Illegal Aliens Openly Promote Communism at Atlanta Rally
-
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.
-
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.Looks like someone's opinion to me. "The bad news is that increasing the minimum wage will do little to improve conditions for the working poor" I don't have time to read this, can you explain why giving someone more money does not improve their condition ?
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.
-
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.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
I understand your point of view, I really do. I had that point of view once. Think of it this way, for an example: A small business (or large, at that) needs workers. The owner is black (to take race out of this, because this is exactly what I'm saying. Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.) and he needs five workers. The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage. 10 potentials show up and apply. He picks the two that he can get to employ. What happens to those other potentials? If he was allowed to hire at any wage they negotiated at, he could have employed all of them, or at least 5. Now, he could only hire 2. And this really isn't an exaggeration either. This is why the communities are struggling, or one reason.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If they put a law saying "pay your people enough to live, a-holes" it means people weren't doing it.
I realize this was happening. In Lowell MA of all places. It took them 100 years to put something into effect in the United States... so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising? Again, think about it. You're speaking about the differences between corporations and small businesses.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Looks like someone's opinion to me. "The bad news is that increasing the minimum wage will do little to improve conditions for the working poor" I don't have time to read this, can you explain why giving someone more money does not improve their condition ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I 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.One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually.[1]The average family income of the typical low-wage worker was a respectable $40,000 per year. This is retarded. 1/5 of low income workers make more than $80 annually in their family, because they are kids working for pocket money. The average wage of the typical low wage earner, is going to be skewed by this fact. In Australia, the minimum wage is age balanced, that's why McDonalds has all 14-16 year olds working, because they are the cheapest workers. That's an example of how the system will adapt to lower it's costs based on whatever laws exist, or, if none exist, simply pay as little as they can, less than the current minimums. That's fine, everyone knows McDonalds is the place to go if you're a student looking to make a little money. This stops the minimum wage laws from causing people to pay too much to hire an inexperienced teenager, and also means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is. When the person making the minimum wage has 3 mouths to feed, that's a whole different ball game.
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.
-
One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually.[1]The average family income of the typical low-wage worker was a respectable $40,000 per year. This is retarded. 1/5 of low income workers make more than $80 annually in their family, because they are kids working for pocket money. The average wage of the typical low wage earner, is going to be skewed by this fact. In Australia, the minimum wage is age balanced, that's why McDonalds has all 14-16 year olds working, because they are the cheapest workers. That's an example of how the system will adapt to lower it's costs based on whatever laws exist, or, if none exist, simply pay as little as they can, less than the current minimums. That's fine, everyone knows McDonalds is the place to go if you're a student looking to make a little money. This stops the minimum wage laws from causing people to pay too much to hire an inexperienced teenager, and also means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is. When the person making the minimum wage has 3 mouths to feed, that's a whole different ball game.
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:
means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is.
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document? This is a big problem with people like you AND CSS. Yes, he's on my side. But to be fair, BOTH of you are trying to pick out little fragments to bias your claims. This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
I understand your point of view, I really do. I had that point of view once. Think of it this way, for an example: A small business (or large, at that) needs workers. The owner is black (to take race out of this, because this is exactly what I'm saying. Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.) and he needs five workers. The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage. 10 potentials show up and apply. He picks the two that he can get to employ. What happens to those other potentials? If he was allowed to hire at any wage they negotiated at, he could have employed all of them, or at least 5. Now, he could only hire 2. And this really isn't an exaggeration either. This is why the communities are struggling, or one reason.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If they put a law saying "pay your people enough to live, a-holes" it means people weren't doing it.
I realize this was happening. In Lowell MA of all places. It took them 100 years to put something into effect in the United States... so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising? Again, think about it. You're speaking about the differences between corporations and small businesses.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage.
I'm not sure how often I need to say this. When the minimum wage is so low, that people need welfare on top to survive, that he could use 5 workers at a cut rate is irrelevant. I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
josda1000 wrote:
so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising?
I can see how one reason was that small businesses put the boss in contact with the workers, so they cared if their workers lived or died. They probably knew them anyhow. But, is your solution to ban all corporations ? It's because of this lack of concern that big companies, given the chance, do pay less than a living wage. Again, The Jungle is set in the late 1800s and records how all of this went on, well before the New Deal and well before welfare. People simply worked in poverty and died. Why was there no uprising ? I have no idea.
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:
means that stats on minimum wage for adults are not skewed like this data is.
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document? This is a big problem with people like you AND CSS. Yes, he's on my side. But to be fair, BOTH of you are trying to pick out little fragments to bias your claims. This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document?
I don't have time to read it all. This was one of the first statements I saw when attempting to scan it, in fairness to you. It reminded me that the minimum wage here is not age scaled, which is a flaw in the system. If his central platform, his starting statement, is patently skewed and wrong, why would it get any better ?
josda1000 wrote:
This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Well, I apologise for raising a point that is perfectly valid, and which I raised to segue into another issue ( that of age scaling for minimum wages ). You know that the kids at McDonalds at home still make more than the single mother with two kids on minimum wage trying to get by in the USA ? You can say you're done, but I can't help but be disappointed that I feel I've raised some valid points and you're huffing off because I refused to spend an hour critiquing an entire document, right now, but still tried to put in enough to time move the discussion forward. CSS doesn't do that, he quotes something and abuses people who disagree.
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:
The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage.
I'm not sure how often I need to say this. When the minimum wage is so low, that people need welfare on top to survive, that he could use 5 workers at a cut rate is irrelevant. I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
josda1000 wrote:
so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising?
I can see how one reason was that small businesses put the boss in contact with the workers, so they cared if their workers lived or died. They probably knew them anyhow. But, is your solution to ban all corporations ? It's because of this lack of concern that big companies, given the chance, do pay less than a living wage. Again, The Jungle is set in the late 1800s and records how all of this went on, well before the New Deal and well before welfare. People simply worked in poverty and died. Why was there no uprising ? I have no idea.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no idea.
I know. lol It's because there was very little inflation, very little taxes, and very little corruption because of very little government. Corruption breeds the corporations. Central banks breed corruption AND big government.
Christian Graus wrote:
I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
You can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical? As to paying whatever they want, they're a corporation, and that's why. Small businesses are much closer to their workers, therefore they actually need to care about their wellbeing. I think we're in agreement in this area, but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
You're picking out one piece of information to invalidate the whole document?
I don't have time to read it all. This was one of the first statements I saw when attempting to scan it, in fairness to you. It reminded me that the minimum wage here is not age scaled, which is a flaw in the system. If his central platform, his starting statement, is patently skewed and wrong, why would it get any better ?
josda1000 wrote:
This is ridiculous. I'm done for today buddy.
Well, I apologise for raising a point that is perfectly valid, and which I raised to segue into another issue ( that of age scaling for minimum wages ). You know that the kids at McDonalds at home still make more than the single mother with two kids on minimum wage trying to get by in the USA ? You can say you're done, but I can't help but be disappointed that I feel I've raised some valid points and you're huffing off because I refused to spend an hour critiquing an entire document, right now, but still tried to put in enough to time move the discussion forward. CSS doesn't do that, he quotes something and abuses people who disagree.
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.
Honestly I have to continue working, I have a design doc to do. But you did also basically invalidate the whole document off of one line, which actually is what CSS would do. And that's my two reasons as to why I'm done for now. I also have a show tomorrow, and need to do some more research. I'm having someone running for Congress on the show.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no idea.
I know. lol It's because there was very little inflation, very little taxes, and very little corruption because of very little government. Corruption breeds the corporations. Central banks breed corruption AND big government.
Christian Graus wrote:
I could use a Ferrari, but I only have $5000. Why is Ferrari allowed to decide I can't have one for that, but Ferrari should be allowed to have workers at whatever arbitrary rate they decide they'd like to pay ?
You can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical? As to paying whatever they want, they're a corporation, and that's why. Small businesses are much closer to their workers, therefore they actually need to care about their wellbeing. I think we're in agreement in this area, but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical?
Humans also have overheads and operating expenses, that's entirely my point. The operating expenses of being alive are not covered by minimum wage, which is why all this talk about job creation is ludicrous, and any attempt to average out the family income of people on minimum wage fails to break those people in to obvious demographics, discount those who are not living on that money, and then look at the situation of the rest. As I said, offering a lower minimum for kids working for pocket money makes perfect sense.
josda1000 wrote:
but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Standard Oil ? The meat trust in Chicago ? These things existed in the time of small government.
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.
-
Honestly I have to continue working, I have a design doc to do. But you did also basically invalidate the whole document off of one line, which actually is what CSS would do. And that's my two reasons as to why I'm done for now. I also have a show tomorrow, and need to do some more research. I'm having someone running for Congress on the show.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Fair enough. So long as you're not saying you're leaving b/c I've been unreasonable. I didn't claim to discount the entire document, although that clanger at the start does predispose me to read with skepticism, but I did think it was a point worth raising, I'd have raised it even if I raised a ton of others, and I'm sure I would have.
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 can't have one for that price because of their overhead. Costs. Operating expenses. They need to stay afloat. Logical?
Humans also have overheads and operating expenses, that's entirely my point. The operating expenses of being alive are not covered by minimum wage, which is why all this talk about job creation is ludicrous, and any attempt to average out the family income of people on minimum wage fails to break those people in to obvious demographics, discount those who are not living on that money, and then look at the situation of the rest. As I said, offering a lower minimum for kids working for pocket money makes perfect sense.
josda1000 wrote:
but you dont' seem to get the correlation between big government and big corporations.
Standard Oil ? The meat trust in Chicago ? These things existed in the time of small government.
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.
It can be argued that, actually, they did not. I would contend that with President Lincoln, big centralized government started. This was mostly because he was much like the second Bush. But like I said I have work to do... continue posting and I'll get back to it later tonight.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
It can be argued that, actually, they did not. I would contend that with President Lincoln, big centralized government started. This was mostly because he was much like the second Bush. But like I said I have work to do... continue posting and I'll get back to it later tonight.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I think the statement 'humans have overheads' most accurately represents what I see as the flaws in your thinking.
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.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
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.
I understand your point of view, I really do. I had that point of view once. Think of it this way, for an example: A small business (or large, at that) needs workers. The owner is black (to take race out of this, because this is exactly what I'm saying. Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.) and he needs five workers. The problem is that he can only hire two workers, because of the minimum wage. 10 potentials show up and apply. He picks the two that he can get to employ. What happens to those other potentials? If he was allowed to hire at any wage they negotiated at, he could have employed all of them, or at least 5. Now, he could only hire 2. And this really isn't an exaggeration either. This is why the communities are struggling, or one reason.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
If they put a law saying "pay your people enough to live, a-holes" it means people weren't doing it.
I realize this was happening. In Lowell MA of all places. It took them 100 years to put something into effect in the United States... so what was happening before, when they were all small businesses? Were the businesses all stiffing the workers? Why wasn't there an uprising? Again, think about it. You're speaking about the differences between corporations and small businesses.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.)
My wife might disagree. I just see what happens. She gets stares for being around me in public if the people have no idea who I am. Christian responded to the other stuff. I am currently dealing with a network crisis so I will be more sporadic, and I'd just be restating some of his points anyway.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Even though you live in a racist community apparently, you're becoming racist as well just because of the environment. Think about it.)
My wife might disagree. I just see what happens. She gets stares for being around me in public if the people have no idea who I am. Christian responded to the other stuff. I am currently dealing with a network crisis so I will be more sporadic, and I'd just be restating some of his points anyway.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.