Is this country blind stupid?

[Moon]

Now after reading this thread so far , do you know now why I call conservatives the hate party.

From what I've seen it's because you aren't willing to consider any ideas outside of your own little bubble.

 

[Conaeolos]

Yup, why should me and my neighbors have to pay for people to keep a roof over their family and food on their table when the two adults are both working 40 hours and need food stamps and other support to survive.

So the market sets a wage best an a voluntary agreement between producers and employees through an auction like system to determine a fair market value(I can give up said % of my expected return in exchange for this labour, the labour market agrees or disagrees by acceptaing an opening). From there families are responsible to keep a roof over their family and food on their table etc via their household budget.

You feel the government must step in even more than it currently does to rigg this labour market.
My question to you then is you must then want to change this basic principle....what do you view as more fair then a free labour market? How do you say we distribute wealth if not by market forces?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

This from the jackboot party. What nonsense, Your kill them all or let them starve routine is just stupid ,first it would cause way more problems that what would be a achieved . My suggestion is in no way a Nazi Wannabee suggestion but your response is. But that's who you people are.

Oh, I think we can all see which is the nasty ad hom generator here.

That is a very comic book description you fling there, but hey, I can't lay on hands, cure zealotry. You go right on ahead and think as you want to think.

Can't stop you and certainly have little to no interest in making the attempt.

 

[Vadinho]

If you read Marx you will find the answer to the question posed in the top post.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

This from the jackboot party. What nonsense, Your kill them all or let them starve routine is just stupid ,first it would cause way more problems that what would be a achieved . My suggestion is in no way a Nazi Wannabee suggestion but your response is. But that's who you people are.

Many of these people are incapable understand complex things. Their entire worldview is that it must be either black or white. In fact, their entire worldview is whatever BS Fox tells them. They don't comprehend consequences, facts, the ignore all the issue at play about why people are poor, about crime, about the economy, etc. As long as they and their family are good, who cares what happens to other people.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

From what I've seen it's because you aren't willing to consider any ideas outside of your own little bubble.

Conservatives projecting yet again LOL Conservaitves watch nothing but fox news, calls all the rest of media biased. Calls science biased, universities biase, all media bias, yeah, its liberals who live in a bubble.

Oh, and conservative also often live in rural areas surrounded by only like minded people of the same religion and race, talk about bubble

 

[Moon]

Conservatives projecting yet again LOL Conservaitves watch nothing but fox news, calls all the rest of media biased. Calls science biased, universities biase, all media bias, yeah, its liberals who live in a bubble.

Oh, and conservative also often live in rural areas surrounded by only like minded people of the same religion and race, talk about bubble

I don't watch Fox. I live in a suburb of Seattle. I have a degree in Engineering.

Any other stereotypes you'd like to have shot down?

 

[trouble13]

So we will continue to do it your way and feed and house these people with sub livable wages out of our pockets instead.. Why the **** should I or why do you want to. The rights answer is just let them starve , as seen below. Just the increase in crime that would cause would be enough not to do something as stupid as that.

Your a progressive bitching about paying into welfare
Just let that sink in before responding

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Northern Light]

Reading the comments here from both sides -- I think people are so polarized by political ideology that they are not even aware of what the actual situation is on the front lines/ground level. It's kind of like people who talk about our military but have never served a day. Being poor in America is a really tough slog and with the middle class shrinking, upward mobility is a lot more difficult, even for the most determined. There are more low income people competing for fewer resources (like financial aid for school, etc.) than there were 10 years ago.

I do see lazy, entitled people everywhere. However, there are ~40 million Americans living in poverty, more than ever before, although the total percentage has remained relatively stable over the past 20-30 years. Some say the numbers are higher. The majority of people born poor stay poor. Are you really going to say that all those people are just being lazy or entitled? Can you even imagine what 40 million people looks like???

No one likes to talk about the rich though. The top 5 companies in the U.S. paid no taxes in the past 5 years. Amazon has paid no taxes. Its CEO is on course to become the world's first trillioniare. He also doesn't pay taxes.

There's actually enough for everyone. If we increased taxes by 1% on the top 100 wealthiest people in America, we could end poverty in America.

But no... that runs contrary to "the dream", that if you can't make it, it's your damn fault.

When people are asking for handouts based on survival, you can't possibly call that entitlement culture. You have to have real privilege to truly be entitled, and most of these people aren't.

The wealth disparity we are seeing is a sign of end stage capitalism. All societies that came before us and fell suffered from these excesses.

 

[Conaeolos]

Being poor in America is a really tough slog and with the middle class shrinking, upward mobility is a lot more difficult, even for the most determined.

Agreed

When people are asking for handouts based on survival, you can't possibly call that entitlement culture. You have to have real privilege to truly be entitled, and most of these people aren't.

Entitlement culture refers to believing the problem/solution is with someone else rather than oneself. It has nothing to do with privilege.

a sign of end stage capitalism.

If it was the result of capitalism than why are these problems worse in less capitalist systems?

There's actually enough for everyone. If we increased taxes by 1% on the top 100 wealthiest people in America, we could end poverty in America.

???

You can't switch from relative measures to absolute ones.

If you took 1% from the top and distributed amoungst the poor you would not change the relative poverty only the absolute.

America in absolute poverty terms is doing better than ever….it's realtive distrabution that is increasing...

No one likes to talk about the rich though. The top 5 companies in the U.S. paid no taxes in the past 5 years. Amazon has paid no taxes. Its CEO is on course to become the world's first trillioniare. He also doesn't pay taxes.

How do you suppose we fix that injust non-equality before the law? Capitalist principles would say equalize out the tax code - flat tax with minimized exceptions and something tells me that is the opposite of your vision of a fix.

I would by the way still call these companies smart - that doesn't mean I think the taxes paid were fair but an with such an unfair tax code - you don't blame the "cheat" in a rigged game.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yup, why should me and my neighbors have to pay for people to keep a roof over their family and food on their table when the two adults are both working 40 hours and need food stamps and other support to survive. So business can make more money, why is it my responsibility to have to pay for their golden profits.$15 an hour is a start but it always has to be enough to feed a family no matter what the wage level is. Who in the hell saves money at wall-mart if they have to pay for one of their workers to survive. That what the right want for this country , it's just another way to hand everything they can to the wealthy and big B. It's some more of that trickle down nonsense.

Do you feel the same about welfare cheaters and those many who scam the government for disability when they could really work? Or, do you buy the liberal propaganda that these people are just but a very, very small drop in the bucket? What about illegals? Why should you have money taken out of your check to help support people who shouldn't be here in the first place?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Yup, why should me and my neighbors have to pay for people to keep a roof over their family and food on their table when the two adults are both working 40 hours and need food stamps and other support to survive. So business can make more money, why is it my responsibility to have to pay for their golden profits.$15 an hour is a start but it always has to be enough to feed a family no matter what the wage level is. Who in the hell saves money at wall-mart if they have to pay for one of their workers to survive. That what the right want for this country , it's just another way to hand everything they can to the wealthy and big B. It's some more of that trickle down nonsense.

Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr has a hidden cost to the employer that is both astronomical and conveniently left out of the discussion by proponents of the $15 minimum.

Federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 but many cities and states have a higher minimum. Businesses must pay the higher amount so I'll use my home state of Minnesota as an example. Minimum wage in Minnesota is currently $7.87/hr. Let's say you own a business that employs 25 people. You have a manager and a supervisor on salary, 3 leads making about $25/hr, and your pay scale for "worker bees" starts at $10/hr and can go as high as $20/hr with tenure, advanced skills, and positive reviews. Let's say that of your 20 "worker bees" 5 make $10/hr, 5 make $12/hr, 5 make $15/hr and 5 make $18/hr.

If you give the bottom 5 a $5/hr raise and the next 5 a $2/hr raise, the ones that only got $2/hr are going to throw an absolute fit. Furthermore, the 5 that are already making $15/hr are going to be livid that a bunch of newbies and another bunch of less skilled and less tenured employees are now making as much as they are. And even furthermore, the senior employees are going to be pissed as hell that they are now only making $3/hr more than a bunch of people who are light years less valuable to the organization than they are.

If you raise the minimum that much(and $15/hr would more than double it) you would be effectively be doubling wages across the board.

 

[Northern Light]

Entitlement culture refers to believing the problem/solution is with someone else rather than oneself. It has nothing to do with privilege.

When it comes to survival, it has everything to do with privilege. Entitlement culture means that you are owed, which is how poverty is framed by the privileged to discredit the disprivileged. They act like the poor are here to take what's theirs when in reality the most wealthy people have so much money that even a fractional amount could rescue all of humanity from living in slums. That's my point.

If it was the result of capitalism than why are these problems worse in less capitalist systems?

I hate this question because it's improperly framed. What you should be asking is: can we come up with something better than capitalism? My answer is yes. I don't want to hear false dilemmas created by comparisons to other failed systems. We have the intelligence and expertise to do better now.

If you took 1% from the top and distributed amoungst the poor you would not change the relative poverty only the absolute.

It would certainly improve a lot of people's lives. They'd be able to afford to survive and to have adequate health care and living conditions.

Not everyone who's being forced to participate in this ponzi scheme of a system actually cares about getting rich. Most people are content with having their needs met so they can spend time with their family or pursuing leisure activities. Not everyone is addicted to wealth in the way that the ruling class is.

America in absolute poverty terms is doing better than ever….it's realtive distrabution that is increasing...

Nope. Wrong. Wealth distribution has decreased in the past 20 years. It started with the Bush tax cuts. The gap between rich and poor is wider than ever.

How do you suppose we fix that injust non-equality before the law? Capitalist principles would say equalize out the tax code - flat tax with minimized exceptions and something tells me that is the opposite of your vision of a fix.

The law is bogus. It's been totally gamed by the rich to benefit the rich. You act like they deserve fairness when in reality they have created the problems we are experiencing today -- on a global scale. The neo-liberal aristocrats are almost totally to blame for this.

There needs to be income redistribution, along with bringing the central banks under public control. The Federal Reserve is the biggest scam in American history that has robbed us of our livelihood. The wealthiest companies get trillion dollar bailouts while the poor get blamed for all that ails society.

Our #1 problem is white collar crime and money laundering that goes unpunished.

I would by the way still call these companies smart - that doesn't mean I think the taxes paid were fair but an with such an unfair tax code - you don't blame the "cheat" in a rigged game.

The tax code is unfair. It was designed by them, for them. The intermediary of government is just a smoke screen to conceal this fact.

The Panama Papers show us that trillions - not billions, trillions - are being stashed overseas that the IRS will never see.

 

[Grim17]

Land of the insane where the number of kids people should have is dictated by how much they make. No family's allowed set by a national wage standard. I'm talking about a family of four , they need enough to survive without me paying for their food and housing . Why should anyone other then who they work for pay them. This gets rid of a massive amount of money that tax payers pay to house and feed these people , that is straight out stupid . The business should. I'm not suggesting a wage needed for 20 children.

Government controlled wages is a recipe for disaster. Forcing companies to pay the wages you suggest, would result in mass layoffs, many companies going out of business and a sharp increase in the price all consumers would have to pay for many goods and services.

Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions that require little education and little or no skill. They are ideal for teens and students to get their first work experience, and for adults looking to supplement their incomes. The federal minimum wage was never intended to provide a living income for family households, nor should it ever be expected to.

In 1986 I got laid off from a pretty decent paying sales job with my wife 5 months pregnant with of first child. I ended up working 3 jobs, 2 full time and one part time, (78 to 84 hours a week) making between $4 and $4.50 an hour at each of them. Other than eating supper 5 nights a week at her parents house just down the block, we managed to get by and pay the bills with no state or federal assistance of any kind. Two months after our son was born I got another sales job and we never looked back.

Growing up, my family had a middle to lower middle class income and even though there were some hard financial times, my parents never applied for or received government assistance of any kind. My parents didn't consider government hand-outs an option for our family, so they did what ever they had to do to keep food on the table. To them, collecting food stamps or welfare would have been an embarrassment and a source of great shame for failing to provide for their family. That sentiment prevailed with most families back then, but it sure doesn't anymore..

Unfortunately, we now live in a time where people see government hand-outs as their mandatory first option when things get tough, making the option of working multiple jobs and doing what ever it takes to get by, an option most people never get around to or even consider doing. Applying for welfare or government assistance is considered a smart move today, while those working at low paying jobs and doing everything they can to avoid applying for government assistance, are seen as fools.

.

 

[KLATTU]

Government controlled wages is a recipe for disaster.

.

It is. Making employers pay people more for doing nothing just doesn't strike me as a good idea.

 

[Conaeolos]

Since we are generally on the same page in terms of outcome. I will focus on where I think you're going wrong in your remedy.

Nope. Wrong. Wealth distribution has decreased in the past 20 years. It started with the Bush tax cuts. The gap between rich and poor is wider than ever.

Check your numbers. In relative terms yes but not in absolute terms. Americans are wealthier than anytime in history.

I am not dismissing that relative inequality can be bad. I am only saying you can't conflate the two when they do not match.
Relative inequality would be unaffected by 1% redistribution.

Our #1 problem is white collar crime and money laundering that goes unpunished. [/qquote]
So the problem is not the tax code is open to beign gamed by those in the know, but tax fraud/crime?

The Panama Papers show us that trillions - not billions, trillions - are being stashed overseas that the IRS will never see.

Why should revenue abroad be taxed in the USA? Why not just in country of origin?

 

[Mithrae]

Government controlled wages is a recipe for disaster. Forcing companies to pay the wages you suggest, would result in mass layoffs, many companies going out of business and a sharp increase in the price all consumers would have to pay for many goods and services.

Since there are countries with comparatively high minimum wages that have not suffered "disaster," that's obviously not true. Price increases, yes... but people earning more money needn't be bothered by slightly higher prices. As Jack Fabulous illustrated, there'd be good reason to expect at least some scaling of wages above the minimum; if a $10 minimum wage were increased to $13, managers who'd been earning $14 would certainly expect a raise of their own! However a 30% increase in labour costs for a company would not necessitate a 30% increase in prices, since labour costs are only a fraction of their expenses.

If wages went up 30%, prices would go up perhaps 10%... and with more disposable income, we'd expect not only stable consumer spending and business profits but probably even an increase: There's more reason to expect a positive effect on net employment than negative. Provided such changes are implemented gradually enough to allow time for adjustment.

Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions that require little education and little or no skill. They are ideal for teens and students to get their first work experience, and for adults looking to supplement their incomes. The federal minimum wage was never intended to provide a living income for family households, nor should it ever be expected to.

And yet the unfortunate reality is that's the situation which many people find themselves in. So as I see it the options are:
A) Leave them to starve and/or resort to crime to make ends meet
B) Provide them with direct government handouts
C) Tweak the labour market to alleviate the issue indirectly

Some people evidently prefer A, but I find it obviously absurd and really can't see much common ground with folk who think that punitive enforcement is the best and only guiding principle for modern society. B is better, and in some cases (eg. age, disability and unemployment) is certainly necessary, but it's still not ideal. I think it's much better for people to earn their living... without having to work 100 hours a week to do so!

(Incidentally, there is indeed the legitimate concern that higher minimum wages could make it harder for teens to find their first job; so in Australia, award rates are lower for teens with the full rate only kicking in at age 21.)

 

[Mithrae]

No one likes to talk about the rich though. The top 5 companies in the U.S. paid no taxes in the past 5 years. Amazon has paid no taxes. Its CEO is on course to become the world's first trillioniare. He also doesn't pay taxes.

There's actually enough for everyone. If we increased taxes by 1% on the top 100 wealthiest people in America, we could end poverty in America.

But no... that runs contrary to "the dream", that if you can't make it, it's your damn fault.

When people are asking for handouts based on survival, you can't possibly call that entitlement culture. You have to have real privilege to truly be entitled, and most of these people aren't.

I think it's important to emphasize that individual handouts, while sometimes necessary, are not the ideal. That's part of why minimum wage increases are a worthwhile option in my view. I also support more progressive taxation, but ideally for more public spending rather than individual; education, healthcare, public transport and infrastructure, city beautification and planning - all of which can help provide employment, opportunities and lifestyle improvements - along with broader projects like scientific research, environmental and space programs.

As I see it a regulated free market is the best system we've devised for encouraging innovation, efficiency and generating wealth, but we should view it as generating wealth for society rather than blindly accepting its inherently concentrative tendencies. I worry about the 'redistribution' buzz word a lot of people use, because it seems to carry the wrong implications; ideally the flow of distribution should be from the concentrations at the top to society as a whole - facilities and services available and beneficial to everyone - not from the top to individuals at the bottom.

 

[jbander]

Everyone pays for people not making enough to take care of their families, whether it's from welfare or higher prices at the businesses you hate so much. At some point, the attitude in thos country needs to shift back to "I'm going to do whatever I have to for my family" from the seeming current one of "What are you going to give me?". Our current path is not sustainable long term.

The burden should fall on the adults to improve their situations, not on everyone else to carry those who are unwilling to do more. I'm not talking about people who get laid off, injured, etc. I think we should help those folks get back on their feet. I'm talking about those who are able, but unwilling to do what needs to be done.

You haters have this all figured out, kill them all or let them starve. Like anyone who reads this moral high ground bull**** you offer as anything other then what it is, **** everyone. I would say doing it your way will double the crime and doing it my way lets people support themselves. Tell me the difference between you paying for helping these people or you paying a higher price for the product , You people are so blinded by your hate you can't see simple logic. You and the rest of your right wing are one ugly group of people.

 

[jbander]

Everyone pays for people not making enough to take care of their families, whether it's from welfare or higher prices at the businesses you hate so much. At some point, the attitude in thos country needs to shift back to "I'm going to do whatever I have to for my family" from the seeming current one of "What are you going to give me?". Our current path is not sustainable long term.

The burden should fall on the adults to improve their situations, not on everyone else to carry those who are unwilling to do more. I'm not talking about people who get laid off, injured, etc. I think we should help those folks get back on their feet. I'm talking about those who are able, but unwilling to do what needs to be done.

I have to emphasis one thing , the idea that I hate business. Try this on for size , or at least try . I've run a business and have for 45 years. I've made more then half my income during my lifetime investing. You people can't operate without lies , you wouldn't exist without lies and you get all your facts from Fox. I mean go to the fake media and get half lies or go to fox and get all lies. You people are pitiful.

 

[jbander]

From what I've seen it's because you aren't willing to consider any ideas outside of your own little bubble.

Are you joking , the only other advice from you haters has been kill them or let them starve. Boy I hope you realize what a hate group these right wingers here have been. Just read what they write.

 

[Bullseye]

Yup, why should me and my neighbors have to pay for people to keep a roof over their family and food on their table when the two adults are both working 40 hours and need food stamps and other support to survive. So business can make more money, why is it my responsibility to have to pay for their golden profits.$15 an hour is a start but it always has to be enough to feed a family no matter what the wage level is. Who in the hell saves money at wall-mart if they have to pay for one of their workers to survive. That what the right want for this country , it's just another way to hand everything they can to the wealthy and big B. It's some more of that trickle down nonsense.

So, just have them move in with you.

 

[jbander]

So the market sets a wage best an a voluntary agreement between producers and employees through an auction like system to determine a fair market value(I can give up said % of my expected return in exchange for this labour, the labour market agrees or disagrees by acceptaing an opening). From there families are responsible to keep a roof over their family and food on their table etc via their household budget.

You feel the government must step in even more than it currently does to rigg this labour market.
My question to you then is you must then want to change this basic principle....what do you view as more fair then a free labour market? How do you say we distribute wealth if not by market forces?

Market forces bull**** , this countries first economist , Adam Smith in 1779 said there are time when the market doesn't set the prices that business does, that's whats happening now. Explain to me how every dime of new profit all went to the wealthy but the workers income has gone down in the last 45 years. Lets put it into perspective Corporate profits have gone up from 200 billion a year in 81 to over 2 trillion a year now. That difference is 1.8 trillion a year that is all going to the top ,none of the extra going to the worker. A Every country in the world can distribute profits the way they want to through tax law and tax rates. So no The market controlling wages is a joke, a brain dead joke. Government can distribute that 1.8 trillion a year to the worker and nothing to business, if you don't see that as being fair then the opposite of that is also not fair. Your way will destroy this countries economy, if the trickle down lie continues and tax law is set up the way it is , Capitalism will die. You can't take the prime ingredient from what makes capitalism great and expect it to continue on for ever. It won't.

 

[jbander]

I don't watch Fox. I live in a suburb of Seattle. I have a degree in Engineering.

Any other stereotypes you'd like to have shot down?

Hypocrite , you said I hate business, which of course I don't in any way. , tell me why your any different then blind man.

 

[poweRob]

What?

Yeah I'm still trying to figure out what "blind stupid" means.