Illegal Aliens Openly Promote Communism at Atlanta Rally
-
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.
-
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
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Why would I want to keep myself poor?! "The point at which you won't provide schools is the point at which we will not agree here." I'm not doing that. Why? Because in the local communities back before the United States existed, Massachusetts communitiese for example combined wealth to contribute to local education. I'm all for that. And guess what?! It wasn't through the government! *SHOCK* *GASP*
Christian Graus wrote:
But, did the poor historically, under the systems you love, live in paradise, or work hard and die early ?
I'd say they worked hard, just like the middle class, for the most part. To say that they were going to supposedly live in paradise is absurd, and that's not what I've been arguing. As to dying early, people back then did all die early, compared to our lifespan today (thanks to their freedom).
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Really? You know how many workers we could use at my place of work right now? Do you realize that we can't yet afford to pay them, but we will be able to soon? Again, your logic is flawed. Very.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
I still disagree... this country is flourishing, even with our recession/depression. Plenty of employed people are living, even though it's hard. In every society, no matter what society you look at, there can be hard times. But we have more people out of poverty... why? Because people are free to work and create contracts, even if they are unskilled or not. The minimum wage is just a hinderance, not a help.
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.
You are talking about two different things. 1. I didn't talk about racism in corporations in that post. 2. I know that corporations are totally different from small businesses. I've been talking about that. As to minimum wage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] "a greater number of workers are willing to work at the higher wage while a smaller numbers of jobs will be available at the higher wage. Companies can be more selective in those whom they employ thus the least skilled and least experienced will typically be excluded." This is introductory economics. I wish both you and Christian to read some. Apparently Christian has economics textbooks but he doesn't get basic economics.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
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.You know that straw poll that sets the tone for the rest of the election? The one in the midwest? I was in Paul's camp. Why? Because I was more concerned with trying to get a quality candidate on the Rep side so that we didn't have a complete douchnozzle on the ticket. We still got one, but it was in the VP slot at least.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Why would I want to keep myself poor?! "The point at which you won't provide schools is the point at which we will not agree here." I'm not doing that. Why? Because in the local communities back before the United States existed, Massachusetts communitiese for example combined wealth to contribute to local education. I'm all for that. And guess what?! It wasn't through the government! *SHOCK* *GASP*
Christian Graus wrote:
But, did the poor historically, under the systems you love, live in paradise, or work hard and die early ?
I'd say they worked hard, just like the middle class, for the most part. To say that they were going to supposedly live in paradise is absurd, and that's not what I've been arguing. As to dying early, people back then did all die early, compared to our lifespan today (thanks to their freedom).
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Really? You know how many workers we could use at my place of work right now? Do you realize that we can't yet afford to pay them, but we will be able to soon? Again, your logic is flawed. Very.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
I still disagree... this country is flourishing, even with our recession/depression. Plenty of employed people are living, even though it's hard. In every society, no matter what society you look at, there can be hard times. But we have more people out of poverty... why? Because people are free to work and create contracts, even if they are unskilled or not. The minimum wage is just a hinderance, not a help.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Why would I want to keep myself poor?!
You have skills, you are in a position to negotiate your wage.
josda1000 wrote:
Because in the local communities back before the United States existed, Massachusetts communitiese for example combined wealth to contribute to local education. I'm all for that. And guess what?! It wasn't through the government! *SHOCK* *GASP*
If you can dismantle every aspect of our society to be the same as it was then, and if you can prove that schools existed for the poor, not just the middle classes, then I'm all for that. So long as there's schools, I don't care who pays for them. But, in today's world, government is the only vehicle that will make that happen.
josda1000 wrote:
As to dying early, people back then did all die early, compared to our lifespan today (thanks to their freedom).
They tended to die earlier, not sure what the 'freedom' comment means.
josda1000 wrote:
Really? You know how many workers we could use at my place of work right now? Do you realize that we can't yet afford to pay them, but we will be able to soon? Again, your logic is flawed. Very.
You're claiming that your work would put people on at a wage that is less than it costs to live, but then pay them more when there's more money coming in ? Could be true, but if it is, it's rare. No-one wants to pay more than they have to. And mechanisms exist to pay someone a pathetic wage while they learn, and more when they have learned the skills they need. That's called an apprenticeship, at least at home.
josda1000 wrote:
In every society, no matter what society you look at, there can be hard times
Sure, of course. What does that have to do with anything ? Companies will try to get as much work for as little cost in good times and bad.
josda1000 wrote:
The minimum wage is just a hinderance, not a help.
I am sorry, but in this, you seem to me to be living in a bizarre fantasy world. I just cannot comprehend the chain of logic here, it simply makes no sense and is not based in reality. You can't tell me that no other factors exist to explain life before minimum wage laws, I've suggested many possible factors, as well as the s
-
josda1000 wrote:
Why would I want to keep myself poor?!
You have skills, you are in a position to negotiate your wage.
josda1000 wrote:
Because in the local communities back before the United States existed, Massachusetts communitiese for example combined wealth to contribute to local education. I'm all for that. And guess what?! It wasn't through the government! *SHOCK* *GASP*
If you can dismantle every aspect of our society to be the same as it was then, and if you can prove that schools existed for the poor, not just the middle classes, then I'm all for that. So long as there's schools, I don't care who pays for them. But, in today's world, government is the only vehicle that will make that happen.
josda1000 wrote:
As to dying early, people back then did all die early, compared to our lifespan today (thanks to their freedom).
They tended to die earlier, not sure what the 'freedom' comment means.
josda1000 wrote:
Really? You know how many workers we could use at my place of work right now? Do you realize that we can't yet afford to pay them, but we will be able to soon? Again, your logic is flawed. Very.
You're claiming that your work would put people on at a wage that is less than it costs to live, but then pay them more when there's more money coming in ? Could be true, but if it is, it's rare. No-one wants to pay more than they have to. And mechanisms exist to pay someone a pathetic wage while they learn, and more when they have learned the skills they need. That's called an apprenticeship, at least at home.
josda1000 wrote:
In every society, no matter what society you look at, there can be hard times
Sure, of course. What does that have to do with anything ? Companies will try to get as much work for as little cost in good times and bad.
josda1000 wrote:
The minimum wage is just a hinderance, not a help.
I am sorry, but in this, you seem to me to be living in a bizarre fantasy world. I just cannot comprehend the chain of logic here, it simply makes no sense and is not based in reality. You can't tell me that no other factors exist to explain life before minimum wage laws, I've suggested many possible factors, as well as the s
Christian Graus wrote:
I am sorry, but in this, you seem to me to be living in a bizarre fantasy world. I just cannot comprehend the chain of logic here, it simply makes no sense and is not based in reality.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Economic-Effects-of-the-Minimum-Wage[^]
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
You are talking about two different things. 1. I didn't talk about racism in corporations in that post. 2. I know that corporations are totally different from small businesses. I've been talking about that. As to minimum wage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] "a greater number of workers are willing to work at the higher wage while a smaller numbers of jobs will be available at the higher wage. Companies can be more selective in those whom they employ thus the least skilled and least experienced will typically be excluded." This is introductory economics. I wish both you and Christian to read some. Apparently Christian has economics textbooks but he doesn't get basic economics.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
a greater number of workers are willing to work at the higher wage while a smaller numbers of jobs will be available at the higher wage.
This is self evident. The question is, do we just care about number of jobs, or do we care that when we buy something, we know the people who made it for us have food in their bellies and shelter from the rain ? You talk as if minimum wage is exorbitant, and it's not. At the core, you think that so long as the system works, if people benefit from the system or not, is their problem. I think that as a citizen of society, I should care about more than myself, I should care about how my choices impact on others.
josda1000 wrote:
Companies can be more selective in those whom they employ thus the least skilled and least experienced will typically be excluded
When you talk about minimum wage, skilled has nothing to do with it. There is no skilled job on the floor at Walmart.
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.
-
You are talking about two different things. 1. I didn't talk about racism in corporations in that post. 2. I know that corporations are totally different from small businesses. I've been talking about that. As to minimum wage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage[^] "a greater number of workers are willing to work at the higher wage while a smaller numbers of jobs will be available at the higher wage. Companies can be more selective in those whom they employ thus the least skilled and least experienced will typically be excluded." This is introductory economics. I wish both you and Christian to read some. Apparently Christian has economics textbooks but he doesn't get basic economics.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.My point is that if you think minimum wage is about being lazy, you are wrong. It is about being in a position that is undeniably crap. And a lot of minorities sit in that catagory. Getting rid of it means you are feeding them to the wolves. Small businesses mean jack and shit in this country nowadays. They have little to no presence in the economy and they will throw you under a bus just as quickly as Walmart if it means paying you more instead. You know why they made minimum wage? Do you understand History at all? Let me give you a simple History lesson from a guy with a minor in it. Laws are made to stop people doing something they are doing. Laws are not made to prevent things. If they put a law saying "pay your people enough to live, a-holes" it means people weren't doing it. You give a small, medium or large company the option of paying people so little that they are effectively indentured servants, and they will do it. Some jobs it won't happen, but in others, boom, the bottom falls out. Companies don't have a problem being selective. Place I work for had 12 people scheduled for 2 jobs. So it isn't about not having good workers. You drop the minimum wage, you are effectively asking us to go back 150 years in this country. Except instead of all the slaves being 1 color, they are 1 economic bracket.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.