The destruction of the $15 an hour burger Flipper has arrived.

[Absentglare]

This is all total BS.

Please, explain to me why asking for help is so disgraceful when every single person requires help in their lifetime.

 

[Absentglare]

The non-discretionary part of the federal budget keeps growing and squeezing out the discretionary part of the federal budget. That's a fundamental fiscal issue, as the discretionary part of the federal budget pays for national security and military.





Everyone paid into SS, and now you object when the successful get back what they've paid in? At least that was how SS was initially set up. Later, congress is it's infinite wisdom, turn it into a Ponzi scheme where current workers paid in at the same time as beneficiaries received their benefits. This Ponzi scheme is starting to get into trouble in how the demographics have shifted, and there are more retirees than workers paying in.



Yeah, seemingly every post is showing this disdain, yet all of the grand social program spending is paid for by the private economy. Damage the private economy, it'd be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I don't understand- are you claiming that the defense budget cannot be changed ?

I don't object to SS being paid out. If we object to spending, cut that spending.

SS is not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is deceptive. SS is not deceptive.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I agree with you that business are rationally working in their own self interest when they keep wages down. The problem i'm suggesting is more subtle that, over time, the people with the most money to spend are spending some of it to influence public policy, and those influences have small but cumulative effects on how these markets operate.

The worker has lost too much leverage, the employer has gained too much.

How much leverage do you think the worker should have? It's the employer that is making the investment and taking the financial risk. The only influence the employee should have is whether or not he/she chooses to continue to work there or not. if you are not a slacker and you are worth something to your employer, that influence works where it needs to work. at one point in my career, I lined up another offer and let the employer know how much it would take to keep me in their employ. I ended up getting a 34% raise in pay. However it was mutually beneficial.The point is, I had no more or no less influence then I was entitled to have.

I don't know whether permanent handouts is such a bad thing as you describe. I don't see anything wrong with a basic guaranteed income. It's a big change in the social contract, but it is something that we can consider.

then you have no clue how economics works. If you are guaranteed a living, what's the incentive to improve one's skills or learn new ones?

I value hard work and rewarding hard work.

Then you should be against permanent handouts to able bodied adults.

Social security and medicare, that's about $1.3 trillion, while means-tested welfare programs total about half that or $700 billion.

the difference is that social security and medicare recipients pay into those systems their entire working careers. It's their money. It's not handouts. Welfare entitlements on the other hand are handouts from the taxpayers for basically doing nothing.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The actual value of unskilled labor is generally higher than the market value because the necessity of a job for things like food and job search frictions tilt the market in favor of employer for unskilled labor.

Nonsense. The actual value of the labor is market value.

Why is it acceptable to accept help from one's parents but deplorable to accept help from one's government ? The need for help does not make someone pathetic, it simply makes them human.

One is simply part of bringing people into the world. It's the parents responsibility to raise their kids and teach them to make it on their own, just like in the animal world. Permanent help from one's government is simply turning government into "mommy and daddy". It's called "responsibility" if you do not learn it from your mom and dad, or on your own, you are certainly not going to learn it from the government.

CEOs frequently make mistakes, they do not take pay cuts when they do. They are not paid on their actual value to the company, they are paid handsomely to hire the best perceived help, sort of like baseball cards for wall street. This speculative value is out of proportion to the actual values. That's a market failure that we should address.

Once again, if the CEO does a poor job and the company does not prosper, he/she is not going to be a CEO very long.

Minimum wage workers are very accountable to their managers. If the employee neglects some aspect of their job, they may be fired. They have to prove that they are worth every penny of their meager pay. On the other hand, CEOs are not terribly accountable in this way to the board, and the board is not terribly accountable to the shareholders. Those relationships are not being well-optimized by the market.

You are in effect making up the CEO thing as you go along. CEOs are very accountable. They are accountable to the stock holders as well as the board of directors. I'll say it again. If a CEO performs poorly, he/she is not going to remain as CEO.

 

[Moderate Right]

Please, explain to me why asking for help is so disgraceful when every single person requires help in their lifetime.

OK. If you want to get technical, I will agree that asking for help is not disgraceful. But, two points:

1. You want to help people where many aren't even asking for it.

2. It is a different story for those on the other side who are giving or paying for the help (such as the taxpayers). It is their choice to help or not to help or how much help to give if they do, much the same way as if a parent decides to help or not or how much help to give. It is the decision of the givers, not the wannabe takers. Rich parents can sometimes be ridiculous in helping their children, maybe in buying them a brand new Corvette when they are sixteen to learn how to drive. Maybe by helping them escape to Mexico to avoid being put in jail for a probation violation. Other parents may help their kids at varying degrees. Some parents may have drug addicted children who they realize they have helped too much and the best course of action is to just say no and let the chips fall where they may. Other parents may have unemployed kids living at home into their 30's, leeching off of them because they are too lazy to work and the parents finally have had too much and finally kick their kids out on the street to fend for themselves. Sometimes tough love is what is needed to turn around these kids, instead of just giving them more, sometimes even when the parents are rich and could afford it. So, I like your analogy between society and individual families. In some cases the best thing to do is to not help in order to get rid of the dependency and cut the umbilical cord, even though there is enough money to keep people in dependency forever, generation after generation.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Canada isn't utopia, and treating college like we currently treat high school is as realistic as sending all of the kids to high school was 100 years ago.

Does Canada offer all students free tuition, room and board at all Canadian universities? treating college just like high school is not realistic.

 

[Renae]

You are still seeking a utopian society that is just not realistic.

He wants government to pay for your schooling, your medical, but not your housing or food. Very uncaring that one is.

 

[Renae]

Please, explain to me why asking for help is so disgraceful when every single person requires help in their lifetime.

Why is it you equate taking money from one group, and giving it out to another group as "helping".

 

[eohrnberger]

I don't understand- are you claiming that the defense budget cannot be changed ?

I don't object to SS being paid out. If we object to spending, cut that spending.

SS is not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is deceptive. SS is not deceptive.

I've thought about this, and it seems to me that it would be fair to reduce the size and expense of government, and some or all of the cost savings could be dedicated to the social programs you hold so dear. I'd think that 5 years of 10% government budget cuts year on year might just do the trick.

Ponzi Scheme: Well, what do you call it if present investors pay in order to pay off previous investors? I think that in and of itself qualifies as a Ponzi scheme.

What I'm saying is that if the non-discretionary part of the budget continues to grow unabated, uncontrolled, be it the SS or other benefits, or the interest payment on the debt, it's going to impact the discretionary part of the budget, which are just as needed as the non-discretionary part of the budget, and in some cases even more so.

 

[Renae]

I don't understand- are you claiming that the defense budget cannot be changed ?

I don't object to SS being paid out. If we object to spending, cut that spending.

SS is not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is deceptive. SS is not deceptive.

You're right, in a Ponzi scheme, you have to choose to pay into it, SS is enforced by law.

 

[Absentglare]

How much leverage do you think the worker should have?

That's a good question, i don't know.

It's the employer that is making the investment and taking the financial risk.

Nope, they are all investing and taking risk.

The only influence the employee should have is whether or not he/she chooses to continue to work there or not. if you are not a slacker and you are worth something to your employer, that influence works where it needs to work. at one point in my career, I lined up another offer and let the employer know how much it would take to keep me in their employ. I ended up getting a 34% raise in pay. However it was mutually beneficial.The point is, I had no more or no less influence then I was entitled to have.

then you have no clue how economics works. If you are guaranteed a living, what's the incentive to improve one's skills or learn new ones?

CEOs don't go to work because they faces threat of starvation, so you're completely wrong. People will work more for more income. They will not work more if it looks like they won't get anything out of it, like if our economy is a rigged system where owners have the advantage.

Then you should be against permanent handouts to able bodied adults.

Not really, i do think the handouts we give to the poor, in the thousands per recipient per year, are far more productive than the handouts we give to the rich, in the hundreds of thousands per recipient per year.

the difference is that social security and medicare recipients pay into those systems their entire working careers. It's their money. It's not handouts. Welfare entitlements on the other hand are handouts from the taxpayers for basically doing nothing.

It isn't their money, otherwise they'd already have it. They are entitled to the income that social security represents, and no more. They are not entitled to what they paid in plus interest.

 

[Absentglare]

Nonsense. The actual value of the labor is market value.

My definition is not circular, but yours is:

The actual value is the market value. The market value is the actual value.

I don't equivocate the two because i have a different view of value, one that's based on work instead of pay. You want to base worth entirely on pay, it's like some guy who insists that the $10,000 shack he bought for $10,000,000 is really worth $10,000,000 because he was stupid enough to buy it at that price.

One is simply part of bringing people into the world. It's the parents responsibility to raise their kids and teach them to make it on their own, just like in the animal world. Permanent help from one's government is simply turning government into "mommy and daddy". It's called "responsibility" if you do not learn it from your mom and dad, or on your own, you are certainly not going to learn it from the government.

That doesn't address what i asked.

Once again, if the CEO does a poor job and the company does not prosper, he/she is not going to be a CEO very long.

Not true, many big companies are loath to admit mistakes in upper management. They do not hold the CEO as accountable as the standard that the grunts are held accountable to.

You are in effect making up the CEO thing as you go along. CEOs are very accountable. They are accountable to the stock holders as well as the board of directors. I'll say it again. If a CEO performs poorly, he/she is not going to remain as CEO.

You're just stating that because a feedback path works, it's working effectively. That's simply not true.

 

[Absentglare]

OK. If you want to get technical, I will agree that asking for help is not disgraceful. But, two points:

1. You want to help people where many aren't even asking for it.

2. It is a different story for those on the other side who are giving or paying for the help (such as the taxpayers). It is their choice to help or not to help or how much help to give if they do, much the same way as if a parent decides to help or not or how much help to give. It is the decision of the givers, not the wannabe takers. Rich parents can sometimes be ridiculous in helping their children, maybe in buying them a brand new Corvette when they are sixteen to learn how to drive. Maybe by helping them escape to Mexico to avoid being put in jail for a probation violation. Other parents may help their kids at varying degrees. Some parents may have drug addicted children who they realize they have helped too much and the best course of action is to just say no and let the chips fall where they may. Other parents may have unemployed kids living at home into their 30's, leeching off of them because they are too lazy to work and the parents finally have had too much and finally kick their kids out on the street to fend for themselves. Sometimes tough love is what is needed to turn around these kids, instead of just giving them more, sometimes even when the parents are rich and could afford it. So, I like your analogy between society and individual families. In some cases the best thing to do is to not help in order to get rid of the dependency and cut the umbilical cord, even though there is enough money to keep people in dependency forever, generation after generation.

1. There are minimum wage workers that do not support receiving a pay raise ? Is there a significant number of such workers ?

2. That's just a bad analogy. These are not simply errant teens, many of them are now grumpy, old, stubborn adults. Fine, they're ****ed, whatever- there is NO excuse to reject help for their children, especially for formidable expenses like college.

 

[Deuce]

However i do and I am right. Or do you think that an employees wage is the only expense in hiring or keeping said employee?

Not about that. Wrong about your conclusion.

This fact further proves that cost isn't the holdup on automation, because the cost of a human employee is already well-passed the cost of automation.

 

[Absentglare]

He wants government to pay for your schooling, your medical, but not your housing or food. Very uncaring that one is.

Strawman.

Why is it you equate taking money from one group, and giving it out to another group as "helping".

Because one of those groups (the receiving one) has a problem where they don't have enough money and the other group isn't going to be much more productive with the diverted income.

If you give $100,000 to Bill Gates, he won't work much harder. It doesn't change what tools are available to him. It doesn't make him more productive.

Now, to some bushy-tailed bright-eyed college-bound youngster, $100,000 could dramatically change their life for the better.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Seriously??? Big Mac meals cost less than $4 and I live in an area with a pretty high cost of living.

Sure as hell don't in Virginia Beach.....

Keeps going up every few months.

 

[Absentglare]

I've thought about this, and it seems to me that it would be fair to reduce the size and expense of government, and some or all of the cost savings could be dedicated to the social programs you hold so dear. I'd think that 5 years of 10% government budget cuts year on year might just do the trick.

Ponzi Scheme: Well, what do you call it if present investors pay in order to pay off previous investors? I think that in and of itself qualifies as a Ponzi scheme.

What I'm saying is that if the non-discretionary part of the budget continues to grow unabated, uncontrolled, be it the SS or other benefits, or the interest payment on the debt, it's going to impact the discretionary part of the budget, which are just as needed as the non-discretionary part of the budget, and in some cases even more so.

I don't like arbitrarily changing the size of government for the sake of changing the size of government. That's not a worthwhile goal, in and of itself, that all other goals are subservient to.

In a ponzi scheme, investors pay in because of the deception- they think they will get more than their money back, but instead they get very little or nothing. In social security, we pay in because it's compulsory, and many people get back more than they paid in.

The growth of non-discretionary spending can be tied back to the aging baby boomer demographic.

 

[Renae]

Strawman.

Because one of those groups (the receiving one) has a problem where they don't have enough money and the other group isn't going to be much more productive with the diverted income.

If you give $100,000 to Bill Gates, he won't work much harder. It doesn't change what tools are available to him. It doesn't make him more productive.

Now, to some bushy-tailed bright-eyed college-bound youngster, $100,000 could dramatically change their life for the better.

Ahh so for you private property and wealth doesn't exist, they are merely resources the government should have control over to dole out as seen fit.

 

[Renae]

Sure as hell don't in Virginia Beach.....

Keeps going up every few months.

Don't live in Virginia Beach? My brother-in-law is HM-14, they moved out there... and I told my sister she was a fool, move to NC. Well a year later they are in Elizabeth City

 

[Deuce]

Sure as hell don't in Virginia Beach.....

Keeps going up every few months.

It's probably for the best.

For the waistline, at least.

 

[Port & Starboard]

It's probably for the best.

For the waistline, at least.

True!

 

[Port & Starboard]

Don't live in Virginia Beach? My brother-in-law is HM-14, they moved out there... and I told my sister she wa a fool, move to NC. Well a year later they are in Elizabeth City

I might retire up on the eastern shore of Virginia.

 

[Renae]

I might retire up on the eastern shore of Virginia.

But it's so expensive! They got a house, land and half the cost of living right across the border.

 

[274ina]

There is already one running in Phoenix.

And as soon as there is contamination...............robots will be gone.

 

[Port & Starboard]

But it's so expensive! They got a house, land and half the cost of living right across the border.

I know, I am down in Moyock and EC quite frequently. Sucks in the summer with all the tourons blocking up RT-17.