Minimum wage [modified]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I can't be bothered arguing
That is the most sensible thing you've said in relation to your issue with him in weeks. For the sake of all that is decent in the world JUST DON'T FUCKING REPLY TO HIM.
Josh Gray wrote:
That is the most sensible thing you've said in relation to your issue with him in weeks. For the sake of all that is decent in the world JUST DON'T f***ing REPLY TO HIM.
And the chances of that happening are slim and none? Probably much closer to none. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Which has only ever been used in the soapbox, and only 22 times. I'm sorry if this is true, but given the nature of this forum, the fact it is hidden, and the fact that it's on a site for programmers, what you say does not gel with the tendency some users have to run many accounts.
Gee, you insist on being exactly the same kind of ass Oakman was over her. Funny how neither of you can own up to being wrong.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, you insist on being exactly the same kind of ass Oakman was over her.
You're saying this is a girl ? I could care less. CSS uses fake accounts at times, and this person may well not be CSS ( I did say that, in fact ), but it's far more logical to assume that an account that just happens to have only ever posted in the soapbox, seems at first glance to have been used to support CSSs views, and has been used very rarely over the space of many years ( and, most important, seems to have understood the rules of the SB from the moment they somehow found it and started posting here ), is CSS. I thought you were a big fan of Occams Razor ? The chances are one of two things: 1 - it's CSS and I'm not falling for it 2 - it's someone who cares so little about this site they post here every few months, despite being fully conversant with the nature of the soapbox and only posting here If it's 1, I win. If it's 2, which is unlikely, then I risk offending someone who doesn't care much about the site anyhow, so there's no major harm done. Either way, I've only politely commented, I've not been abusive, and I've admitted I don't know for sure, I'm just making a common sense assumption.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I can't be bothered arguing
That is the most sensible thing you've said in relation to your issue with him in weeks. For the sake of all that is decent in the world JUST DON'T FUCKING REPLY TO HIM.
Josh Gray wrote:
That is the most sensible thing you've said in relation to your issue with him in weeks.
I've only had an issue with him for days, tho.
Josh Gray wrote:
For the sake of all that is decent in the world JUST DON'T f***ing REPLY TO HIM.
My complaint is that he doesn't reply to discuss the text he copies and pastes. If I did not reply to him at all, I wouldn't have any issue, right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
That is the most sensible thing you've said in relation to your issue with him in weeks.
I've only had an issue with him for days, tho.
Josh Gray wrote:
For the sake of all that is decent in the world JUST DON'T f***ing REPLY TO HIM.
My complaint is that he doesn't reply to discuss the text he copies and pastes. If I did not reply to him at all, I wouldn't have any issue, right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I've only had an issue with him for days, tho.
aaaaarrrrrggggg. The word is though. And that is bullshit, he's been your nemesis since before the SB was split up.
Christian Graus wrote:
My complaint is that he doesn't reply to discuss the text he copies and pastes. If I did not reply to him at all, I wouldn't have any issue, right ?
Why do you think he does exactly what you ask him not to? why do you think he starts threads calling you names? It's because you rise to the bait every single time. You're supposedly the moderator but he controls your behavior far more than you can his. He's proved that in the last few days. What do you think would happen if you didn't reply to him at all ever again? Personally I like his posts and his crazy behavior. I get to feel good about myself as he reinforces that there are people out there thicker than me and when I feel the desire he's always there to have a go at.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've only had an issue with him for days, tho.
aaaaarrrrrggggg. The word is though. And that is bullshit, he's been your nemesis since before the SB was split up.
Christian Graus wrote:
My complaint is that he doesn't reply to discuss the text he copies and pastes. If I did not reply to him at all, I wouldn't have any issue, right ?
Why do you think he does exactly what you ask him not to? why do you think he starts threads calling you names? It's because you rise to the bait every single time. You're supposedly the moderator but he controls your behavior far more than you can his. He's proved that in the last few days. What do you think would happen if you didn't reply to him at all ever again? Personally I like his posts and his crazy behavior. I get to feel good about myself as he reinforces that there are people out there thicker than me and when I feel the desire he's always there to have a go at.
Josh Gray wrote:
The word is though.
LOL - I normally hate American spellings/txtspeak. I don't know why that one has resonated with me.
Josh Gray wrote:
And that is bullsh*t, he's been your nemesis since before the SB was split up.
One way or another, but I've only had a specific issue with him this last few days.
Josh Gray wrote:
why do you think he starts threads calling you names? It's because you rise to the bait every single time.
Well, I guess you live in an alternate universe to me. When he started a thread to call me names, I responded rationally and refused to even discuss his accusations, or to delete them to give him any sort of validation for what he did.
Josh Gray wrote:
You're supposedly the moderator but he controls your behavior far more than you can his. He's proved that in the last few days.
Well, no. The point of being a mod, is that there are rules and they are enforced. The fact that police arrest anyone who is drunk and disorderly do not suggest that people who are drunk and disorderly should be ignored. If the same person keeps acting the same way despite getting arrested, that shows they are stupid, but the standards of the community are still upheld. If I were to give up and let him post his drivel without discussing it, then I would show that he was controlling me. As it stands, he controls me only insofar that I've stated the standards by which I moderate, and he's chosen to go against them. Are you saying you'd prefer this forum to be unmoderated ? Are you saying you'd like the whole site moderated, because the same logic applies everywhere that moderation occurs.
Josh Gray wrote:
What do you think would happen if you didn't reply to him at all ever again?
Not much. I make a point of not replying to his posts about me, nowadays, and he tends more often than not to not even respond when I do reply addressing the points he tries to raise.
Josh Gray wrote:
Personally I like his posts and his crazy behavior. I get to feel good about myself as he reinforces that there are people out there thicker than me and when I feel the desire he's always there to have a go at.
Well, the only thing I've been trying to
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, you insist on being exactly the same kind of ass Oakman was over her.
You're saying this is a girl ? I could care less. CSS uses fake accounts at times, and this person may well not be CSS ( I did say that, in fact ), but it's far more logical to assume that an account that just happens to have only ever posted in the soapbox, seems at first glance to have been used to support CSSs views, and has been used very rarely over the space of many years ( and, most important, seems to have understood the rules of the SB from the moment they somehow found it and started posting here ), is CSS. I thought you were a big fan of Occams Razor ? The chances are one of two things: 1 - it's CSS and I'm not falling for it 2 - it's someone who cares so little about this site they post here every few months, despite being fully conversant with the nature of the soapbox and only posting here If it's 1, I win. If it's 2, which is unlikely, then I risk offending someone who doesn't care much about the site anyhow, so there's no major harm done. Either way, I've only politely commented, I've not been abusive, and I've admitted I don't know for sure, I'm just making a common sense assumption.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yes, the great CG can't possibly be wrong. I told Oakman and I'm telling you that I personally know who she is. It's not CSS and it's not me. So go ahead and puff yourself up and play the ass. You should be able to figure out that I'd do nothing to try to help CSS.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 1:00 AM
-
Josh Gray wrote:
The word is though.
LOL - I normally hate American spellings/txtspeak. I don't know why that one has resonated with me.
Josh Gray wrote:
And that is bullsh*t, he's been your nemesis since before the SB was split up.
One way or another, but I've only had a specific issue with him this last few days.
Josh Gray wrote:
why do you think he starts threads calling you names? It's because you rise to the bait every single time.
Well, I guess you live in an alternate universe to me. When he started a thread to call me names, I responded rationally and refused to even discuss his accusations, or to delete them to give him any sort of validation for what he did.
Josh Gray wrote:
You're supposedly the moderator but he controls your behavior far more than you can his. He's proved that in the last few days.
Well, no. The point of being a mod, is that there are rules and they are enforced. The fact that police arrest anyone who is drunk and disorderly do not suggest that people who are drunk and disorderly should be ignored. If the same person keeps acting the same way despite getting arrested, that shows they are stupid, but the standards of the community are still upheld. If I were to give up and let him post his drivel without discussing it, then I would show that he was controlling me. As it stands, he controls me only insofar that I've stated the standards by which I moderate, and he's chosen to go against them. Are you saying you'd prefer this forum to be unmoderated ? Are you saying you'd like the whole site moderated, because the same logic applies everywhere that moderation occurs.
Josh Gray wrote:
What do you think would happen if you didn't reply to him at all ever again?
Not much. I make a point of not replying to his posts about me, nowadays, and he tends more often than not to not even respond when I do reply addressing the points he tries to raise.
Josh Gray wrote:
Personally I like his posts and his crazy behavior. I get to feel good about myself as he reinforces that there are people out there thicker than me and when I feel the desire he's always there to have a go at.
Well, the only thing I've been trying to
Christian Graus wrote:
One way or another, but I've only had a specific issue with him this last few days.
So it was nonspecific issues you've had with him before? :laugh:
Christian Graus wrote:
The point of being a mod
The point seems to be to rise to his bait, goad him, and when is suits you goad him further by playing the moderator card. You've agreed for years whenever someone suggests simply shunning him as the way to handle it but 5 minutes later your OCD kicks in and you're right back at him. :doh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
One way or another, but I've only had a specific issue with him this last few days.
So it was nonspecific issues you've had with him before? :laugh:
Christian Graus wrote:
The point of being a mod
The point seems to be to rise to his bait, goad him, and when is suits you goad him further by playing the moderator card. You've agreed for years whenever someone suggests simply shunning him as the way to handle it but 5 minutes later your OCD kicks in and you're right back at him. :doh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
We've argued in the past, but I haven't felt I had a specific 'issue' with him, no.
Tim Craig wrote:
The point seems to be to rise to his bait, goad him, and when is suits you goad him further by playing the moderator card.
Well, I'm not sure why I'm expecting you to give me a fair go or deal with me rationally, but I use the 'mod card' sparingly, and see that as totally seperate to when I discuss things with him. Why do you think he had no idea I could delete his posts until a few days ago ?
Tim Craig wrote:
You've agreed for years whenever someone suggests simply shunning him as the way to handle it but 5 minutes later your OCD kicks in and you're right back at him.
To be honest, all the more since Oakman started his love in forum, not much happens around here if you just ignore CSS. His retarded views are the catalyst for most discussion around here. I try to start some threads, but not many people tend to respond. It's also been proven that he doesn't go away, no matter how you treat him. So, I'm trying to make him at least use the forum for discussion of his own ideas, which seems reasonable to me. Oakman left because he couldn't just impose his own views on the forum, and that happened mostly because I insisted that mods should ask the community what the standards for moderation should be. I asked someone else earlier and got no reply, if the low standard I'm imposing is not reflective of what people want, I'm happy to let him post whatever he wants. At which point, I'd like my name removed as a mod, because if we have no standards at all, and no expectations, what is moderation for ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
We've argued in the past, but I haven't felt I had a specific 'issue' with him, no.
Tim Craig wrote:
The point seems to be to rise to his bait, goad him, and when is suits you goad him further by playing the moderator card.
Well, I'm not sure why I'm expecting you to give me a fair go or deal with me rationally, but I use the 'mod card' sparingly, and see that as totally seperate to when I discuss things with him. Why do you think he had no idea I could delete his posts until a few days ago ?
Tim Craig wrote:
You've agreed for years whenever someone suggests simply shunning him as the way to handle it but 5 minutes later your OCD kicks in and you're right back at him.
To be honest, all the more since Oakman started his love in forum, not much happens around here if you just ignore CSS. His retarded views are the catalyst for most discussion around here. I try to start some threads, but not many people tend to respond. It's also been proven that he doesn't go away, no matter how you treat him. So, I'm trying to make him at least use the forum for discussion of his own ideas, which seems reasonable to me. Oakman left because he couldn't just impose his own views on the forum, and that happened mostly because I insisted that mods should ask the community what the standards for moderation should be. I asked someone else earlier and got no reply, if the low standard I'm imposing is not reflective of what people want, I'm happy to let him post whatever he wants. At which point, I'd like my name removed as a mod, because if we have no standards at all, and no expectations, what is moderation for ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I'm not sure why I'm expecting you to give me a fair go or deal with me rationally
Ah yes, when someone disagrees with you, they're unfair and irrational. :laugh:
Christian Graus wrote:
I try to start some threads, but not many people tend to respond.
Maybe that's indicative of the quality of your threads?
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd like my name removed as a mod
Works for me if all you're going to use it for is to goad him into being an even bigger ass. His usual idiocy is enough and his posts quickly fade into history. Now you have him popping the same shit to the top of the list every 5 minutes. :sigh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I'm not sure why I'm expecting you to give me a fair go or deal with me rationally
Ah yes, when someone disagrees with you, they're unfair and irrational. :laugh:
Christian Graus wrote:
I try to start some threads, but not many people tend to respond.
Maybe that's indicative of the quality of your threads?
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd like my name removed as a mod
Works for me if all you're going to use it for is to goad him into being an even bigger ass. His usual idiocy is enough and his posts quickly fade into history. Now you have him popping the same shit to the top of the list every 5 minutes. :sigh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Ah yes, when someone disagrees with you, they're unfair and irrational.
See what I mean ?
Tim Craig wrote:
Maybe that's indicative of the quality of your threads?
Perhaps. But not many people even do that back here.
Tim Craig wrote:
Works for me if all you're going to use it for is to goad him into being an even bigger ass.
My general behaviour is just me, nothing to do with being a mod. I don't hide behind being a mod to help me try to talk to him. I've been deleting something he's been reposting, not to goad him, but to enforce some standards. If there's no standards, there's no need for a mod.
Tim Craig wrote:
Now you have him popping the same sh*t to the top of the list every 5 minutes.
He actually discussed it today, so I did not delete it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yes, the great CG can't possibly be wrong. I told Oakman and I'm telling you that I personally know who she is. It's not CSS and it's not me. So go ahead and puff yourself up and play the ass. You should be able to figure out that I'd do nothing to try to help CSS.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 1:00 AM
Tim Craig wrote:
Yes, the great CG can't possibly be wrong
I didn't say that, not ever.
Tim Craig wrote:
I told Oakman and I'm telling you that I personally know who she is
Well, I never saw you say that. My second guess would be that he/she is someone who posts here b/c of knowing someone who asked them to/showed them the forum.
Tim Craig wrote:
So go ahead and puff yourself up and play the ass.
It seems what ever I do, you assume I am doing that. That's why I try to avoid wasting time on talking to you.
Tim Craig wrote:
You should be able to figure out that I'd do nothing to try to help CSS.
I find it interesting to consider that this proves that going for the most likely/obvious solution obviously doesn't always work. As I said before, I made a value judgemnet that this was either CSS ( seemed likely ) or someone who doesn't care much about the site. I was careful to not be abusive in case I was wrong. If I was, then fair enough. I didn't even know/remember that you and Oakman had discussed it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
There was a time when a blue-collar, Archie Bunker type could, with a regular 40 hour per week job, have some hope of buying a little home and improving his lot, and that of his offspring, in life. Sadly, that's no longer as true as it was. If at all.
And the real question is not, is that capitalism or is that socialism, as if all of lifes goods and bads can be so easily defined. The real question is, does that outcome benefit society as a whole, and if not, are we willing to live with it just because we live above it ( presumably, given that this is a site for professional people, CSS being an obvious exception ).
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Personally, by the classic definition, I suppose my own tendency is towards a socialistic democracy along a northern European model. Of course, the very mention of that would be anathema here. Here, in the state with the lowest minimum wage. I've said it before, I'll say it again - the brilliance of the Republican party over the last 30 years lay in convincing the people who were being screwed the worst by their policies that they somehow stood to gain. That whole 'trickle-down' concept, if you will. (That trickle you feel is the piss running down the back of your neck.) [edit] spelling... [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 2:30 AM
-
Personally, by the classic definition, I suppose my own tendency is towards a socialistic democracy along a northern European model. Of course, the very mention of that would be anathema here. Here, in the state with the lowest minimum wage. I've said it before, I'll say it again - the brilliance of the Republican party over the last 30 years lay in convincing the people who were being screwed the worst by their policies that they somehow stood to gain. That whole 'trickle-down' concept, if you will. (That trickle you feel is the piss running down the back of your neck.) [edit] spelling... [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 2:30 AM
-
Personally, by the classic definition, I suppose my own tendency is towards a socialistic democracy along a northern European model. Of course, the very mention of that would be anathema here. Here, in the state with the lowest minimum wage. I've said it before, I'll say it again - the brilliance of the Republican party over the last 30 years lay in convincing the people who were being screwed the worst by their policies that they somehow stood to gain. That whole 'trickle-down' concept, if you will. (That trickle you feel is the piss running down the back of your neck.) [edit] spelling... [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Monday, March 22, 2010 2:30 AM
LunaticFringe wrote:
the brilliance of the Republican party over the last 30 years lay in convincing the people who were being screwed the worst by their policies that they somehow stood to gain.
Absolutely. Just like the people in the book I read, who thought because they were contractors, they should vote for the local equivelant. Just like corporations making people a 'manager' to make them work harder for the same pay.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Pissing on our legs and trying to tell is it's raining soup? :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
There's no association. Tell me your thoughts. I'd love a rational response instead of the stuff CSS presents.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour in the US
$7.25 but I might be fooling you.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
t's still the case that the government is not acting in a remotely socialist way
Last thing before I let the M1 finish the job. Again, you are not genuine, you are simply being a POS sociopath scumbag, the lowest of the low. Ten pillars of communism. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of civil army. 9. Abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ten pillars of communism.
When will you start going to the original sources? These are not 'The Ten Pillars of Communism'. The Communist Manifesto acknowledges that each country would need to use different means by which the proletariat would, over time, remove capital from the bourgeoisie and centralise the means of production into its own hands. The so-called 'pillars' are merely those measures "pretty generally applicable" to "most advanced countries". (I.E. 19th century Industrialised Society.) 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. There, if you are going to quote, you may as well quote correctly.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Gee, you insist on being exactly the same kind of ass Oakman was over her.
You're saying this is a girl ? I could care less. CSS uses fake accounts at times, and this person may well not be CSS ( I did say that, in fact ), but it's far more logical to assume that an account that just happens to have only ever posted in the soapbox, seems at first glance to have been used to support CSSs views, and has been used very rarely over the space of many years ( and, most important, seems to have understood the rules of the SB from the moment they somehow found it and started posting here ), is CSS. I thought you were a big fan of Occams Razor ? The chances are one of two things: 1 - it's CSS and I'm not falling for it 2 - it's someone who cares so little about this site they post here every few months, despite being fully conversant with the nature of the soapbox and only posting here If it's 1, I win. If it's 2, which is unlikely, then I risk offending someone who doesn't care much about the site anyhow, so there's no major harm done. Either way, I've only politely commented, I've not been abusive, and I've admitted I don't know for sure, I'm just making a common sense assumption.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian, you've accused me twice of being CSS. You have this tendency to call people names when there is only one person you should be calling CSS, whether people agree with CSS on issues or not. It's basically a very odd form of association that you have to do in your head. It's like you do it to make yourself feel better. If everyone that disagrees with you is CSS, then you're minimalizing the other side, and you win. Cut it out Christian. Try to defend yourself with logic instead of taking it out on everyone and mocking them because they have differing opinions. Wow, I just made you sound like CSS. I'm not sure that's far from truth... lol jk I can hear the booing and hissing as I type this.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Looks like people are getting paid less due to inflation
The government does not create inflation. Even if it did, the concept of any minimum wage is meant to be a form of protection for low skilled workers from being exploited. That it's not being enforced to do that in the US is a failure of unfettered capitalism, not socialism. It's a total absence of socialism that is creating this problem.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The government does not create inflation.
No. Of course not. The Central banks are not public, they're private, and they control the money supply (and in effect, inflation.) Nice job at pointing that out.
Christian Graus wrote:
Even if it did, the concept of any minimum wage is meant to be a form of protection for low skilled workers from being exploited.
That's what it's meant to do, yes. But that also means that some are without jobs, and getting no income at all, unless they get unemployment benefits, which is just a ridiculous idea, because their pile of set-aside money depletes eventually anyway, and has to get another job quickly. And if they don't, they're screwed. I'd rather have the job and get paid less than to not have a job at all.
Christian Graus wrote:
That it's not being enforced to do that in the US is a failure of unfettered capitalism, not socialism.
If it's not enforced, how is that a capitalistic problem? That's a government problem. Government is slow by nature, for the very fact that it just can not do everything efficiently. Where does capitalism come into that picture?
Christian Graus wrote:
It's a total absence of socialism that is creating this problem.
No, definitely not. The socialistic structure is in place, but the government isn't following through on its part of the bargain, as usual. So as to the statement itself, "Looks like people are getting paid less due to inflation", I agree. The value of the dollar is dropping, and so even though people are being paid more physical dollars, the value of each dollar is less, therefore that's why people in america need to have 2 or 3 jobs per household, instead of having the classic, "Father goes to work, Mother stays home" scenario.