Illegal Aliens Openly Promote Communism at Atlanta Rally
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LHRzxgAxRo&feature=player_embedded[^] The recent pro-illegal alien rally in Atlanta would shock most Americans. These people are openly promoting the destruction of Capitalism along with their hatred of America. Their answer to all problems is the establishment of Communism in the United States. An outright Atheistic pure Communistic government. Why does this story not make the News anywhere in the Mainstream Media? The absence of media coverage speaks to the great advances that Anti-American forces have made in controlling a once venerable profession. Note how they blame Capitalism for Americas debt as Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi spend the country into oblivion. Watch this video, think about it -and pass it along. Then think about Obama’s rush for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and what it means for America!
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
commies are evil scum of the earth, illegals unamerican
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
modified on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:15 AM
-
commies are evil scum of the earth, illegals unamerican
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
modified on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:15 AM
I hope you're keeping these for an eventual book ?
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:
Given the epic fail of your last two posts, and your inability to answer anyone who pointed out how stupid your comments were, why would anyone bother to readview this one ?
FTFY lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I wish I could give this a 5.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
But, it's not like we literally need them
True - you could just pay more for services.
josda1000 wrote:
What should be done to prevent such outrage is to get rid of the welfare state (because everyone's so attached to the government that they can't think straight), and then get rid of the law prohibiting illegal persons.
Well, this would work, in the sense that people who have no welfare might well accept jobs that it's not possible to live on, because they'd have nothing and it would take them longer to starve to death that way. If you got rid of welfare, you'd HAVE to raise the minimum wage, people on minimum wage qualify for welfare, that's why they are not dead.
josda1000 wrote:
I'll find the clip where Maddow chews out Rand Paul, because it really is a clear example of spinning.
If you're talking about the media, that's something else. I thought he was talking about government policy. Sure, the media likes to get you radicals fired up and set the cameras rolling, it's good for ratings.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd love for you to watch it, but it seems that you have plenty of bias already against it.
I start off biased against all media sources, that much is true.
josda1000 wrote:
And this is why I know you're a statist, and don't care to listen to anything but your mainstream media; you can not think for yourself, Christian.
Given how much I despise the mainstream media, I find this statement hilarious. I don't trust ANY media, and I double don't trust anything that CSS likes, he has that affect on me. As I've often said, if you're right, CSS is your worst enemy here, because he makes your beliefs look stupid, by attaching them to himself.
josda1000 wrote:
Nevermind the fact that I BROUGHT UP THE SHOW in conversation, but you nail CSS with the idea that he likes it, therefore it is insanity. Think again.
I'm sorry. Years of his abuse makes me predisposed to bias. If I had a chance to watch it, I'd give it a chance, but until I do, all I know is that if the Columbus retard likes it, the odds are good that it is biased and flat out ludicrous.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, this would work, in the sense that people who have no welfare might well accept jobs that it's not possible to live on, because they'd have nothing and it would take them longer to starve to death that way. If you got rid of welfare, you'd HAVE to raise the minimum wage, people on minimum wage qualify for welfare, that's why they are not dead.
According to the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States[^]: In the United States, there WAS no minimum wage until 1912, in Massachusetts. Not to mention that this was the year before the Fed was established, and two years before the income tax was established in 1914. "In 1912, Massachusetts organized a commission to recommend non-compulsory minimum wages for women and children. Within eight years, at least thirteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia would pass minimum wage laws. The Lochner era United States Supreme Court consistently invalidated compulsory minimum wage laws. Such laws, said the court, were unconstitutional for interfering with the ability of employers to freely negotiate appropriate wage contracts with employees." This obviously is to the history of the minimum wage. It was considered unconstitutional, because it inhibits free negotiation between two parties, and creates further unemployment. And people are worried about unemployment in California... get rid of the minimum wage!
Christian Graus wrote:
If you're talking about the media, that's something else. I thought he was talking about government policy. Sure, the media likes to get you radicals fired up and set the cameras rolling, it's good for ratings.
True.
Christian Graus wrote:
Given how much I despise the mainstream media, I find this statement hilarious. I don't trust ANY media, and I double don't trust anything that CSS likes, he has that affect on me. As I've often said, if you're right, CSS is your worst enemy here, because he makes your beliefs look stupid, by attaching them to himself.
That is flat out bias then, Christian. Whether he's "crazy" in your eyes or not, he may have valid points. He just likes to throw them right in your face, rather t
-
Distind wrote:
Except from just most accounts it was no where near 2-3 million, that's what random people who were in the crowd guessed it was. I believe the police estimate was around 100 to 200 thousand. Possibly three.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tea_Party_protests,_2010[^] You're right, it does seem to be a few thousand. But also, think of how many people had to work that day and can't afford to miss, but also think of how they were spread all across the country. I still think that bias is a big play here, for both sides.
Distind wrote:
But really, do you want to start a revolution with your 3% when 97% of the country doesn't want your ideals? That's just as oppressive as anything you claim to be against.
I never said I wanted to start a revolution. This is a revolution of ideas, if anything. But if violence continues to pick up, I won't be surprised. But this is what my show is about as well. "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable. And so, if he is a romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are." - H L Mencken
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You're right, it does seem to be a few thousand.
And this is why I can respect you and not CSS.
josda1000 wrote:
I never said I wanted to start a revolution. This is a revolution of ideas, if anything. But if violence continues to pick up, I won't be surprised.
These ideas have been around for a bit. When I was stamping Rep on voter ballots they were close to my and the party's ideals. The problem is that the far right polarized the party and took it over from the true conservatives and moderates that had made the party at least tolerable in the 80s. My problem with the Tea Party is that they seem to be under the influence of the same folks they are railing against. Sarah Palin has never been about small government, personal liberty/responsibility or, well, intelligence. And she's being propped up as the poster child for this party with the help of Fox News, a news corporation best described as "loonies with microphones and a captive audience."
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, this would work, in the sense that people who have no welfare might well accept jobs that it's not possible to live on, because they'd have nothing and it would take them longer to starve to death that way. If you got rid of welfare, you'd HAVE to raise the minimum wage, people on minimum wage qualify for welfare, that's why they are not dead.
According to the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States[^]: In the United States, there WAS no minimum wage until 1912, in Massachusetts. Not to mention that this was the year before the Fed was established, and two years before the income tax was established in 1914. "In 1912, Massachusetts organized a commission to recommend non-compulsory minimum wages for women and children. Within eight years, at least thirteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia would pass minimum wage laws. The Lochner era United States Supreme Court consistently invalidated compulsory minimum wage laws. Such laws, said the court, were unconstitutional for interfering with the ability of employers to freely negotiate appropriate wage contracts with employees." This obviously is to the history of the minimum wage. It was considered unconstitutional, because it inhibits free negotiation between two parties, and creates further unemployment. And people are worried about unemployment in California... get rid of the minimum wage!
Christian Graus wrote:
If you're talking about the media, that's something else. I thought he was talking about government policy. Sure, the media likes to get you radicals fired up and set the cameras rolling, it's good for ratings.
True.
Christian Graus wrote:
Given how much I despise the mainstream media, I find this statement hilarious. I don't trust ANY media, and I double don't trust anything that CSS likes, he has that affect on me. As I've often said, if you're right, CSS is your worst enemy here, because he makes your beliefs look stupid, by attaching them to himself.
That is flat out bias then, Christian. Whether he's "crazy" in your eyes or not, he may have valid points. He just likes to throw them right in your face, rather t
josda1000 wrote:
This obviously is to the history of the minimum wage. It was considered unconstitutional, because it inhibits free negotiation between two parties, and creates further unemployment. And people are worried about unemployment in California... get rid of the minimum wage!
This continues to be stupidity. So long as the minimum wage is so low that it qualifies you for welfare, so long as people cannot live on it, there is no weight to any argument that it creates unemployment. People on minimum wage are not fully employed !!! As for negotiation, I've explained why that is just plain stupid. People who are paid minimum wage are, by definition, not workers who are in a place to negotiate. As for there being no minimum wage, that's true. That's why there were workers who were taken advantage of, even more than today. Also, back then, if someone needed to eat, they were more likely to be able to find farm land to work, as a serf if nothing else. City life robs people of access to options for food beyond paying money for it.
josda1000 wrote:
Whether he's "crazy" in your eyes or not, he may have valid points
He may, but he blankets them in abuse, and ignorance. Are you claiming that when you see the name of the person who has replied to you, it DOESN'T give you some idea of what they might say, and how they might say it. I am not saying that I'll NEVER accept ANYTHING CSS says, no matter what the evidence. I am talking about initial bias, which is unavoidable, esp when dealing with someone as extremely unbalanced as he is.
josda1000 wrote:
As if you're not. Get it?
Sure, we all have preconceived ideas. I think I work harder than most to challenge mine, but CSS isn't ever going to do it, not without a personality transplant.
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.
-
josda1000 wrote:
You're right, it does seem to be a few thousand.
And this is why I can respect you and not CSS.
josda1000 wrote:
I never said I wanted to start a revolution. This is a revolution of ideas, if anything. But if violence continues to pick up, I won't be surprised.
These ideas have been around for a bit. When I was stamping Rep on voter ballots they were close to my and the party's ideals. The problem is that the far right polarized the party and took it over from the true conservatives and moderates that had made the party at least tolerable in the 80s. My problem with the Tea Party is that they seem to be under the influence of the same folks they are railing against. Sarah Palin has never been about small government, personal liberty/responsibility or, well, intelligence. And she's being propped up as the poster child for this party with the help of Fox News, a news corporation best described as "loonies with microphones and a captive audience."
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
My problem with the Tea Party is that they seem to be under the influence of the same folks they are railing against. Sarah Palin has never been about small government, personal liberty/responsibility or, well, intelligence.
It sounds as if you're like me then... I'm not saying you are, but maybe you are more libertarian. Because yes, I'd agree with that statement, for the moment. I do see Paul's numbers growing, and this is the kind of person that I can get behind. Palin is obviously totally against what I'm about, when it comes to legislating morality. Paul doesn't want to dictate your life, and he doesn't want to take your money to help those who don't help themselves.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And she's being propped up as the poster child for this party with the help of Fox News, a news corporation best described as "loonies with microphones and a captive audience."
Yes, they are described that way, and I'd heartily agree, except for Napolitano and Stossel. They think precisely the way I think, with a few exceptions on the part of Stossel.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
commies are evil scum of the earth, illegals unamerican
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
modified on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:15 AM
5-8-5 isn't a haiku. Take out "the", and you're golden :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
This obviously is to the history of the minimum wage. It was considered unconstitutional, because it inhibits free negotiation between two parties, and creates further unemployment. And people are worried about unemployment in California... get rid of the minimum wage!
This continues to be stupidity. So long as the minimum wage is so low that it qualifies you for welfare, so long as people cannot live on it, there is no weight to any argument that it creates unemployment. People on minimum wage are not fully employed !!! As for negotiation, I've explained why that is just plain stupid. People who are paid minimum wage are, by definition, not workers who are in a place to negotiate. As for there being no minimum wage, that's true. That's why there were workers who were taken advantage of, even more than today. Also, back then, if someone needed to eat, they were more likely to be able to find farm land to work, as a serf if nothing else. City life robs people of access to options for food beyond paying money for it.
josda1000 wrote:
Whether he's "crazy" in your eyes or not, he may have valid points
He may, but he blankets them in abuse, and ignorance. Are you claiming that when you see the name of the person who has replied to you, it DOESN'T give you some idea of what they might say, and how they might say it. I am not saying that I'll NEVER accept ANYTHING CSS says, no matter what the evidence. I am talking about initial bias, which is unavoidable, esp when dealing with someone as extremely unbalanced as he is.
josda1000 wrote:
As if you're not. Get it?
Sure, we all have preconceived ideas. I think I work harder than most to challenge mine, but CSS isn't ever going to do it, not without a personality transplant.
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:
This continues to be stupidity. So long as the minimum wage is so low that it qualifies you for welfare, so long as people cannot live on it, there is no weight to any argument that it creates unemployment.
I am so surprised that you really don't get my argument. What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one. That being said, this employs more people than if there were a minimum wage. This brings up another question: how do you KNOW that this creates a society that needs a welfare system? Have you looked at the history of the United States? They did not have welfare... you guessed it... until the New Deal... the same time period as the Fed, minimum wage and income tax systems were enacted. See a pattern yet? Or do you really hate your boat being rocked?
Christian Graus wrote:
As for negotiation, I've explained why that is just plain stupid. People who are paid minimum wage are, by definition, not workers who are in a place to negotiate.
Ah... that's a contradiction. I'm talking about the lack of minimum wage, and you're talking about having one. Think outside the box for a minute.
Christian Graus wrote:
City life robs people of access to options for food beyond paying money for it.
Agreed. But that's about it... cities are great centers for the market.
Christian Graus wrote:
He may, but he blankets them in abuse, and ignorance. Are you claiming that when you see the name of the person who has replied to you, it DOESN'T give you some idea of what they might say, and how they might say it. I am not saying that I'll NEVER accept ANYTHING CSS says, no matter what the evidence. I am talking about initial bias, which is unavoidable, esp when dealing with someone as extremely unbalanced as he is.
RACIST! lol jk Yes I understand. But we really shouldn't think of it. Or at least, you should really try to pay credence to what he says. He may not speak thoroughly, and we all have tried obviously to wake him up, but there are valid points sometimes.
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is a line that is extremely common with you, and you seem to never have anything productive to say.
Not to CSS, no. You'll note that when I try to engage him, he ignores me, abuses me, or tries to threaten me.
josda1000 wrote:
Personally I agree with him on each point. Would you care to try to back up your claim on it having no basis in reality?
To you, yes. To him, no. I have to go back and read what he said in order to write a reply.
josda1000 wrote:
Ever hear of the word revolution? Or do you just not like the idea of revolution and guns so much that you just wish to dismiss it?
A small percentage of people demonstrating is a long way from revolution. And I am all for revolution, if the will of the people is not being expressed to a degree that makes people feel the need for it. I have no problems with guns, although I do have an issue with the stupidity of people having guns in their homes because of some fantasy that that keeps the government honest, and a blind view to the shooting deaths it causes in this country.
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:
ignores me, abuses me
I abuse you because you are a fucking piece of shit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
This continues to be stupidity. So long as the minimum wage is so low that it qualifies you for welfare, so long as people cannot live on it, there is no weight to any argument that it creates unemployment.
I am so surprised that you really don't get my argument. What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one. That being said, this employs more people than if there were a minimum wage. This brings up another question: how do you KNOW that this creates a society that needs a welfare system? Have you looked at the history of the United States? They did not have welfare... you guessed it... until the New Deal... the same time period as the Fed, minimum wage and income tax systems were enacted. See a pattern yet? Or do you really hate your boat being rocked?
Christian Graus wrote:
As for negotiation, I've explained why that is just plain stupid. People who are paid minimum wage are, by definition, not workers who are in a place to negotiate.
Ah... that's a contradiction. I'm talking about the lack of minimum wage, and you're talking about having one. Think outside the box for a minute.
Christian Graus wrote:
City life robs people of access to options for food beyond paying money for it.
Agreed. But that's about it... cities are great centers for the market.
Christian Graus wrote:
He may, but he blankets them in abuse, and ignorance. Are you claiming that when you see the name of the person who has replied to you, it DOESN'T give you some idea of what they might say, and how they might say it. I am not saying that I'll NEVER accept ANYTHING CSS says, no matter what the evidence. I am talking about initial bias, which is unavoidable, esp when dealing with someone as extremely unbalanced as he is.
RACIST! lol jk Yes I understand. But we really shouldn't think of it. Or at least, you should really try to pay credence to what he says. He may not speak thoroughly, and we all have tried obviously to wake him up, but there are valid points sometimes.
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one.
Yes, I get that. And if the only reason the system works is that the person on $8 ( in your example, it's less than that, obviously ) qualifies for welfare, and requires government assistance to survive. So, in your world, the company is better off, the workers are worse off, and the taxpayer is worse off. Why is that good ?
josda1000 wrote:
how do you KNOW that this creates a society that needs a welfare system?
Because I know what the minimum wage is, and I know what it costs to live. One way or the other, the government IS paying these people welfare.
josda1000 wrote:
Have you looked at the history of the United States?
More than you apparently know
josda1000 wrote:
They did not have welfare... you guessed it... until the New Deal... the same time period as the Fed, minimum wage and income tax systems were enacted. See a pattern yet? Or do you really hate your boat being rocked?
So they let a steady stream of immigrant workers starve to death. Why is that a good thing ? Do me a favour, read 'The Jungle'. Then read up on the circumstances surrounding why it was written. It's not a master work, I don't agree with most of it's politics, but the situations it describes, are an amalgamation of the things that were really happening under the system you're idealising.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah... that's a contradiction. I'm talking about the lack of minimum wage, and you're talking about having one. Think outside the box for a minute.
You just don't get it. The minimum wage pre negotiations the minimum an unskilled worker can be paid. An unskilled worker is NOT in a place to say 'I can pack the shelves nicer than the next guy, so I want more money'. The company does not care. So, without it, they would be paid LESS, never more. You even said that yourself.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. But that's about it... cities are
-
Christian Graus wrote:
ignores me, abuses me
I abuse you because you are a fucking piece of shit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I abuse you because you are a f***ing piece of sh*t.
That's just hilarious. I love it. Thanks for proving my point.
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:
This continues to be stupidity. So long as the minimum wage is so low that it qualifies you for welfare, so long as people cannot live on it, there is no weight to any argument that it creates unemployment.
I am so surprised that you really don't get my argument. What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one. That being said, this employs more people than if there were a minimum wage. This brings up another question: how do you KNOW that this creates a society that needs a welfare system? Have you looked at the history of the United States? They did not have welfare... you guessed it... until the New Deal... the same time period as the Fed, minimum wage and income tax systems were enacted. See a pattern yet? Or do you really hate your boat being rocked?
Christian Graus wrote:
As for negotiation, I've explained why that is just plain stupid. People who are paid minimum wage are, by definition, not workers who are in a place to negotiate.
Ah... that's a contradiction. I'm talking about the lack of minimum wage, and you're talking about having one. Think outside the box for a minute.
Christian Graus wrote:
City life robs people of access to options for food beyond paying money for it.
Agreed. But that's about it... cities are great centers for the market.
Christian Graus wrote:
He may, but he blankets them in abuse, and ignorance. Are you claiming that when you see the name of the person who has replied to you, it DOESN'T give you some idea of what they might say, and how they might say it. I am not saying that I'll NEVER accept ANYTHING CSS says, no matter what the evidence. I am talking about initial bias, which is unavoidable, esp when dealing with someone as extremely unbalanced as he is.
RACIST! lol jk Yes I understand. But we really shouldn't think of it. Or at least, you should really try to pay credence to what he says. He may not speak thoroughly, and we all have tried obviously to wake him up, but there are valid points sometimes.
josda1000 wrote:
I am so surprised that you really don't get my argument. What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one. That being said, this employs more people than if there were a minimum wage.
You ever work for $4/hr? Try living on the current minimum wage with a 40 hour week and that pay in a city. Actually, never mind that, you can't. In a moderate town with decent rent you can barely make it. So having 2 people that are no longer working for enough to survive is preferable to 1 that is? The minimum wage used to be defined as: The minimum amount of income required for a single income household of 4 to survive while paying rent, utilities and being able to buy basics. Compare that with the current minimum wage. A single person, paying rent with no dependents will begin to have to sacrifice either clothing, food, or utilities if even a SINGLE incident happens where they are unable to work for a week. Why do I know this? I threw out my back at work at one of these jobs. They purposely did not schedule me, since I had a "flexible schedule" I could not file for workmans comp for the missed week of work. I went back to work on pain meds with a thrown back because if I hadn't I would have been homeless. To this day my back is a riot when it rains because it never healed properly. Josh, you give a corporation the opportunity to treat their workers like slaves, they will take it happily. The managers don't care about you, your productivity is all that matters for their bonuses. And if you complain, they replace you with someone else or some kid working while going to college or high school.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
I am so surprised that you really don't get my argument. What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one. That being said, this employs more people than if there were a minimum wage.
You ever work for $4/hr? Try living on the current minimum wage with a 40 hour week and that pay in a city. Actually, never mind that, you can't. In a moderate town with decent rent you can barely make it. So having 2 people that are no longer working for enough to survive is preferable to 1 that is? The minimum wage used to be defined as: The minimum amount of income required for a single income household of 4 to survive while paying rent, utilities and being able to buy basics. Compare that with the current minimum wage. A single person, paying rent with no dependents will begin to have to sacrifice either clothing, food, or utilities if even a SINGLE incident happens where they are unable to work for a week. Why do I know this? I threw out my back at work at one of these jobs. They purposely did not schedule me, since I had a "flexible schedule" I could not file for workmans comp for the missed week of work. I went back to work on pain meds with a thrown back because if I hadn't I would have been homeless. To this day my back is a riot when it rains because it never healed properly. Josh, you give a corporation the opportunity to treat their workers like slaves, they will take it happily. The managers don't care about you, your productivity is all that matters for their bonuses. And if you complain, they replace you with someone else or some kid working while going to college or high school.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Why do I know this? I threw out my back at work at one of these jobs. They purposely did not schedule me, since I had a "flexible schedule" I could not file for workmans comp for the missed week of work. I went back to work on pain meds with a thrown back because if I hadn't I would have been homeless. To this day my back is a riot when it rains because it never healed properly.
I'm sorry to hear that. At home, they do the same, no-one gets hired for more than 35 hours, because another hour would make them an employee. They have no benefits, no vacation, and mostly, they have no idea how many hours of work they will be offered from week to week . That keeps them compliant. They can't get welfare as they have a job, and if they are not given enough hours, they can't pay food and rent.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And if you complain, they replace you with someone else or some kid working while going to college or high school.
That is the core point. People on minimum wage are, by definition, expendable and in no position to 'negotiate'. I laugh every time I see that, it's an idea that only professional people would have. Sure, I can negotiate my wage, I have skills. The girl at the checkout at Walmart, not so much.
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.
-
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one.
Yes, I get that. And if the only reason the system works is that the person on $8 ( in your example, it's less than that, obviously ) qualifies for welfare, and requires government assistance to survive. So, in your world, the company is better off, the workers are worse off, and the taxpayer is worse off. Why is that good ?
josda1000 wrote:
how do you KNOW that this creates a society that needs a welfare system?
Because I know what the minimum wage is, and I know what it costs to live. One way or the other, the government IS paying these people welfare.
josda1000 wrote:
Have you looked at the history of the United States?
More than you apparently know
josda1000 wrote:
They did not have welfare... you guessed it... until the New Deal... the same time period as the Fed, minimum wage and income tax systems were enacted. See a pattern yet? Or do you really hate your boat being rocked?
So they let a steady stream of immigrant workers starve to death. Why is that a good thing ? Do me a favour, read 'The Jungle'. Then read up on the circumstances surrounding why it was written. It's not a master work, I don't agree with most of it's politics, but the situations it describes, are an amalgamation of the things that were really happening under the system you're idealising.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah... that's a contradiction. I'm talking about the lack of minimum wage, and you're talking about having one. Think outside the box for a minute.
You just don't get it. The minimum wage pre negotiations the minimum an unskilled worker can be paid. An unskilled worker is NOT in a place to say 'I can pack the shelves nicer than the next guy, so I want more money'. The company does not care. So, without it, they would be paid LESS, never more. You even said that yourself.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. But that's about it... cities are
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I get that. And if the only reason the system works is that the person on $8 ( in your example, it's less than that, obviously ) qualifies for welfare, and requires government assistance to survive. So, in your world, the company is better off, the workers are worse off, and the taxpayer is worse off. Why is that good ?
In my world, there is no income tax. The taxpayer doesn't exist, except to pay taxes on property (which shouldn't exist either) or sales (which in my point of view is valid). This is another reason why getting rid of welfare and min wage is valid.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because I know what the minimum wage is, and I know what it costs to live. One way or the other, the government IS paying these people welfare.
Currently, yes. Historically in the united states, no.
Christian Graus wrote:
So they let a steady stream of immigrant workers starve to death. Why is that a good thing ? Do me a favour, read 'The Jungle'. Then read up on the circumstances surrounding why it was written. It's not a master work, I don't agree with most of it's politics, but the situations it describes, are an amalgamation of the things that were really happening under the system you're idealising.
To me it doesn't look like you 100% understand my point of view either.
Christian Graus wrote:
The minimum wage pre negotiations the minimum an unskilled worker can be paid. An unskilled worker is NOT in a place to say 'I can pack the shelves nicer than the next guy, so I want more money'. The company does not care. So, without it, they would be paid LESS, never more. You even said that yourself.
OK, let's talk about this scenario, you seem to like it. Unskilled workers (like immigrants, students, drop outs) need work. Because they aren't skilled, they'll take anything. They decided that education and other work experience isn't their thing. All of my best friends at home are unskilled workers. They went to college and decided that they didn't fit in, and just went to work. So with that knowledge and with the way I see them think, they are just trying to barely get by. There are no jobs really available, because businesses are just trying to stay afloat, while these friends of mine will basically take anything they can get. Why are job
-
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one.
Yes, I get that. And if the only reason the system works is that the person on $8 ( in your example, it's less than that, obviously ) qualifies for welfare, and requires government assistance to survive. So, in your world, the company is better off, the workers are worse off, and the taxpayer is worse off. Why is that good ?
josda1000 wrote:
how do you KNOW that this creates a society that needs a welfare system?
Because I know what the minimum wage is, and I know what it costs to live. One way or the other, the government IS paying these people welfare.
josda1000 wrote:
Have you looked at the history of the United States?
More than you apparently know
josda1000 wrote:
They did not have welfare... you guessed it... until the New Deal... the same time period as the Fed, minimum wage and income tax systems were enacted. See a pattern yet? Or do you really hate your boat being rocked?
So they let a steady stream of immigrant workers starve to death. Why is that a good thing ? Do me a favour, read 'The Jungle'. Then read up on the circumstances surrounding why it was written. It's not a master work, I don't agree with most of it's politics, but the situations it describes, are an amalgamation of the things that were really happening under the system you're idealising.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah... that's a contradiction. I'm talking about the lack of minimum wage, and you're talking about having one. Think outside the box for a minute.
You just don't get it. The minimum wage pre negotiations the minimum an unskilled worker can be paid. An unskilled worker is NOT in a place to say 'I can pack the shelves nicer than the next guy, so I want more money'. The company does not care. So, without it, they would be paid LESS, never more. You even said that yourself.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. But that's about it... cities are
Interesting note: The income tax was optional and was only for the very rich at first. Americans can thank Donald Duck for Income Tax. (Google it, trust me, it is worth it)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
I am so surprised that you really don't get my argument. What I'm saying is that without a minimum wage, companies are allowed to negotiate wages at any level. Let's say that the min wage is $8 for example. If the min wage were repealed, one worker at $8 can now be equated for two workers at $4. Yes, the wage is smaller, but the company is able to have two workers instead of one. That being said, this employs more people than if there were a minimum wage.
You ever work for $4/hr? Try living on the current minimum wage with a 40 hour week and that pay in a city. Actually, never mind that, you can't. In a moderate town with decent rent you can barely make it. So having 2 people that are no longer working for enough to survive is preferable to 1 that is? The minimum wage used to be defined as: The minimum amount of income required for a single income household of 4 to survive while paying rent, utilities and being able to buy basics. Compare that with the current minimum wage. A single person, paying rent with no dependents will begin to have to sacrifice either clothing, food, or utilities if even a SINGLE incident happens where they are unable to work for a week. Why do I know this? I threw out my back at work at one of these jobs. They purposely did not schedule me, since I had a "flexible schedule" I could not file for workmans comp for the missed week of work. I went back to work on pain meds with a thrown back because if I hadn't I would have been homeless. To this day my back is a riot when it rains because it never healed properly. Josh, you give a corporation the opportunity to treat their workers like slaves, they will take it happily. The managers don't care about you, your productivity is all that matters for their bonuses. And if you complain, they replace you with someone else or some kid working while going to college or high school.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
5-8-5 isn't a haiku. Take out "the", and you're golden :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Somehow I missed one in illegals. Thought it was 2. I might just be asleep. Fixed it by getting rid of the word that might offend others. I like to throw that in just to bug people.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I get that. And if the only reason the system works is that the person on $8 ( in your example, it's less than that, obviously ) qualifies for welfare, and requires government assistance to survive. So, in your world, the company is better off, the workers are worse off, and the taxpayer is worse off. Why is that good ?
In my world, there is no income tax. The taxpayer doesn't exist, except to pay taxes on property (which shouldn't exist either) or sales (which in my point of view is valid). This is another reason why getting rid of welfare and min wage is valid.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because I know what the minimum wage is, and I know what it costs to live. One way or the other, the government IS paying these people welfare.
Currently, yes. Historically in the united states, no.
Christian Graus wrote:
So they let a steady stream of immigrant workers starve to death. Why is that a good thing ? Do me a favour, read 'The Jungle'. Then read up on the circumstances surrounding why it was written. It's not a master work, I don't agree with most of it's politics, but the situations it describes, are an amalgamation of the things that were really happening under the system you're idealising.
To me it doesn't look like you 100% understand my point of view either.
Christian Graus wrote:
The minimum wage pre negotiations the minimum an unskilled worker can be paid. An unskilled worker is NOT in a place to say 'I can pack the shelves nicer than the next guy, so I want more money'. The company does not care. So, without it, they would be paid LESS, never more. You even said that yourself.
OK, let's talk about this scenario, you seem to like it. Unskilled workers (like immigrants, students, drop outs) need work. Because they aren't skilled, they'll take anything. They decided that education and other work experience isn't their thing. All of my best friends at home are unskilled workers. They went to college and decided that they didn't fit in, and just went to work. So with that knowledge and with the way I see them think, they are just trying to barely get by. There are no jobs really available, because businesses are just trying to stay afloat, while these friends of mine will basically take anything they can get. Why are job
josda1000 wrote:
In my world, there is no income tax. The taxpayer doesn't exist, except to pay taxes on property (which shouldn't exist either) or sales (which in my point of view is valid). This is another reason why getting rid of welfare and min wage is valid.
You're saying that getting rid of most taxes will mean there's no income to pay welfare ? The point at which you won't provide schools is the point at which we will not agree here. The common point seems to me that most of what you want, will keep the poor, poor.
josda1000 wrote:
Currently, yes. Historically in the united states, no.
But, did the poor historically, under the systems you love, live in paradise, or work hard and die early ?
josda1000 wrote:
To me it doesn't look like you 100% understand my point of view either.
Well, I understand what you're saying, just not where your conclusions come from
josda1000 wrote:
Why are jobs unavailable? Because they're trying to stay afloat, and are already paying the most they can for employees. It's not about "greed" as you people love to think. It's about fiscal responsibility, the ability to stay in business and stay afloat, not going bankrupt.
This is a different issue. Companies need to look after their interests, they don't owe society anything. IF a company lays off workers, they are not evil, they are on hard times, or they are rationalising their business. This is natural. It has nothing to do with what I am saying. If a company could use a worker, but can't afford to pay them enough to live, then their idea and their structure is not viable.
josda1000 wrote:
So right now, my friends that are unemployed will take anything they can get. Yes, they quip about how much they're paid when employed, but when unemployed, they can't pay bills so they need a job. ANY job.
Yes, they need a job and would take anything. But, if the system allows companies to take advantage of that, they will never get paid enough to live, if they are unskilled. That is my point.
josda1000 wrote:
People don't understand the labor put into food production (or any big production like that). However, just pointing out that naturally people congregate to cities to e
-
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3504401/Re-Illegal-Aliens-Openly-Promote-Communism-at-Atla.aspx[^] Talked about min wage.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.And your assumptions are incorrect. I have a degree. I attempted to find work in my field and took a job in order to survive. I had a job within 2 weeks of graduating. I was a responsible adult, trying to get better employment. I couldn't. And this was in 97. When the market was awesome, jobs were growing and pay was good. #1: I put in 2 applications to a place, one with my real name, one with "John Smith" John Smith got an interview, I did not. They didn't even bother to read my real application, because they would have seen the exact same contact info on it. I went in and asked them about it, instead of being ashamed over being caught being racists, they got angry at me and kicked me out. Racism is alive and well. Minimum wage jobs are filled with people that can't get something better even with their education thanks to their skin color, or last name. #2: Once you are in one of these jobs, you get stuck. Can't afford a nice suit to an interview? Too bad. Get hurt on the job, too bad, you won't get scheduled, you may lose your home, and good luck getting a job when homeless. Not everyone was too lazy to go to college and somehow magically get a great job. Some folks did and still couldn't find work, especially now with this "wonderful" economy. Those folks now are trying to pay record college debt with a cruddy wage. Until you work one of these jobs, have your power cut off because you had to choose that or rent that month (You already were down to ramen a night with hot dogs(a treat, I cooked the hot dogs and saved the water for soup later that week...)) and you are making decisions like this all the time while wishing you could afford a shotgun so you could end the misery, until you live like this, don't you dare judge people on minimum wage as lazy mooches.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.