getting blamed for it, too boot!

[PLAYER57832]

While the idea of investing in farmland is nice, a farm isn't going to protect us from North Korea's bombs.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but the above is absolutely wrong.

An army, a people move on their stomaches. Farms may not provide a sheild, but they will allow us to feed ourselves when shipping is limited. Also, it will provide sheer space for people. Its a lot harder to hit a spread out rural population with effectiveness than to hit a city.

Further properly managed, farms provide an environmental buffer that is very much needed, not just an esoteric nice thing to have.

[Juan_Bottom]

I too, agree with Stahr in general.

I also find a lot of humor in that. Player and I argue in tandem all of the time, and we also work well enough with Stahr too. But I'll be goddamned if Player or I would work well with the other "Conservatives" here.

[Night Strike]

I too, agree with Stahr in general.

I also find a lot of humor in that. Player and I argue in tandem all of the time, and we also work well enough with Stahr too. But I'll be goddamned if Player or I would work well with the other "Conservatives" here.

That's because stahr has a lot of views that are not conservative, just like many Republicans in government have a lot of views that are not conservative (McCain, Graham, etc.).

[Nobunaga]

A humorous article:

http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2 ... nough?lite

Fast food workers striking in New York City.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Help us get a job at your office," he said, gesturing to the army of white collar workers scurrying to their high-rise buildings.

Haha, it's funny because it depends on what they can offer in exchange for that kind of job.

They don't see it that way though. They want more while offering the same or less. Of course, everyone wants that kind of profit-maximization. Everyone wants greater cost-savings, but it still depends on what you can bring to the table--assuming that both parties adhere to voluntary exchange.

But they reject voluntary exchange. They want "the right to form a union without retaliation." 'Retaliation' is a cute, emotional word for people who lack understanding. It's not retaliation. It's really a rejection of a bad deal from which follows a reasonable consequence incurred by those making ridiculous offers in an exchange ($15 per hour).

Henry: I like this shirt. How about I give you $3.00?
Sally: No, it's $20. Don't be ridiculous.
Henry: I hate your retaliation! GIVE ME THE SHIRT FOR $3.00!
Sally: So much for not being ridiculous. Go away please.
Henry: NO! I'm protesting. I want more for less!
--which coincidentally you can get at Kohl's.

What about the customers? These unionizers don't give a damn about the increased prices that customers would have to pay. They don't care about other people's reduced cost-savings and their lives. They only care about their own, which would be good enough but their demands are at other people's expense, so that's despicable. Remember: they want an involuntary exchange, which is always zero-sum.

I reject forced association. Instead I favor the right to free association. In other words, these guys can unionize all they want--so long as non-union members can work there as well and are not forced to pay union fees or join it. (Of course, the unionizers would hate that. They can't stand to see others offering better deals than them on a voluntary basis).

[BigBallinStalin]

There is a voluntary path for developing greater productivity--to become more useful to others and for oneself. But, it is a hard path. Many are capable but few are willing. Some of them mask their potential, thus they delude themselves. They say, "I work full-time." "Full-time," as in 40 hours per week. In some places, it's 30 hours per week.

Consider the person who works 60 hours per week. That person can actually demand more because he/she is willing and capable of offering more--even though that person is burdened by the definite exploitation of others through taxation.

Or consider the person working 40 hours per week or even less, yet follows a path to fulfillment.

Finally, consider the person who works 40 hours per week or less, earns less than the "poverty" level, and receives "welfare" payments--yet still demands more. They net about $30,000 per year, yet still they demand more. And this is praised and supported by not a few people! Perhaps, these supporters delude themselves.

What does each type of person do on their leisure time to improve themselves? Do they exercise that "will to power"? Or do they excuse themselves in order to willingly languish in their own muck?

[Symmetry]

Finally, consider the person who works 40 hours per week or less, earns less than the "poverty" level, and receives "welfare" payments--yet still demands more. They net about $30,000 per year, yet still they demand more. And this is praised and supported by not a few people! Perhaps, these supporters delude themselves.

Are you really attacking ambition now?

[Teflon Kris]

Yeah - lets set a MAXIMUM wage!! However 'hard' tea-drinkers work, they dont want us to know how much they earn as they are embarrassed.

In fact, why dont we just find the most radical state of Europe and all move there and vote in a maximum wage. Then, for everyone that works hard, we can all have broadband, go on holiday, have a family, afford transport, a garden, living space etc. If people leave to go elsewhere for more money then who cares, there are enough people in the world to find plenty of able and willing replacements.

And, our society wont be run by a bunch of millionaires.

Sorry, 'consultants', 'head-hunters', 'corporate entertainment', you might need a new career lol. Any fascist-minded people around can be happily employed as the effort police, they can go and audit how hard people are working instead of checking paperwork. Jobs that nobody else wants to do? Well, those found guilty of laziness would have an appropriate rehabilitory social-pay-back deterrent-punishment there.

And, no, americans not allowed shares or ownership of any companies or public services (damn - who would fund this? f*ck, screwed!)

[PLAYER57832]

There is a voluntary path for developing greater productivity--to become more useful to others and for oneself. But, it is a hard path. Many are capable but few are willing. Some of them mask their potential, thus they delude themselves. They say, "I work full-time." "Full-time," as in 40 hours per week. In some places, it's 30 hours per week.

Consider the person who works 60 hours per week. That person can actually demand more because he/she is willing and capable of offering more--even though that person is burdened by the definite exploitation of others through taxation.

Or consider the person working 40 hours per week or even less, yet follows a path to fulfillment.

Finally, consider the person who works 40 hours per week or less, earns less than the "poverty" level, and receives "welfare" payments--yet still demands more. They net about $30,000 per year, yet still they demand more. And this is praised and supported by not a few people! Perhaps, these supporters delude themselves.

What does each type of person do on their leisure time to improve themselves? Do they exercise that "will to power"? Or do they excuse themselves in order to willingly languish in their own muck?

Yeah, because education is, like totally free and anyone can just access it on a whim, no constraints regarding transportation or any other limits.

And, there is an absolute gaurantee that that education will be valued and appreciated ... no cronism, no sexism or other types of bias, and this can be seen by the entirely equal allotment of jobs to people of all genders, classes, races, etc.


Blaming the poor for their poverty is an old game. You are not even among the most creative in the current mix.

Sure, there are idiots who abuse the system.. and plenty of idiots who have jobs that don't deserve them, that are very overpaid and making others pay for their problems. BOTH are problems, but the idiots who are working executive positions or middle management cause far more grief and problems than the idiots who are taking welfare checks. Those in jobs making decisions about resources that have nary a clue about the impact of their decisions are causing real and true harm every day that won't go away.

The solution is, again to make working valuable. That begins by expecting employers to pay a reasonable wage instead of just paying off investors and themselves. That benefits everyone except the investors.. and even they benefit in the long term. People who make more can actually buy things iwthout depending on tax dollars to do it. They pay taxes instead of using them. And, it sets the paradigm that working is something of value. That is something our country used to stand for, not just investing in the stockmarket for ephemeral resturns, regardless of how that money was earned. People who earn money through work understand the impact of what they do.. good or bad. Investors too often ignore impacts in favor of whatever returns they can get, as your arguments show time and again.

[Night Strike]

Player, your views of businesses and the economy are fundamentally flawed. Businesses provide a "reasonable wage" based on the skill level of the position and the value it brings to the company. "Reasonable wages" are NOT determined by the lifestyle the worker wants to live. You're trying to force the latter when reality runs on the former.