# FED Minimum Wage needs to be eliminated



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

What are your thoughts on the artificial minimum wage mandated by law?

I heard in San Francisco it's $16.00 an hour any truth in that?
What does a cup of coffee cost in SF?

We'll never be able to keep production jobs in the USA with a mandated minimum wage.

Why can't we put prisoners to work in production lines. They could pay for their incarceration and even have some money in their pocket when they get out.

Why pay the Chinese?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

SF min wage is $9.36/hour starting this year.

There are made in prison products


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I hate to tell you this, but prisons are one of the top growth industries n the US of A. American capitalism has not let this captive workforce go unnoticed. Irony is I was just reading how shipyards can't find skilled labour anymore. Ironic, the largest post civil war migration of black americans was in WW2 to work in many industries; Mobile Alabama and and Oakland California's shipyards two big ones.Yet the majority of merchant ships pouring containers of chicom junk are chicom flagged. China is building a fleet to challenge our presence. They bought one of the old Soviet Union aircraft carriers for study. How big can they build? a ship is basicaly steel and space. I am at a loss for words or specious debates on minimum wage, universal healthcare or $300 rebates. More of the nation's wealth is held by fewere people than at anytime in our history. These people are hell bent on crushing any upward mobility of the WORKING CLASS while grossly rewarding incompetant CEOs with massive bonus checks even as the companies flounder. There is a revolution coming. It won't be by UC Santa Cruz latino study majors in de riquer red Che t shirts. It will be the generic working class hero who is tired from work,tired from not working tired from worry, tired of his/her self worth being insulted, just plain tired.


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

Our license plates are made here by the prisoners in the state pen. I think they get paid a dollar and change per hour.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Government price floors and ceilings do more harm than good.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Cap oil prices*



ksinc said:


> Government price floors and ceilings do more harm than good.


 We could easily control the economy by controlling gas prices.
Big business will not allow. There' more oil than we'll ever use down there.
Lower the prics of gas to $1.00 gallon, the economy will go through the roof and take that tax revenue money and put it into alternative Earth friendly fuels.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Kav said:


> I hate to tell you this, but prisons are one of the top growth industries n the US of A. American capitalism has not let this captive workforce go unnoticed. Irony is I was just reading how shipyards can't find skilled labour anymore. Ironic, the largest post civil war migration of black americans was in WW2 to work in many industries; Mobile Alabama and and Oakland California's shipyards two big ones.Yet the majority of merchant ships pouring containers of chicom junk are chicom flagged. China is building a fleet to challenge our presence. They bought one of the old Soviet Union aircraft carriers for study. How big can they build? a ship is basicaly steel and space. I am at a loss for words or specious debates on minimum wage, universal healthcare or $300 rebates. More of the nation's wealth is held by fewere people than at anytime in our history. These people are hell bent on crushing any upward mobility of the WORKING CLASS while grossly rewarding incompetant CEOs with massive bonus checks even as the companies flounder. There is a revolution coming. It won't be by UC Santa Cruz latino study majors in de riquer red Che t shirts. It will be the generic working class hero who is tired from work,tired from not working tired from worry, tired of his/her self worth being insulted, just plain tired.


Kav,
I agree with your analysis. I particularly agree with your pointing out the never talked about class war dimension of the current version of capitalism.

I doubt, though, that a revolution is likely. I think that the circumstances ought to provoke, if not revolution, at least radical change. That they don't seem to be doing that makes revolutionary sentiments understandable. (FWIW, I grew up arguing with red diaper babies.)

Where we seem to be heading is toward fasciast totalitarianism.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> We could easily control the economy by controlling gas prices.
> Big business will not allow. There' more oil than we'll ever use down there.
> Lower the prics of gas to $1.00 gallon, the economy will go through the roof and take that tax revenue money and put it into alternative Earth friendly fuels.


No *you* couldn't. If you cap the price of gas you will have shortages; AGAIN. Price controls do not work as intended. Ever.

ADDED:


> Throughout this century, international politics have induced many reductions in the supply of oil. Lines and shortages have developed only in times of price controls. This is not a coincidence. ROY E. CORDATO Senior Economistc, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation Washington, Jan. 27, 1991


If *you* could easily control an economy, you could easily predict the current economy and even outsmart everyone else in this economy too. In which case you would be a multi-millionaire, retired-CEO of Goldman Sachs. The fact is that consumers cannot be controlled. A good case in point is the Palestenians that broke through the security wall this week to buy fuel in Egypt.



Dr. Thomas Sowell said:


> The high cost of gasoline is nothing compared to the high cost of demons. Once you are committed to a moral melodrama, rational responses to the real problem can become almost impossible. The gasoline crises of the 1970s were a wholly unnecessary problem created by the demonization of the oil industry.
> 
> While many people believed that a reduction of petroleum supplies from the Middle East was what caused them to have to spend hours waiting in gasoline lines during the shortages of 1972 and 1979, the facts say otherwise. There had been a reduction in petroleum supplies from the Middle East in 1967, without any gasoline lines or any "crisis" atmosphere in the United States. What happened in the 1970s was the Nixon administration's imposition of wage and price controls. Such controls have been politically popular for centuries -- and economically disastrous. The price controls of the 1970s were no exception.
> 
> ...


In addition, when the government imposes price controls on one industry it rightly scares producers in other industries and has further unintended consequences; such as reductions in quality & safety and layoffs. *You* would completely destroy the economy. Please direct us to one credible economist arguing for price controls to send the economy 'through the roof.' I don't even think Paul Krugman is that confused, but I wouldn't put anything past him.

EDIT: Nope even PK agrees on price controls.


Paul Krugman said:


> Teachers of economics cherish bad policies. For example, if New York ever ends rent control, we will lose a prime example of what happens when you try to defy the law of supply and demand. And so we should always be thankful when an important politician makes a really bad policy proposal.


This concludes the economic minute of the day. We appreciate your participation.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> Price controls were the cause of the "energy crisis" of the 1970s and of the California energy crisis of the 1990s (only the wholesale price of electricity was deregulated there; controls were placed on retail prices). For more than four thousand years, dictators, despots, and politicians of all stripes have viewed price controls as the ultimate "something for nothing" promise to the public.
> 
> With the wave of a hand, or the flash of a legislative pen, they promise to make everything cheaper. And for more than four thousand years the results have been exactly the same: shortages, sometimes of catastrophic consequence; deterioration of product quality; the proliferation of black markets on which prices are actually higher and bribery is rampant; destruction of a nation's productive capacity in the industries where prices are controlled; gross distortions of markets; the creation of oppressive and tyrannical price control bureaucracies; and a dangerous concentration of political power in the hands of the price controllers.
> 
> This is what the economically ignorant among the American public is clamoring for Congress to do with regard to today's energy industry. Let's hope that the recent "hearings" in Congress on the topic of gasoline prices were just another public relations charade.


https://www.mises.org/story/1962
Four Thousand Years of Price Control 
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo 
Posted on 11/10/2005


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*hybrids are lies*



ksinc said:


> No *you* couldn't. If you cap the price of gas you will have shortages; AGAIN. Price controls do not work as intended. Ever.


 More refineries shall be produced. We will use are military to ensure the oil keeps flowing.
Perhaps start lowering the commercial cost of gas first.

commercial airliners, shipping, 18 wheelers, etc.

Economy can be totally controlled with simply the government controlling only the oil. Oil is blood in the USA. You stop our oil we die, yet we are doing sincerely nothing towards alternative fuels. Sure it's the big corps coupled with American ignorance and lack of care.
My 1992Honda CRX-HF got 52 mpg. hybrids barely reach that now. A little four seater doesnt not need 150-200hp to get around town.

Maybe we realy need a good depression to knock us out of this dream we're living in.
We rape the wealthy and waste so much of everything in this country with our welfare mentality, no more presidents. this country needs a benign dictor or a King.

Chant!

What do we need?
We need jobs!
Who makes jobs?
the rich make jobs!

What do the rich need to make more jobs?

The rich need money!

Wait a minute, what the heck are we saying? Give the rich back their tax money? No way! I can get three pairs of Air Jordans with my $600.00 tax credit.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

ksinc said:


> https://www.mises.org/story/1962
> Four Thousand Years of Price Control
> By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> Posted on 11/10/2005


This is actually a timely topic. The Chinese Communists, trying to control inflation, are trying price controls on food. If you want to watch this farce played out again, just keep reading the international news.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Mises...I guess we should also go back to the Gold Standard since Ludwig said so.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> No *you* couldn't. If you cap the price of gas you will have shortages; AGAIN. Price controls do not work as intended. Ever.


I don't think price controls are the answer, but the diamond cartel does pretty well with them (though, they have the benefit of using many tools other than just price controls). I don't think they'd work here, but I just think "ever" was a bit strong (maybe "ever" when implemented by a government on an entire category of sellers)


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Mises...I guess we should also go back to the Gold Standard since Ludwig said so.


The only solid rationale I've heard against the gold standard is that it limits the government's ability to manipulate the economy to prevent major depressions. The issue there, as we're seeing now, is that this ability can also cause major downturns, and in an effort to fix their previous mistakes, the fed can end up making things worse.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> The only solid rationale I've heard against the gold standard is that it limits the government's ability to manipulate the economy to prevent major depressions. The issue there, as we're seeing now, is that this ability can also cause major downturns, and in an effort to fix their previous mistakes, the fed can end up making things worse.


I'm sure Phinn and ksinc will offer a different opinion, but the fact remains that not one nation around the world using Keynesian monetary policy has experienced a depression in the last six decades.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> not one nation around the world using Keynesian monetary policy has experienced a depression in the last six decades


Anecdotal evidence can never prove an economic principle. I suppose that for political or rhetorical purposes, citing historical economic experiences is useful, to get votes and such, since most people assume that historical data can be used to predict the future.

There is a very good reason that anecdotal, historical or statistical evidence cannot get us all the way to scientific proof -- there is no such thing as an economic laboratory. The combinatoric complexity of an economy of any appreciable size makes such a thing impossible, much less a country of several hundred million people and a global economy of over 6 billion actors. You can never go back in time and re-create the conditions that affected the observed outcome. You can never have a control group, as you would in any other scientific experiment. Consequently, historical data can be illustrative, but will never constitute proof of an economic proposition.

When I look back on the last 60 years, I see a level of long-term monetary dilution that the world hasn't seen since Roman times. (If you want to cite historical examples, there's an alarming one for you.)

Capt. Ron says, "We will use our military to ensure the oil keeps flowing." That sounds an awful lot like the Roman attitude toward its outlying territories and their way of ensuring their supplies of tin, copper, lead and silver.

The Romans also had the familiar habit of declaring, by fiat, the quantity of actual silver in the official coins (which, by law, had to be used to pay things like taxes), which, of course, meant that coins had less and less silver as the years went on. By the time of Emperor Diocletian, inflation was so bad that he instituted broad price controls. Of course, price controls never work, and when people violate them (to survive), the State resorts to punishing them. Diocletian resorted to the death penalty. Chiang Kai-Shek did, too. Both resorted to massive military build-ups and increasing centralization of government to try to deal with the price-fluctuations caused by massive inflation. Neither government turned out so well, in the long run.

While I suppose some people might find it reassuring to look at the last 60 years, I tend to look at things on a longer time scale, and I see in today's politics a repetition of patterns that are rather disturbing.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

The funny thing is that meanwhile politicians in both parties are in favor of open boarders thereby flooding the country with low skilled workers that will work for sub minimum wage. Never mind the fact that tax dollars then have to be diverted from other things to pay their living expenses and medical care. It certainly is a race to the bottom and if it continues I cannot help but see the US being forced to become a quasi-socialist nation. I've always said the only difference between being poor in Mexico and being poor in the US is that in the US one can supliment their income through welfare.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Government price floors and ceilings do more harm than good.


Agreed with proviso: if they are at "effective" levels. Fed. minimum wage is not, so let the liberals strut around and crow about their "accomplishment"


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> if it continues I cannot help but see the US being forced to become a quasi-socialist nation


Become?

Have you not heretofore noticed that we live under the thumb of a government-controlled central bank with its legally mandated, inconvertible paper currency; a government-controlled housing loan industry; government-owned-and-operated schools; government control of pretty much every form of transportation; close regulation of the communications industry; government-sponsored local monopolies for electricity, water, cable television and internet access; a government-run medical products services industry for seniors; Social Security; massive federal subsidies for sugar, corn, energy, etc.?


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Robin Hood was a thief and a bad example.*



Wayfarer said:


> Agreed with proviso: if they are at "effective" levels. Fed. minimum wage is not, so let the liberals strut around and crow about their "accomplishment"


In the past I had always believed in supply and demand as the ultimate regulator. 
The liberal /socialist views in this country that believes in redistributing the wealth interferes with the essence of supply and demand.

How so???
We are breeding generations of people that expect the Fed gov to pay for their existance. America is producing more takers and less contributors in American society than ever before.
Hence the demand goes up, but there is no way to produce the supply other than increasing the taxes of the wealthiest American who provide the rest of people like myself with jobs. The more we rob from the rich in America, the more opportunity is stolen for the middle and lower classes.

I'm not wealthy, but I know who signs my pay checks.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

The tax issue has always confused me. OK I understand that one is taxed according to their income. The more one makes, the more in taxes they pay, correct? So what confuses me is that the democrats say that the rich do not pay their far share of the tax burrden because of tax loohholes that favor the rich. OK so what are these loopholes? Meanwhile republicans say that the rich pay far more then their share of taxes. So who is correct?


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

burnedandfrozen said:


> The tax issue has always confused me. OK I understand that one is taxed according to their income. The more one makes, the more in taxes they pay, correct? So what confuses me is that the democrats say that the rich do not pay their far share of the tax burrden because of tax loohholes that favor the rich. OK so what are these loopholes? Meanwhile republicans say that the rich pay far more then their share of taxes. So who is correct?


 You have to remember that the vast majority of democrats are under educated and believe what ever they are told. Sure their are a few pyseudo intellects that they use as democratic spokes people, but the majority are young and uneducated with deep feelings of ingrained entitlement. Liberals operate off of feelings and emotions, not logic and long term evaluation.

Ever wonder why when it rains, democrats show up less at the polls when it comes time to vote?
Simply comes down to lack of conviction because the democratic party is only made up of separate interest groups and does not have a foundation of core values to base any ideology around. it's quite hilarious I believe if examined in depth.
I once held up a sign for hours on a street corner that read "Stop Cancer". It didnt stop cancer! Liberals still believe they can hold up signs and then let everybody else do the work to get the mission done. "I'll hold up this sign until somebody does something about it!"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> In the past I had always believed in supply and demand as the ultimate regulator.
> The liberal /socialist views in this country that believes in redistributing the wealth interferes with the essence of supply and demand.
> 
> How so???
> ...


Ummm, okay. But the Federal minimum wage still is probably not an effective one, so it is a moot point. Let the liberals think they have "accomplished" something great and the rest of us can get on with work.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> You have to remember that the vast majority of democrats are under educated and believe what ever they are told. Sure their are a few pyseudo intellects that they use as democratic spokes people, but the majority are young and uneducated with *deep feelings of ingrained entitlement.* Liberals operate off of feelings and emotions, not logic and long term evaluation.
> 
> Ever wonder why when it rains, democrats show up less at the polls when it comes time to vote?
> Simply comes down to lack of conviction because the democratic party is only made up of separate interest groups and does not have a foundation of core values to base any ideology around. it's quite hilarious I believe if examined in depth.
> I once held up a sign for hours on a street corner that read "Stop Cancer". It didnt stop cancer! Liberals still believe they can hold up signs and then let everybody else do the work to get the mission done. "I'll hold up this sign until somebody does something about it!"


Entitlement? Like when corporations combine tax breaks and public subsidies along with the use of eminent domain? Talk about deep feelings of entitlement...


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Edit: Phinn, I removed my last post, this was the link: because I decided that it was off topic, and neither of us are going to change each other's mind about the gold standard, social contract etc.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

burnedandfrozen said:


> The tax issue has always confused me. OK I understand that one is taxed according to their income. The more one makes, the more in taxes they pay, correct? So what confuses me is that the democrats say that the rich do not pay their far share of the tax burrden because of tax loohholes that favor the rich. OK so what are these loopholes? Meanwhile republicans say that the rich pay far more then their share of taxes. So who is correct?


There are a lot of ways for business owners to shirk paying as according to the tax bracket systems (for instance, by "employing" family. You can also look at how much business owners abuse the concept of business expense). There are also somewhat illegal tax shelters that aren't available to people without a lot of money (such as setting up a shill off-shore company and sending money to it so that your business now has more expenses and a reduced amount of taxable income).

Also, holding money in low-dividend paying stocks and not realizing capital gains, one can reduce their taxable income (for instance, more interesting than Warren Buffet's 17.7% tax on his taxable income - for surely someone here will point out that much of that money was already taxed - is that of all his 50+ billion dollars, only 46 million was taxable).

Whether these are good or bad policies is for the public to decide, but these are mechanisms available only to people with enough money to have significant savings. That's why Democrats say the rich don't pay enough.

The tiers however are increasing, so if all income with taxed according to the tiers without any deductions or anything of that nature, the more money you make the higher percentage of your income would be taxed. That's why Republicans say the rich pay more than their fair share.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> You have to remember that the vast majority of democrats are under educated and believe what ever they are told.


So, are you a Democrat then because you believe whatever you are told?

Both educational extremes are majority Democrat (i.e. majority of people without high school diplomas and majority of people with graduate degrees vote Democrat).

Also, the impact of rain tends to be non-partisan. It also only has a significant impact on the voter turnout of those with low civic duty scores.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Edit: Phinn, I removed my last post, this was the link: because I decided that it was off topic, and neither of us are going to change each other's mind about the gold standard, social contract etc.


The article you linked has a glaring error in its initial assumptions:



> Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate. Under such a monetary rule, it seems the dollar is "as good as gold."


Under a "pure gold standard," gold would not be "trad[ed]for dollars." Dollars would actually *BE* gold. There would be no "fixed rate of exchange." The dollar would be treated like what it actually is -- a fixed and immutable *quantity* of gold, a unit of weight (at a given level of purity), like an ounce, pound, gallon or inch. The government would have no more ability to define what a dollar is (or how it will be traded for paper or anything else) than it has the ability to change what an ounce, pound, gallon or inch is.

A dollar is (or was) a unit of weight-purity. Paper currency is (or should be, at least) a convenient way of trading possession of bullion -- a claim check on a given quantity of gold. A "pure gold standard" is a situation where the government treats gold (and every other currency metal, be it gold, silver, or anything else) like any other commodity, and can't tinker with the way it trades in the market.

The site you mention seems to be discussing a state-controlled gold policy, where it has the power to revise, according to its immediate needs, how much gold is actually in a coin and what is stamped on its face. This situation is almost exactly like what I was describing with regard to the face value stamped on Roman coins, whose actual silver content was much less.

Currency fraud perpetrated by the government, in other words.

If anything, the government should have no role other than to certify that a given coin contains X amount (by weight) of Y purity of gold (or silver, or whatever). That's it.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> I hate to tell you this, but prisons are one of the top growth industries n the US of A. American capitalism has not let this captive workforce go unnoticed. Irony is I was just reading how shipyards can't find skilled labour anymore. Ironic, the largest post civil war migration of black americans was in WW2 to work in many industries; Mobile Alabama and and Oakland California's shipyards two big ones.Yet the majority of merchant ships pouring containers of chicom junk are chicom flagged. China is building a fleet to challenge our presence. They bought one of the old Soviet Union aircraft carriers for study. How big can they build? a ship is basicaly steel and space. I am at a loss for words or specious debates on minimum wage, universal healthcare or $300 rebates. More of the nation's wealth is held by fewere people than at anytime in our history. These people are hell bent on crushing any upward mobility of the WORKING CLASS while grossly rewarding incompetant CEOs with massive bonus checks even as the companies flounder. There is a revolution coming. It won't be by UC Santa Cruz latino study majors in de riquer red Che t shirts. It will be the generic working class hero who is tired from work,tired from not working tired from worry, tired of his/her self worth being insulted, just plain tired.


So what's your solution?


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

burnedandfrozen said:


> The tax issue has always confused me. OK I understand that one is taxed according to their income. The more one makes, the more in taxes they pay, correct? So what confuses me is that the democrats say that the rich do not pay their far share of the tax burrden because of tax loohholes that favor the rich. OK so what are these loopholes? Meanwhile republicans say that the rich pay far more then their share of taxes. So who is correct?


Neither. The poor do not pay their fare share. They use the most government resources and pay the least into the system.


----------



## burton (Nov 11, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> You have to remember that the vast majority of democrats are under educated and believe what ever they are told. Sure their are a few pyseudo intellects that they use as democratic spokes people, but the majority are young and uneducated with deep feelings of ingrained entitlement. Liberals operate off of feelings and emotions, not logic and long term evaluation.


Being new here, I hesitate to wade into a political debate, but what you've written flat out screams for a rejoinder. First, I hope you appreciate the irony inherent in your misspellings of the words "undereducated," "pseudo," and "spokespeople" - all in the same sentence, in a post that purports to advance your own intellectual superiority. Second, what you're saying goes completely against the "down-home" strain of Republican demagoguery that has colored political rhetoric in this country for decades. Namely, the standard Republican refrain has been that the "liberal elites" have hijacked the American government and its institutions ("activist liberal judges," "radical university professors," "the liberal media"), and that the common man must stand up in the face of this oppression, in order to restore "our values." Presumably, "our values" include large fuel-inefficient cars, poorly-constructed vinyl houses whose costs exceed their worth, a drugstore and a gas station on every suburban street corner, tax cuts for people who already have more money than they know what to do with, and of course, a healthy dose of skepticism in the face scientific orthodoxy - particularly when that science (as in the case of global warming) might cause people to stop throwing away their money on Chinese-made consumer goods that they don't need, or (in the case of evolution) if such research contradicts the Word of God.

If I sound strident, it's because I can't stand the name-calling that passes for political debate in this country. I'm willing to hear someone out if, as many of the other posters in this thread have done, they come out with statistics in favor of their position, or even simply announce some kind of aspirational goal and their reasons for believing in it. But calling the other side "dumb" just because you disagree with their positions - not because you can you empirically refute them - amounts to the pot calling the kettle black, because all political disputes tend to swing in 2 equally defensible directions. So please, turn off Rush Limbaugh (the college drop-out) and Bill O'Reilly (who famously confused a "loofah" with a "falafel") and take a position that says something constructive.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

burton said:


> Being new here, I hesitate to wade into a political debate, but what you've written flat out screams for a rejoinder. First, I hope you appreciate the irony inherent in your misspellings of the words "undereducated," "pseudo," and "spokespeople" - all in the same sentence, in a post that purports to advance your own intellectual superiority. *Second, what you're saying goes completely against the "down-home" strain of Republican demagoguery that has colored political rhetoric in this country for decades*. Namely, the standard Republican refrain has been that the "liberal elites" have hijacked the American government and its institutions ("activist liberal judges," "radical university professors," "the liberal media"), and that the common man must stand up in the face of this oppression, in order to restore "our values." *Presumably, "our values" include large fuel-inefficient cars, poorly-constructed vinyl houses whose costs exceed their worth, a drugstore and a gas station on every suburban street corner, tax cuts for people who already have more money than they know what to do with,* and of course, a healthy dose of skepticism in the face scientific orthodoxy - particularly when that science (as in the case of global warming) might cause people to stop throwing away their money on Chinese-made consumer goods that they don't need, or (in the case of evolution) if such research contradicts the Word of God.
> 
> If I sound strident, it's because I can't stand the name-calling that passes for political debate in this country. I'm willing to hear someone out if, as many of the other posters in this thread have done, they come out with statistics in favor of their position, or even simply announce some kind of aspirational goal and their reasons for believing in it. But calling the other side "dumb" just because you disagree with their positions - not because you can you empirically refute them - amounts to the pot calling the kettle black, because all political disputes tend to swing in 2 equally defensible directions. *So please, turn off Rush Limbaugh (the college drop-out) and Bill O'Reilly (who famously confused a "loofah" with a "falafel") and take a position that says something constructive*.


Was there anything constructive that you wanted to say?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The article you linked has a glaring error in its initial assumptions:
> 
> Under a "pure gold standard," gold would not be "trad[ed]for dollars." Dollars would actually *BE* gold. There would be no "fixed rate of exchange." The dollar would be treated like what it actually is -- a fixed and immutable *quantity* of gold, a unit of weight (at a given level of purity), like an ounce, pound, gallon or inch. The government would have no more ability to define what a dollar is (or how it will be traded for paper or anything else) than it has the ability to change what an ounce, pound, gallon or inch is.
> 
> ...


Ok, I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. You don't want a State-run gold standard, but rather free market one. I read these articles, and your position makes more sense to me now. 
https://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north177.html


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Rkipperman, tar and feathers are still relatively cheap and easy to acquire.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> Neither. The poor do not pay their fare share. They use the most government resources and pay the least into the system.


The rich seem to forget that without the lower classes, they would not be able to achieve their financial success. Who do you think buys the products that make the corporations their money?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> The rich seem to forget that without the lower classes, they would not be able to achieve their financial success. Who do you think buys the products that make the corporations their money?


Why are you intentionally confusing the poor with the working classes?

The middle class buys the products that make the rich successful; not the poor.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Both educational extremes are majority Democrat (i.e. majority of people without high school diplomas and majority of people with graduate degrees vote Democrat).


But oddly enough, if you look at people with graduate degrees that train you to think, like engineering, math, physics, b-school etc., they tend to vote conservative. Hmm, what conclusions can be drawn from that? :devil:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Why are you intentionally confusing the poor with the working classes?
> 
> The middle class buys the products that make the rich successful; not the poor.


You're right, the middle class does buy most of the products. I said lower classes meaning: working poor (minimum wage retail type jobs is how I would define this class), working class (I'd define this as skilled and unskilled blue collar workers) and middle class. You could also say that the working poor provide the services needed to keep the companies in business. Wal-Mart, for example, can't survive with only top execs.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

burnedandfrozen said:


> The tax issue has always confused me. OK I understand that one is taxed according to their income. The more one makes, the more in taxes they pay, correct? So what confuses me is that the democrats say that the rich do not pay their far share of the tax burrden because of tax loohholes that favor the rich. OK so what are these loopholes? Meanwhile republicans say that the rich pay far more then their share of taxes. So who is correct?


For starters - there is a nomenclature problem here. "Rich" and "high income" do not necessarily mean the same thing. Actually, in this country, the top 5% of each group have much less overlap than you think. The truly wealthy of this country pay very little as a % basis of the total tax burden. That falls on the productive (high income earners), with the top 5% paying over half the total tax. Dunno, but doesnt it seem a little counter-intuitive for a society to place the heaviest tax burden on those who are producing the most? Arent these the people you want to reward and give incentive to continue to do so?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> For starters - there is a nomenclature problem here. "Rich" and "high income" do not necessarily mean the same thing. Actually, in this country, the top 5% of each group have much less overlap than you think. The truly wealthy of this country pay very little as a % basis of the total tax burden. That falls on the productive (high income earners), with the top 5% paying over half the total tax. Dunno, but doesnt it seem a little counter-intuitive for a society to place the heaviest tax burden on those who are producing the most? Arent these the people you want to reward and give incentive to continue to do so?


+1. Excellent post and points I often hit here.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> The rich seem to forget that without the lower classes, they would not be able to achieve their financial success. Who do you think buys the products that make the corporations their money?


Other rich people. You think Goldman Sachs makes billions by exploiting the little poor people? No, they make their billions by trading in futures, swaps and other derivatives.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> For starters - there is a nomenclature problem here. "Rich" and "high income" do not necessarily mean the same thing. Actually, in this country, the top 5% of each group have much less overlap than you think. The truly wealthy of this country pay very little as a % basis of the total tax burden. That falls on the productive (high income earners), with the top 5% paying over half the total tax. Dunno, but doesnt it seem a little counter-intuitive for a society to place the heaviest tax burden on those who are producing the most? Arent these the people you want to reward and give incentive to continue to do so?


[putting on liberal hat] No, the rich are evil and need to be punished. They have gotten their gains from exploiting the poor. We need to resdtribute their wealth to the poor, so we are all equal.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> For starters - there is a nomenclature problem here. "Rich" and "high income" do not necessarily mean the same thing. Actually, in this country, the top 5% of each group have much less overlap than you think. The truly wealthy of this country pay very little as a % basis of the total tax burden. That falls on the productive (high income earners), with the top 5% paying over half the total tax. Dunno, but doesnt it seem a little counter-intuitive for a society to place the heaviest tax burden on those who are producing the most? Arent these the people you want to reward and give incentive to continue to do so?


So are CEOs working harder than they did 30 years ago? Their inflated paychecks seem to say so. Among the 500 biggest firms in the U.S., average CEO compensation in 1975 was 41 times what an average worker earned. What is it today? At $10.8 million, it's 364 times_._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> So are CEOs working harder than they did 30 years ago? Their inflated paychecks seem to say so. Among the 500 biggest firms in the U.S., average CEO compensation in 1975 was 41 times what an average worker earned. What is it today? At $10.8 million, it's 364 times_._


To be fair, a CEO in 1975 operated in a much different world than a CEO of today. IMO, it takes much more to be successful as a CEO today. I am not saying I agree with poorly performing CEOs getting huge payouts, but I damn well think a Jack Welch earned his keep. Also, as a CEO, I can tell you I would be happy to make 41 times what my average employee makes, I think it woud be a three fold raise for me.

As usual, in the US, discussion centers around the extremes.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> So are CEOs working harder than they did 30 years ago? Their inflated paychecks seem to say so. Among the 500 biggest firms in the U.S., average CEO compensation in 1975 was 41 times what an average worker earned. What is it today? At $10.8 million, it's 364 times_._


If you're looking at CEO's, you're still barking up the wrong tree. 1% of this nation own over 33% of its wealth. I assure you that the vast majority of those people did not obtain it from CEO compensation.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> If you're looking at CEO's, you're still barking up the wrong tree. 1% of this nation own over 33% of its wealth. I assure you that the vast majority of those people did not obtain it from CEO compensation.


Assuming your numbers are correct (I have no idea), how did this 1% get so much wealth?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Mocking the old Smith Barney Advertisement with patrician actor. " They make money old fashioned way---- they STEAL it."


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Entitlement on both sides*



Laxplayer said:


> Entitlement? Like when corporations combine tax breaks and public subsidies along with the use of eminent domain? Talk about deep feelings of entitlement...


You can't have entitlement on just one side. Entitlement philosophy is a disease that affects anyone who can be rewarded by it.

If I can gain from a belief of entitlement and I get what I believe I am entitled to, then I must be truly entitled to what I have gained.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You're right, the middle class does buy most of the products. I said lower classes meaning: working poor (minimum wage retail type jobs is how I would define this class), working class (I'd define this as skilled and unskilled blue collar workers) and middle class. You could also say that the working poor provide the services needed to keep the companies in business. Wal-Mart, for example, can't survive with only top execs.


Well, I disagree. I think the skilled class provides the services needed to keep the companies in business. I think the non-skilled class provides their quality of life personal services - like mowing their yards and ironing their clothes. However, this is not why they are rich. They are rich because they sell iPhones, iPods, golf clubs, xbox 360s, and SUVs to the skilled working classes.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

minimum wage in New York is 7.15 an hour and Pathmark pays me a little over 8.00 an hour cause I put in holiday pay and sometimes time and a half.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, I disagree. I think the skilled class provides the services needed to keep the companies in business. I think the non-skilled class provides their quality of life personal services - like mowing their yards and ironing their clothes. However, this is not why they are rich. They are rich because they sell iPhones, iPods, golf clubs, xbox 360s, and SUVs to the skilled working classes.


I guess it depends upon which industry you are referring to, and to what you mean by skilled. I was referring to retail businesses, which is why I mentioned Wal-Mart. I also would not consider retail employees to be skilled workers. You're right that they aren't rich _because _of their employees, but they could not sell the products that make them rich without them, well at least not on a large scale.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Are you serious?*



Howard said:


> minimum wage in New York is 7.15 an hour and Pathmark pays me a little over 8.00 an hour cause I put in holiday pay and sometimes time and a half.


 Do they include room and board for that pay or do you have to live with 10 other people in a one room flat?
The Navy always added housing and food to our paychecks.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Do they include room and board for that pay or do you have to live with 10 other people in a one room flat?
> The Navy always added housing and food to our paychecks.


Didn't you come in here saying min wage was too high? For as long as I can remember, every employer of that level of work does minimum wage rounded up to the next dollar to avoid the stigma of paying minimum wage.

BTW, minimum wage laws are not what kill production jobs in the US. New Balance pays around $4/pair of shoes more to make (make understood to include all costs, production, shipping, inventory, etc) their made in USA shoes than their made in China shoes. Many foreign companies bring production jobs here because it's cheaper to produce goods here with our laws if they are for sale here than to produce them in the home country. What hurts production jobs was the unfortunate decision to ignore ever increasing life expectancies when setting health and retirement benefits some 40 years ago.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> Didn't you come in here saying min wage was too high? For as long as I can remember, every employer of that level of work does minimum wage rounded up to the next dollar to avoid the stigma of paying minimum wage.
> 
> BTW, minimum wage laws are not what kill production jobs in the US. New Balance pays around $4/pair of shoes more to make (make understood to include all costs, production, shipping, inventory, etc) their made in USA shoes than their made in China shoes. Many foreign companies bring production jobs here because it's cheaper to produce goods here with our laws if they are for sale here than to produce them in the home country. What hurts production jobs was the unfortunate decision to ignore ever increasing life expectancies when setting health and retirement benefits some 40 years ago.


If he's willing to work for that price, than good on Pathmark for not paying him more. It would only be passed on to me, the consumer. I'm sure there are hundreds of illegals willing to work for half that much.
Minimum wage is only one economic poison. Yes there are many. If we keep swallowing them we'll all be dead or communist.

Did you ever see that Star Trek episode when the person on this particular planet reached age 65 they committed a ritual suicide so that they would not become a burden on their society.

A smart parent raises their child to be their social security support, not the federal government. Just keep saying, " I take care of you now, so that you can take care of me later." If you don't have children, you'll save so much money you wont need them to support you. Really, what is the logical point of having children, making all the sacrifices, personal and financial for them if they don't take care of you until your dead?

However, I dont have any kids, never wanted any of my own and I'm still broke...oh but what a life I have lived!


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Well, even if there weren't a federal minimum wage, there still would be effectively because unions would become strong and popular again. Just look at Germany where there is no minimum wage set by law for an example of this.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I guess it depends upon which industry you are referring to, and to what you mean by skilled. I was referring to retail businesses, which is why I mentioned Wal-Mart. I also would not consider retail employees to be skilled workers. You're right that they aren't rich _because _of their employees, but they could not sell the products that make them rich without them, well at least not on a large scale.


Well, how do these "poor" people buy these products?

Whatever they are buying it can't be very much; certainly not enough to make anyone rich.

Oh nevermind, I see you switched from buying from to working for which is what I agreed with earlier.

I guess I would then have to ask if not for the rich who would these "poor" people be applying their unskilled services for?

If a "poor", unskilled worker sits alone in the forest does he make any sound? LOL


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Well, how do these "poor" people buy these products?


They do for now because it's been easy to get mortgages and car loans and qualify for credit cards and leases. We'd been living in Henry Ford's world where employees can afford to buy the products they make (sometimes from wages and sometimes from loans of one sort or another). As the lending market weakens (and eventually the government won't be able to support it), the wage (and pricing) policies of companies like Walmart will come back to bite them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> They do for now because it's been easy to get mortgages and car loans and qualify for credit cards and leases. We'd been living in Henry Ford's world where employees can afford to buy the products they make (sometimes from wages and sometimes from loans of one sort or another). As the lending market weakens (and eventually the government won't be able to support it), the wage (and pricing) policies of companies like Walmart will come back to bite them.


"Poor" people have houses, cars, and credit cards?

Maybe there's your problem right there.

'Henry Ford the Father of sub-prime lending?'

All this time I thought it was Solomon Bros MBS that caused it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Well, even if there weren't a federal minimum wage, there still would be effectively because unions would become strong and popular again. Just look at Germany where there is no minimum wage set by law for an example of this.


Well you are supposedly in law school. Please go ask your nearest prof to explain to you _post hoc ergo propter hoc_. I think that should explain to you why the above is tripe.

Who here does not understand that the current minimum wage is useless? In economics, it is referred to not being an "effective" minimum wage, one that actually forces a significant number of jobs to be paid above market rates. I cannot get people to mop floors for minimum wage.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I cannot get people to mop floors for minimum wage.


It is largely worthless, but for those that it counts for I think it's worth having in place because it has little overall impact but significant specific impact.

When German politicians debate having a minimum wage, the power of collective bargaining is always brought up. They largely view it as a better solution because it sets a minimum wage for each sector. If there were a minimum wage in place, I think collective bargaining would not be used to the extent it is there.

Please dont't try to give me Latin lessons.

NM must be an odd market. I can get people to work in law firms for only $2 above SF's minimum wage. The lowest paying law firm jobs can be filled at $9/hr, and that's in DC where the cost of living is fairly high (this rate would not be custodial staff since the building take care of that, but clerical staff and in extreme situations reception). Heck, in WV you can pick up paralegals for $10-11/hr.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*I'm not in law school, but I play a law student on tv...*



Wayfarer said:


> Well you are supposedly in law school. Please go ask your nearest prof to explain to you _post hoc ergo propter hoc_. I think that should explain to you why the above is tripe.


 I had to look up the definition:

*Post hoc ergo propter hoc*, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event _followed_ this one, that event must have been _caused_ by this one." It is often shortened to simply *post hoc* and is also sometimes referred to as *false cause*, *coincidental correlation* or *correlation not causation*. It is subtly different from the fallacy _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> 'Henry Ford the Father of sub-prime lending?'
> 
> All this time I thought it was Solomon Bros MBS that caused it.


Sheesh you miss it entirely. The Henry Ford world is where the employees can afford to buy the products they make. Our world is one that has for a long time fit that idea, BUT with the twist that it is sometimes on credit - that's why that aspect was parenthetical (yes, I realize that is an improper use of parentheses, but this is how it is used on the internet).

That poor people have cars, houses, and credit cards is what I was saying is the problem. You asked how do these poor people buy these things. I was saying they buy these things with the aid of an artifically supported lending market.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Please dont't try to give me Latin lessons.


It was not a lesson in Latin, it was a lesson in thinking.

BTW, I live in Tucson Arizona.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> Heck, in WV you can pick up paralegals for $10-11/hr.


I'm assuming that doesn't include the cost of any drinks or the cost of the motel room at that rate.????


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> I'm assuming that doesn't include the cost of any drinks or the cost of the motel room at that rate.????


:icon_smile_big::aportnoy:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> I'm assuming that doesn't include the cost of any drinks or the cost of the motel room at that rate.????


I can't believe these rates actually surprise you. If they really do surprise you, you must have not spent much time in the civie world before going into the navy. Paralegals would have use of the often well stocked snack rooms. Clerical do too, but to a lesser extent (not by rule but by convention, since they are normally somewhere far away from the snackroom enough to have limited access to it)

Even in DC, where the cost of living is MUCH higher than in WV, a junior paralegal can be had for ~$13/hr. $15/hr is a very well qualified but green (1-3 years experience) paralegal.

Contract attorneys (aka doc reviewers) get $35/hr (unless it's a foreign language project). This is the upper limit on hourly employees in the legal world. Of course, firms bill $120-$200 for their services (and pay the staffing agency that hires the attorney $65/hr for the attorney. The staffing agency is paying taxes on their pay, the firm does not)


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> I can't believe these rates actually surprise you. If they really do surprise you, you must have not spent much time in the civie world before going into the navy. Paralegals would have use of the often well stocked snack rooms. Clerical do too, but to a lesser extent (not by rule but by convention, since they are normally somewhere far away from the snackroom enough to have limited access to it)
> 
> Even in DC, where the cost of living is MUCH higher than in WV, a junior paralegal can be had for ~$13/hr. $15/hr is a very well qualified but green (1-3 years experience) paralegal.
> 
> Contract attorneys (aka doc reviewers) get $35/hr (unless it's a foreign language project). This is the upper limit on hourly employees in the legal world. Of course, firms bill $120-$200 for their services (and pay the staffing agency that hires the attorney $65/hr for the attorney. The staffing agency is paying taxes on their pay, the firm does not)


Try to get a guy to cut your tree down in the back yard! Talk about workman's comp!
never mind being an attorney, I should have been a gorilla with a chain saw!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> That poor people have cars, houses, and credit cards is what I was saying is the problem. You asked how do these poor people buy these things. I was saying they buy these things with the aid of an artifically supported lending market.


Again, those people are not "the poor." You should get out and see some real poor people.

People on minimum wage are not buying houses and leasing cars. Sub-prime loan borrowers are not minimum wage earners. Your $13-$15/hr is where sub-prime is hitting.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Again, those people are not "the poor." You should get out and see some real poor people.
> 
> People on minimum wage are not buying houses and leasing cars. Sub-prime loan borrowers are not minimum wage earners. Your $13-$15/hr is where sub-prime is hitting.


I know they're not the poor but they are the lower classes that the other poster was talking about.

The poor poor aren't buying the things sure. There are places in MD that don't have trash service or a local public school. I don't think those are the people who the poster was talking about.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Try to get a guy to cut your tree down in the back yard! Talk about workman's comp!


If you run a tree cutting service you can make pretty good money and work pretty good hours. It's not the easiest work though - lots of turn around in your employees and you're not just the business owner but also a worker.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I know they're not the poor but they are the lower classes that the other poster was talking about.
> 
> *The poor poor aren't buying the things sure.* There are places in MD that don't have trash service or a local public school. I don't think those are the people who the poster was talking about.





marlinspike said:


> That poor people have cars, houses, and credit cards is what I was saying is the problem.
> You asked how do these poor people buy these things. I was saying they buy these things with the aid of an artifically supported lending market.


Pick one.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I applied to a tree cutting service. I have 3 units in pruning fruit trees and ornamentals in my associate degree, have climbed redwoods to protect them and how to safely fell a tree by a canadian logger after taking a class in Carolina on building log homes. I was taught by a STIHL factory rep chainsaw safety.I was turned down .No habla.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I appled to a tree cutting service. I have 3 units in pruning fruit trees and ornamentals in my associate degree, have climbed redwoods to protect tehm and was taught by a STIHL factory rep chainsaw safety.i was turned down .No habla.


You should have just said "Si, yo habla." How would anyone have known otherwise?

Down here if you are white and you see a hispanic person and you ask them a question in spanish they are likely to respond "no habla ingles." 

It can piss you off if you aren't careful.

I would apply but I think my OG Livesay RTAK would scare everyone away.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Pick one.


Ok, which people did you ask about how do they buy things? You were talking to the poster who was talking about people in the lower incomes. If I wanted to say what you suggest I was saying, I would have said destitute.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Ok, which people did you ask about how do they buy things? You were talking to the poster who was talking about people in the lower incomes. If I wanted to say what you suggest I was saying, I would have said destitute.


I'm not suggesting you said anything. I'm quoting you.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's hard to 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' if your barefoot.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Here Marlinspike

#1 Originally Posted by rkipperman 
Neither. The poor do not pay their fare share. They use the most government resources and pay the least into the system.

#2 Laxplayer responded to rkipperman
The rich seem to forget that without the lower classes, they would not be able to achieve their financial success. Who do you think buys the products that make the corporations their money?

#3 I responded to Laxplayer
Why are you intentionally confusing the poor with the working classes?
The middle class buys the products that make the rich successful; not the poor.

#4 Lax responded to me
You're right, the middle class does buy most of the products.

another exchange

#5 I responded with
Well, how do these "poor" people buy these products?
Whatever they are buying it can't be very much; certainly not enough to make anyone rich.
Oh nevermind, I see you switched from buying from to working for which is what I agreed with earlier.

#6 Marlinspike chose poorly. (pun intended) And responded to only the first line of my post.
They do for now because it's been easy to get mortgages and car loans and qualify for credit cards and leases.

editors narrative: Of course, both LAX and I agreed that the poor did not buy most of the products that made the rich successful, but merely produced them. But now MS has jumped in with an explanation of how the poor buy the products they don't actually buy.

#6 I responded to Marlinspike giving him a chance to retract
"Poor" people have houses, cars, and credit cards? 

#7 Marlinspike responded to me arguing his point even stronger
That poor people have cars, houses, and credit cards is what I was saying is the problem. You asked how do these poor people buy these things. I was saying they buy these things with the aid of an artifically supported lending market.

#8 Earth to MS
Again, those people are not "the poor." You should get out and see some real poor people.
People on minimum wage are not buying houses and leasing cars. Sub-prime loan borrowers are not minimum wage earners. Your $13-$15/hr is where sub-prime is hitting.

#9 MS to ground control
The poor poor aren't buying the things sure. 

See the problem? You now say the poor aren't buying the things when you started out saying not only that they did, but how.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*revolution!*

There's a difference between a few illegal migrant immigrants and an all out friggin invasion and hostile take over.
 I prefer they not speak English. If they do then they will soon be taking more than low paying labor jobs, more like your child's college scholarship. Oh wait, too late.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> There's a difference between a few illegal migrant immigrants and an all out friggin invasion and hostile take over.
> I prefer they not speak English. If they do then they will soon be taking more than low paying labor jobs, more like your child's college scholarship. Oh wait, too late.


Why don't the people complaining about immigrants taking "[their] child's scholarship" simply save and pay for their children to go to college? Or alternatively, let the child pay for college like most of the rest of us did. I just recently forked over out of my own pocket for an MBA ($40,000) + Becker CPA Review ($3,500).

Have you heard of student loans and jobs?


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*keeping score*



ksinc said:


> Here Marlinspike
> 
> #1 Originally Posted by rkipperman
> Neither. The poor do not pay their fare share. They use the most government resources and pay the least into the system.


I was keeping score, but I lost track.
Right or wrong.

I'm happy to see some convinction in arguement and rebuttal.

Please continue until someone gets check-mated.

Remember, gentlemen say, "garde" when the queen is under attack.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> I was keeping score, but I lost track.
> Right or wrong.
> I'm happy to see some convinction in arguement and rebuttal.
> Please continue until someone gets check-mated.


Too late.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> #4 Lax responded to me
> You're right, the middle class does buy most of the products.


You forgot to quote that he went on to say

"I said lower classes meaning: working poor (minimum wage retail type jobs is how I would define this class), working class (I'd define this as skilled and unskilled blue collar workers) and middle class."

I'll admit to missing that he defined working poor as minimum wage retail jobs. I think the fact that you conveniently left this bit out shows you knew exactly what I was talking about.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Have you heard of quotas, supposedly eliminated in some places? I came home with the G.I. Bill, 6 years of saving every other paycheck each month and a grandmother determined I would follow the family tradition of attending UCLA. I was told by a greatfull nation I didn't qualify for any aid or scholarships based on my savings, and bluntly by an admissions counselor at University of California Latinos and Asians I was the wrong colour. My younger brother, by 14 months simply walked in with our Choctaw indian headroll papers and got admitted as a native american. He was finished by the time I got home and grandma and dad, po'ed I 'chose' another campus gave my college money to him to enter gemnology school, married a nicaraugan spanish language major, trimmed his beard and cut his shoulder length hair and registered republican after their first paychecks.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> You forgot to quote that he went on to say
> 
> "I said lower classes meaning: working poor (minimum wage retail type jobs is how I would define this class), working class (I'd define this as skilled and unskilled blue collar workers) and middle class."
> 
> I'll admit to missing that he defined working poor as minimum wage retail jobs. I think the fact that you conveniently left this bit out shows you knew exactly what I was talking about.


It was left out because it has nothing to do with YOU making t[w]o completely contradictory statements.

It was bad enough you couldn't follow the trail on your own without getting lost. I didn't want to put in anything extraneous so you could keep up this time.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> It was left out because it has nothing to do with YOU making to completely contradictory statements.
> 
> It was bad enough you couldn't follow the trail on your own without getting lost. I didn't want to put in anything extraneous so you could keep up this time.


You knew exactly what I was talking about and you were just trying to be a stickler. It's an internet forum, I'm never going to be as specific as you seem to assume/claim I am.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> You knew exactly what I was talking about and you were just trying to be a stickler. It's an internet forum, I'm never going to be as specific as you seem to assume/claim I am.


This is being a stickler?

Originally Posted by marlinspike 
"I know they're not the poor but they are the lower classes that the other poster was talking about.

The poor poor aren't buying the things sure. There are places in MD that don't have trash service or a local public school. I don't think those are the people who the poster was talking about."

Also Originally Posted by marlinspike 
"That poor people have cars, houses, and credit cards is what I was saying is the problem. 
You asked how do these poor people buy these things. I was saying they buy these things with the aid of an artifically supported lending market."

Originally Posted by KSINC 
"Pick one."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I remember a rather unpleasant man of conservative bent. He said "If you gave everyone in the world a million dollars, by year's end the same people would be rich and the poor poor." Now I agree this is a simplification and all, BUT, nobody has ever offered me a million by way of proof.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I remember a rather unpleasant man of conservative bent. He said "If you gave everyone in the world a million dollars, by year's end the same people would be rich and the poor poor." Now I agree this is a simplification and all, BUT, nobody has ever offered me a million by way of proof.


Yep. I remember I saw something once on the amazing number of lottery winners that later declare bankruptcy.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, how do these "poor" people buy these products?
> 
> Whatever they are buying it can't be very much; certainly not enough to make anyone rich.
> 
> ...


Let's see, would that make them the chicken or the egg? To answer your question, they would apply their services to another company. Most people that have to live at this level of income aren't too picky about what type of job it is as long as it pays their bills. Why do you think there are so many temp agencies? Poor people may not have the buying power that the middle class has, but they still buy food, clothes, medicine etc. And cars? Not everyone buys a new car. There are plenty of auto dealers around here selling cars under $2500.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Why don't the people complaining about immigrants taking "[their] child's scholarship" simply save and pay for their children to go to college? Or alternatively, let the child pay for college like most of the rest of us did. I just recently forked over out of my own pocket for an MBA ($40,000) + Becker CPA Review ($3,500).
> 
> Have you heard of student loans and jobs?


I agree with you there. I paid for my own college education through loans and working at a video store (for more than minimum wage I might add). My parents kicked in for spending money (clothes, food...Read: BEER :icon_smile_big, and they did buy my car a SAAB 900 for $4,000. I still resent that immigrants are given scholarships. Not because I think I needed one, but because they can take out loans and work like we did.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Awesome!*



Kav said:


> I remember a rather unpleasant man of conservative bent. He said "If you gave everyone in the world a million dollars, by year's end the same people would be rich and the poor poor." Now I agree this is a simplification and all, BUT, nobody has ever offered me a million by way of proof.


 Hey I think that was Rush Limbaugh! awesome quote!
Cant wait to use it!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No, Rush is the guy who said drug users should be thrown in prison or something. Rush, Walley George, Joe Pyne, poltical commentators who deserve their own small Mount Rushmore made of Hollywood props next to the HOLLYWOOD sign.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> Neither. The poor do not pay their fare share. They use the most government resources and pay the least into the system.


There is no way to justify this statement in the world of reality.

For instance: who "uses" the law enforcement system more: the people who are regularly brought into contact with the law enforcement system, or the people who sleep soundly in their beds because the law enforcement system is keeping them safe? Who "uses" the government transportation system more: people who merely drive on the roads, or people who own companies that ship good by road, rail, and air, and profit by that use? Who "uses" federal housing programs: the small number who receive direct payment for subsidized housing, or those who are able to live in the suburbs by virtue of federal highway and other programs? Who "uses" the federal regulatory structure more: the low-income people who can't afford to open bank accounts, or affluent people whose bank accounts are federally insured, and who are able to issue, buy, and sell stocks because of the securities regulation system?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

burton said:


> Being new here, I hesitate to wade into a political debate, but what you've written flat out screams for a rejoinder. First, I hope you appreciate the irony inherent in your misspellings of the words "undereducated," "pseudo," and "spokespeople" - all in the same sentence, in a post that purports to advance your own intellectual superiority. Second, what you're saying goes completely against the "down-home" strain of Republican demagoguery that has colored political rhetoric in this country for decades. Namely, the standard Republican refrain has been that the "liberal elites" have hijacked the American government and its institutions ("activist liberal judges," "radical university professors," "the liberal media"), and that the common man must stand up in the face of this oppression, in order to restore "our values." Presumably, "our values" include large fuel-inefficient cars, poorly-constructed vinyl houses whose costs exceed their worth, a drugstore and a gas station on every suburban street corner, tax cuts for people who already have more money than they know what to do with, and of course, a healthy dose of skepticism in the face scientific orthodoxy - particularly when that science (as in the case of global warming) might cause people to stop throwing away their money on Chinese-made consumer goods that they don't need, or (in the case of evolution) if such research contradicts the Word of God.
> 
> If I sound strident, it's because I can't stand the name-calling that passes for political debate in this country. I'm willing to hear someone out if, as many of the other posters in this thread have done, they come out with statistics in favor of their position, or even simply announce some kind of aspirational goal and their reasons for believing in it. But calling the other side "dumb" just because you disagree with their positions - not because you can you empirically refute them - amounts to the pot calling the kettle black, because all political disputes tend to swing in 2 equally defensible directions. So please, turn off Rush Limbaugh (the college drop-out) and Bill O'Reilly (who famously confused a "loofah" with a "falafel") and take a position that says something constructive.


Burton, welcome.

I finally posted something in this thread because, like you, I concluded that the statements here cry out for a response.

On the other hand, you'll find that this thread is typical of a certain kind of thread we see here, where for the most part a horde of right-wingers echo each other's comments in a resounding chorus that reflects the hostility of the comfortable toward the much less well off, or those who express liberal, egalitarian, or anti-establishment views.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> There is no way to justify this statement in the world of reality.
> 
> For instance: who "uses" the law enforcement system more: the people who are regularly brought into contact with the law enforcement system, or the people who sleep soundly in their beds because the law enforcement system is keeping them safe? Who "uses" the government transportation system more: people who merely drive on the roads, or people who own companies that ship good by road, rail, and air, and profit by that use? *Who "uses" federal housing programs: the small number who receive direct payment for subsidized housing, or those who are able to live in the suburbs by virtue of federal highway and other programs? *Who "uses" the federal regulatory structure more: the low-income people who can't afford to open bank accounts, or affluent people whose bank accounts are federally insured, and who are able to issue, buy, and sell stocks because of the securities regulation system?


I'm pretty sure that isn't it. Perhaps you meant to compare Fannie and Freddie vs. HUD's other programs?

Regarding "the small number" it took me 1 minute to find: " the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) public housing and section 8 certificate programs are the two largest federal rental assistance programs, providing housing to over 23 million low-income households. " There are roughly only 100 million households.

On the other hand, you'll find that this post is typical of a certain kind of post we see here, where for the most part a horde of left-wingers echo each other's comments in a resounding chorus that reflects emotion more than logic; and express liberal or socialistic views with broad mis-characterizations and un-substantiated "facts".

I concluded that the statements here cry out for a response.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Capt Ron said:


> Do they include room and board for that pay or do you have to live with 10 other people in a one room flat?
> The Navy always added housing and food to our paychecks.


No, Pathmark can't afford to pay people for room and board,much too expensive.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Regarding "the small number" it took me 1 minute to find: " the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) public housing and section 8 certificate programs are the two largest federal rental assistance programs, providing housing to over 23 million low-income households. " There are roughly only 100 million households.


ksinc:

On your break from here, I think that you forgot facts are not the tool some people use to argue with, but rather the level of their indignation that not everyone is a well heeled attorney living in a state that is 97% or so white.



ksinc said:


> On the other hand, you'll find that this post is typical of a certain kind of post we see here, where for the most part a horde of left-wingers echo each other's comments in a resounding chorus that reflects emotion more than logic; and express liberal or socialistic views with broad mis-characterizations and un-substantiated "facts".


Classic


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> No, Pathmark can't afford to pay people for room and board,*much too expensive.*


Howa:

You are slipping a little there. So few people these days can use "to", "too", and "two" properly. Tch, tch, concentrate and up that game bud!


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

The thing about minimum wage jobs is that nobody is expected to make a career out of them. Back in '87 I had an after school part time gig at a near by Jack in the Box. I was the 6:00pm-10:00pm fry cook. Likewise everyone else employed there was a teen and the managers were in their 20's. Furthermore, being teens we still lived at home so the measly part time pay was really just spending money. I didn't even want to go to work but was pressured by my parents so I would learn responsibility. After about 10 months I quit. 

These days, fast food places (at least in CA) are staffed by mostly older somewhat middle aged folks who speak broken English. Sometimes it really is difficult to get ones order entered in correctly because of the language barrier. The exception to this is In-N-Out Burger which is staffed mostly teens. Maybe this is because since In-N-Out pays more then the minimum they can attract better employees? We all got to start somewhere and such jobs are often the first "real" job one takes on after babysitting or mowing the neighbors lawns. So what are we to make of people trying to raise kids on such an income? America has always been a free country meaning you are free to make decisions regarding your course in life. However as mentioned earlier in this thread there is a huge entitlement mentality that has taken hold even among some people that come to the US for a better life.

I'll never forgot reading an article in a Bay Area newspaper about seven or eight years ago. The story was about three different men, one was a man from India who came to the US with nothing and in ten years became CEO of a company he created and was pulling down a seven figure income. The second man was from Mexico and also had come to the US ten years ago and was working as a janitor in some office buildings. The third man was a American born guy who after being laid off a number of times decided to seek better job security by teaching in a high school. The most startling thing about the story was when the man from Mexico was talking about how he cleans offices owned by people who drive six figure cars while he has to ride a bicycle to work each day. It was mentioned in the article that he was speaking through a interpreter. So here is a man who in ten years hasn't bothered to learn English or any other skills that might get him into a higher paying job and yet he's miffed that he can't afford a car. See my point? Why did the man from India succeed? Because he understood that when he came to the US he wasn't going to have anything served to him on a silver platter, he would have to work for the life he wanted. 'Nuff said.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> There are places in MD that don't have trash service or a local public school.


But I am willing to bet they all have a large screen TV.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> On the other hand, you'll find that this post is typical of a certain kind of post we see here, where for the most part a horde of left-wingers echo each other's comments in a resounding chorus that reflects emotion more than logic; and express liberal or socialistic views with broad mis-characterizations and un-substantiated "facts".
> 
> I concluded that the statements here cry out for a response.


 Florida sunshine must have more vitamins and minerals than California sunshine. Apparently, Florida sunshine keeps the brain working logically!


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

rkipperman said:


> But I am willing to bet they all have a large screen TV.


Actually, no, they live in conditions that most of us would find unthinkable in the modern day. Homeless while still having a roof on their head (well, usually, there was an article on this not all that long ago in either the Washington Post or NYT, I'll have to find it). This isn't a MD only phenomenon btw (there was a similar article at a similar time in the Charlotte Observer IIRC). The consistent facts are that they live in old rusted out trailes with holes in them. There is the constant smell of burning trash because there is no trash pick up. Many members of these communities are handicapped in one way or another. Yet at the same time, these are areas recognized by the state to be residential, so it's not like they're hermits. Granted the numbers are not many, but that this happens at all would shock many.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Every story as a moral..even this one*

*Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!*
*
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.*
*
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.*
*
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.*
*
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!*
*
-------------------------------------------*
*
MODERN VERSION:*
*
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.*
*
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.*
*
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.*
*
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. **America is stunned by the sharp contrast.*
*
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?*
*
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'*
*
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.*
*
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.*
*
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.*
*
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.*
*
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008*



----- Original Message ----- 28, 2008 1:01 PM
*Subject:* Fw: The Ant and the Grasshopper


----- Original Message ----- *Subject:* The Ant and the Grasshopper

st1\:* {} 
*Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!*
*
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.*
*
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.*
*
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.*
*
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!*
*
-------------------------------------------*
*
MODERN VERSION:*
*
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.*
*
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.*
*
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.*
*
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. **America is stunned by the sharp contrast.*
*
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?*
*
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'*
*
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.*
*
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.*
*
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.*
*
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.*
*
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008*


​


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Regarding "the small number" it took me 1 minute to find: " the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) public housing and section 8 certificate programs are the two largest federal rental assistance programs, providing housing to over 23 million low-income households. "


Section 8 is such a joke. I can throw a stone and hit housing that accepts section 8 on paper. Trying to find a single tenant living there with the assistance of Section 8 is an entirely different matter. First, it can take years of being on the waiting list to get the section 8 vouchers. Second, the government doesn't want to enforce Section 8 participation for fear that the landlord will simply opt to not participate (better to partcipate on paper with the chance of actually participating than to not participate at all is the view taken).

If you don't think there should be housing vouchers that's fine, but don't think that Section 8 is doing what it's supposed to do.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If you don't think there should be housing vouchers that's fine, but don't think that Section 8 is doing what it's supposed to do.


It's a government-run welfare program. It is therefore economically incapable of doing what it's supposed to do.

I'm not saying that it would do a better job if only [insert favorite political candidate here] were elected, blah blah blah.

I am saying that it is _impossible_, as a matter of natural law, regardless of the purity of your motivations, your good intentions, your endless compassion, etc.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

_It turns out that the grasshopper wasn't really dancing and playing all summer. He was really a disabled Vet who had recently returned from President Bush's war in Iraq where he was severely injured while riding in a Hummer that was not properly armored even though the war has been going on for over 4 years._
_What the ant had interpreted as dancing was really a bad gait caused by an ill-fitted prosthesis that had been gnawed on by rats while waiting for treatment at Walter Reed Hospital._
_The playing was the grasshopper attempting to hitch a ride because he couldn't afford to pay the $3.49 per gallon for gasoline that Exxon/Mobil was charging in an effort to boost their already record quarterly profits of 92 Billion Dollars (that's $92,000,000,000.00) which happened to be up 75% from the last record quarter that they had._
_He was trying to catch a ride to the Halliburton headquarters because he heard that they were doing pretty good - Build and Fight For Profit! - and thought that they might be hiring. It turns out that they were hiring, just not here in the US. They had openings at their customer call center, but it was located in Bangalore, India. He thought about trying to make it over there for the job, but it turns out that the average wage that is paid to these call center people is only the equivalent of about $175.00 a month._
_It also turns out that Fox News didn't quite have it right on the ant's situation either. It turns out that he was really a Republican congressman from Sugar Land Texas. What was supposedly work was really him scurrying from corporation to corporation eliciting bribes&#8230;ahhh, I mean, donations for a supposed children's charity that were then diverted to paying for parties at the Republican National convention. As an inducement for these contributions the ant was offering exclusive face time with the Vice-President of the United States and other top Republicans aboard a luxury yacht. These meager donations of $50,000 to $100,000 were exempt from campaign finance reports because they weren't for a political campaign, but rather a donation to a children's charity!_
_And while it was true that the Democratic leadership did call for a return to financial sanity by rescinding the tax cuts for the rich, which the ant had profited by handsomely, it wasn't true that the ant ever came any where near paying his fair share in taxes. As it turned out, the ant had moved the headquarters of his tool making business that he had purchased in a hostile, leveraged takeover from the small Connecticut town where it had been located since 1843 to Bermuda to avoid paying United States taxes._
_The other thing that Fox had wrong was that the ant didn't get fined for violating the EEOC statues, he was fired for soliciting sex with an under age congressional page. Fox also didn't report that the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and other key Republicans knew about the ant's behavior, possibly for years without ever doing anything about it._
_As far as the grasshopper ending up dead in the ant's house, this part is true. It turned out that the ant's house was indeed seized by the government due to the ant being caught with over 2000 oxycontin tablets that it was suspected that he had gotten from Rush Limbaugh._
_The grasshopper bought the house at the drug seizure auction with the money that he made from selling his story to the National Enquirer. He was shot and killed during a botched drug raid. It turned out that the date for the raid was wrong on the memo that the DEA sent to the FBI, the state highway patrol and the local drug enforcement task force. When the joint task force battered in the door to what they thought was the ant's house and saw a grasshopper of color, they shot first and asked questions second._
_At first the chief of police denied any wrong doing on the part of his officers or any members of the task force. The grasshopper was forced to recant his denials when a copy of the security tape from the ant/grasshopper's home surfaced on YouTube that clearly showed the grasshopper being beaten, tortured and then shot by various members of the task force. It later turned out that several members of the task force had actually taken digital photographs of the grasshopper being tortured and humiliated._
_The ant in the mean time has just received a $5,000,000 advance on his tell all book and is in negotiations with the Lifetime Channel for an autobiographical movie of his life. It is rumored that he is considering teaming up with Newt Gingrich to take a run at the Republican nomination for President and Vice-President._
_*********WAKE UP AMERICA!**********_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Section 8 is such a joke. I can throw a stone and hit housing that accepts section 8 on paper. *Trying to find a single tenant living there with the assistance of Section 8 is an entirely different matter.* First, it can take years of being on the waiting list to get the section 8 vouchers. Second, the government doesn't want to enforce Section 8 participation for fear that the landlord will simply opt to not participate (better to partcipate on paper with the chance of actually participating than to not participate at all is the view taken).
> 
> If you don't think there should be housing vouchers that's fine, but don't think that Section 8 is doing what it's supposed to do.


But the fact remains that they *are* living somewhere, receiving said subsidy, no? So what they have to wait to get into posher digs? That is extraneous to the point.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> _It turns out that the grasshopper wasn't really dancing and playing all summer. He was really a disabled Vet who had recently returned from President Bush's war in Iraq where he was severely injured while riding in a Hummer that was not properly armored even though the war has been going on for over 4 years._
> _What the ant had interpreted as dancing was really a bad gait caused by an ill-fitted prosthesis that had been gnawed on by rats while waiting for treatment at Walter Reed Hospital._
> _The playing was the grasshopper attempting to hitch a ride because he couldn't afford to pay the $3.49 per gallon for gasoline that Exxon/Mobil was charging in an effort to boost their already record quarterly profits of 92 Billion Dollars (that's $92,000,000,000.00) which happened to be up 75% from the last record quarter that they had._
> _He was trying to catch a ride to the Halliburton headquarters because he heard that they were doing pretty good - Build and Fight For Profit! - and thought that they might be hiring. It turns out that they were hiring, just not here in the US. They had openings at their customer call center, but it was located in Bangalore, India. He thought about trying to make it over there for the job, but it turns out that the average wage that is paid to these call center people is only the equivalent of about $175.00 a month._
> ...


You are so right. All us ants are evil, did not really earn their warm houses and full larders, and all them grasshoppers are actually the salt of the Earth, in their current situation only because and evil ant caused it.

It seems melo-dramatic, but I really love the motif of asking why Atlas does not just shrug?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You are so right. All us ants are evil, did not really earn their warm houses and full larders, and all them grasshoppers are actually the salt of the Earth, in their current situation only because and evil ant caused it.
> 
> It seems melo-dramatic, but I really love the motif of asking why Atlas does not just shrug?


Just posting the other extreme for the Captain. They each may have a little bit of truth to them, but hardly apply to the majority of people.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Just posting the other extreme for the Captain. They each may have a little bit of truth to them, but hardly apply to the majority of people.


Agreed. And goes back to my post of the other day, US politics is always arguing at the extremes. We really, IMO, should be most concerned about the people from the 25th or so percentile to the 95th or so percentile, in terms of income. The people that really work, work hard, and need to keep working. The people where upward mobility is important and fully participate in our society.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> But the fact remains that they *are* living somewhere, receiving said subsidy, no? So what they have to wait to get into posher digs? That is extraneous to the point.


The poshness is largely set by the Fair Market Rent (you can stay somewhere posher but you pay the excess on top of FMR, which is fine, because being poorer means living poorer, it's just a fact of life, not some sort of government failure).

The 23 million homes figure is pulled out of air, the best I can guess is it's talking about available section 8 housing as opposed to actual Section 8 usage. According to HUD's 2007 budget summary (), 2 million families get Section 8 help (BTW, before someone says "ah hah, gotcha!" I realize it's not actually Section 8 but Housing Choice Voucher Program, but everybody calls it Section 8 so just leave it at that).

Section 8 isn't a total failure - people have used section 8 to springboard to home ownership in the past, but it doesn't provide anywhere near the amount of coverage that people think it does.

Public and Indian Housing is another 1.3 million.

Maybe that's what is meant by 23 million, i.e. 3*.*3million and then they subtracted 1 million and forgot the decimal point?

If I had said 23 million and ksinc said 2 million + 1.3 million, you'd have chimed in with "but liberals don't use facts."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> The poshness is largely set by the Fair Market Rent (you can stay somewhere posher but you pay the excess on top of FMR, which is fine, because being poorer means living poorer, it's just a fact of life, not some sort of government failure).
> 
> The 23 million homes figure is pulled out of air, the best I can guess is it's talking about available section 8 housing as opposed to actual Section 8 usage. According to HUD's 2007 budget summary (), 2 million families get Section 8 help (BTW, before someone says "ah hah, gotcha!" I realize it's not actually Section 8 but Housing Choice Voucher Program, but everybody calls it Section 8 so just leave it at that).
> 
> ...


Out of the Air? No.

Jack asked: "Who "uses" federal housing programs: the small number who receive direct payment for subsidized housing"?

Actually the number of households in 'federal housing programs' includes Public Housing AND Section 8 Programs ("public housing authorities (PHAs) own and operate the housing, under section 8, PHAs enter into contracts with private landlords.") and also programs like Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Programs (without which people could not afford their homes). This was my point and so I looked to see the total and found the 23mil number here https://liheap.ncat.org/pubs/440.htm see 'How Subsidized Housing Programs Work and Interrelate with LIHEAP' it quotes a GAO report. Could they still have a bad number? Perhaps. Or; maybe it might be the total number of households that have received assistance. I do not know. However, these are all "direct payments for subsidized housing" that people use. The totality of 'federal housing programs offering direct payments' touch a stagering number of low-income households, much less people. I think you are right that only ~2.4 million households currently receive Section 8. Even if we limit the conversation to those, that is a large number of individual people. Even accounting for liberal relativism it is not a "small number."

Contrast that with the current "epidemic" and "crisis" we hear about regarding homeowners deliquent on payments. I think the number I heard was ~2.1 million. It seems like if 2.1m is an epidemic and crisis then 2.4m is not a small number.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> *Contrast that with the current "epidemic" and "crisis" we hear about regarding homeowners deliquent on payments. I think the number I heard was ~2.1 million. *It seems like if 2.1m is an epidemic and crisis then 2.4m is not a small number.


Have no worry about those grasshoppers. I heard a Hillary commercial just last night (I guess the AZ primary is upon us) and she said she would force banks to take care of the sub-prime grasshoppers. Of course, us ants will get the shaft to pay for it in some manner. I guess being an ant and buying a house you can actually afford is stupid, when a party for grasshoppers is the odd's on favorite for the White House.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Out of the Air? No.
> 
> Actually the number of households in 'federal housing programs' includes Public Housing AND Section 8 Programs ("public housing authorities (PHAs) own and operate the housing, under section 8, PHAs enter into contracts with private landlords.") and also programs like Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Programs (without which people could not afford their homes). This was my point and so I looked to see the total and found the 23mil number here https://liheap.ncat.org/pubs/440.htm see 'How Subsidized Housing Programs Work and Interrelate with LIHEAP' it quotes a GAO report. Could they still have a bad number? Perhaps. Or; maybe it might be the total number of households that have received assistance. I do not know. However, these are all "direct payments for subsidized housing" that people use. The totality of 'federal housing programs offering direct payments' touch a stagering number of low-income households, much less people. I think you are right that only ~2.4 million households currently receive Section 8. Even if we limit the conversation to those, that is a large number of individual people. Even accounting for liberal relativism it is not a "small number."
> 
> Contrast that with the current "epidemic" and "crisis" we hear about regarding homeowners deliquent on payments. I think the number I heard was ~2.1 million. It seems like if 2.1m is an epidemic and crisis then 2.4m is not a small number.


Of course, you would make the claim that I left out pubic housing even though at the end I pointed out that 1.3 million families are subsidized under public and indian housing.

That leaves 1/4 of the TOTAL HUD budget to cover some 20 million homes

On the out of the air comment, notice I said "it's talking." Are you an "it"? I knew where you got it from, I don't give credence to those numbers.

Yeah there are energy subsidies and I don't know the number covered under those, but that's subsidized energy, not subsidized housing.

Having said all that, you'll never see me say that 2.1 million foreclosures is a crisis. Wayfarer has seen me said it before: it's your own fault if you took a loan you couldn't afford. I think it's important for there to be controls in place so that people who need loans aren't placed over a barrel, but at the same time everybody has a choice not to take the loan, and if they exercised that choice the loan rates would become more favorable.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Just curious, does anyone know how much of the budget is currently going to welfare programs? I know that defense spending takes up a huge portion of the budget (good or bad that's not what I am asking), but I am just wondering about the welfare part. What exactly are we arguing over here? Is it a significant portion, or just a small piece?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Just curious, does anyone know how much of the budget is currently going to welfare programs? I know that defense spending takes up a huge portion of the budget (good or bad that's not what I am asking), but I am just wondering about the welfare part. What exactly are we arguing over here? Is it a significant portion, or just a small piece?


I see your point LAX. I think though the question is not, "How much is welfare in the federal budget" but rather, "What are the total transfer payments for all level of governments accross all programs?" I think that will be a big number. We can then add in the OP, which I think is rather moot though, "How many jobs are lost due to minimum wage?" Probably not a big number would be my guess.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> NM must be an odd market. I can get people to work in law firms for only $2 above SF's minimum wage. The lowest paying law firm jobs can be filled at $9/hr, and that's in DC where the cost of living is fairly high (this rate would not be custodial staff since the building take care of that, but clerical staff and in extreme situations reception). Heck, in WV you can pick up paralegals for $10-11/hr.


I forgot to answer this question for you. I was surprised that a guy so into HR and staffing even has to ask this question truthfully. Physical jobs, jobs with physical risks, and unpleasent jobs, always command a wage premium for these reasons. Again, it is basic economics. This is why I need to pay a non-skilled person $9/hour to be a floor tech (comes in contact in health care with bio-hazards, physical job, exposure to chemicals, not always a pleasent job to clean up messes) and only need to pay $11/hour for a unit clerk that is skilled in typing, medical jargon, and ICD10 coding.

Thus endeth the HR lesson.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I forgot to answer this question for you. I was surprised that a guy so into HR and staffing even has to ask this question truthfully. Physical jobs, jobs with physical risks, and unpleasent jobs, always command a wage premium for these reasons. Again, it is basic economics. This is why I need to pay a non-skilled person $9/hour to be a floor tech (comes in contact in health care with bio-hazards, physical job, exposure to chemicals, not always a pleasent job to clean up messes) and only need to pay $11/hour for a unit clerk that is skilled in typing, medical jargon, and ICD10 coding.
> 
> Thus endeth the HR lesson.


First, I only took the odd job order that the non-atty/paralegal people didn't have time for. Outside of that, I dealt exclusively with attorneys and paralegals.

I realize physical jobs pay more, but I can definitley point out people who mop floors for minimum wage. Yeah, in a hospital, it's going to command more, but the way you put it, even regular custodians make significantly more than minimum wage and that just isn't the case in the typical small to medium office building environment. Also, physical doesn't always pay more; in the legal world, clerical often means moving around boxes that weigh 30-50lbs. They are paid less than a receptionist.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> First, I only took the odd job order that the non-atty/paralegal people didn't have time for. Outside of that, I dealt exclusively with attorneys and paralegals.
> 
> I realize physical jobs pay more, but I can definitley point out people who mop floors for minimum wage. Yeah, in a hospital, it's going to command more, but the way you put it, even regular custodians make significantly more than minimum wage and that just isn't the case in the typical office building environment. Also, physical doesn't always pay more; in the legal world, clerical often means moving around boxes that weigh 30-50lbs. They are paid less than a receptionist.


I carefully did not say these jobs "pay more" than any other job, I said their carry a "wage premium". Seriously, the last time we had anyone making minimum wage was our dishwashers over a year ago. What happened there was turn over was so great, use of a staffing agency added up, training time added up, we started paying $7.50 an hour and actual costs for those FTEs have dropped.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I carefully did not say these jobs "pay more" than any other job, I said their carry a "wage premium". Seriously, the last time we had anyone making minimum wage was our dishwashers over a year ago. What happened there was turn over was so great, use of a staffing agency added up, training time added up, we started paying $7.50 an hour and actual costs for those FTEs have dropped.


Maybe DC is a unique environment, but it sounds like you guys need a new staffing agency (if you need one at all). When people didn't last, we ate the cost.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Honestly, I can't think of any jobs that pay minimum wage either, except for maybe fast food starting wages or some retail jobs. I guess I was thinking more of low wages.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Honestly, I can't think of any jobs that pay minimum wage either, except for maybe fast food starting wages or some retail jobs. I guess I was thinking more of low wages.


Depends the minimum wage of what area. Federal minimum wage, yeah I'd agree. Many states have minimum wages higher than federal. (DC for instance is $7/hr and next year will be $7.55, federal is $5.85)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Depends the minimum wage of what area. Federal minimum wage, yeah I'd agree. Many states have minimum wages higher than federal. (DC for instance is $7/hr and next year will be $7.55, federal is $5.85)


I think MO's is $6.50. I know the gas station in my neighborhood is starting at $7/hr with $.50 more after 6 months. Either way, it's still not much money when you factor in transportation, food, housing costs etc.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Maybe DC is a unique environment, but it sounds like you guys need a new staffing agency (if you need one at all). When people didn't last, we ate the cost.


Wrong type of staffing agency. Think a temp agency. You pay over wage level for a temp as the agency gets a slice.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> I think MO's is $6.50. I know the gas station in my neighborhood is starting at $7/hr with $.50 more after 6 months. Either way, it's still not much money when you factor in transportation, food, housing costs etc.


Which goes back to what I said way back when in this thread: minimum wage is effective in creating a stigma that forces the lowest paying jobs to round up to the next dollar. And I said then that it doesn't impact the economy as a whole, but for those sectors I think it's important to have some sort of minimum wage.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Wrong type of staffing agency. Think a temp agency. You pay over wage level for a temp as the agency gets a slice.


Ah, I see what you were saying now. Though, we would comp on the temp side too when employees didn't work out (though, there had to be something egregious because this effectively blacklisted that candidate; regular quitting was only moderately bad and if a client made enough noise it would be comped, but usually not).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Which goes back to what I said way back when in this thread: minimum wage is effective in creating a stigma that forces the lowest paying jobs to round up to the next dollar. And I said then that it doesn't impact the economy as a whole, but for those sectors I think it's important to have some sort of minimum wage.


You are leaving out the fact that after six months, the usual "probationary" period, it goes up another $.50, which does not fulfill your theory. Could it just be that the minimum was is not "effective" and the simple economics are setting wages? Nah, nothing happens without help from Big Brother, right? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> You are leaving out the fact that after six months, the usual "probationary" period, it goes up another $.50, which does not fulfill our theory. Could it just be that the minimum was is not "effective" and the simple economics are setting wages? Nah, nothing happens without help from Big Brother, right? :icon_smile_big:


I think economics set wages for the most part, but if there were a minimum wage and if that wage were $2/hr, I think you would see much lower wages in such sectors. It would still have to be a wage that is worth a person's time. If someone cared to look at salaries of gas station attendants in different states (but only in areas of those states that would have comparable costs of living across states), I think that would be a good way to settle this. I don't care to.

In MD when they raised min wage some noise was made by mom and pop shops, though most admitted they would rise with the raise and didn't think they needed to fire anybody.

I think in sectors where there is no unionization it's hard to get a fair wage. Of course doc review attorneys think their wage is unfair, but so do staffing agencies and law firms, the latter two just don't care, and the first can't do anything about it because without unions everyone is a scab. They pay $65/hr to a staffing agency (some cheap ones only pay $55 and don't even pay 1.5x until 50 hours instead of 40, though we had to pay the atty at 40 though) who pays the atty $35/hr (remember though, we had to pay matching taxes, unemployment, and significant overhead because we actually did HR rather than just call places that do HR). The firms bill the clients anywhere from $120/hr-200/hr for the most part. Now, big firms will have at least 30 of these people on one project working 60 hours/wk. Even 40hrs at a $150/hr bill rate is $102,000/wk of pure profit with 30 attys (they did not pay any wage related benefits or taxes) for the firm. Factor in that overtime and we're talking another $76,500/wk.

I think in the face of collective bargaining we would see doc review atty salaries go up. As it is, I would think one day the corporatoins paying these bills would get wise that firms are making a killing on doc reviewers, but this has been going on for years so I have to assume they just don't care.

BUT, as I said I do agree that economics play a significant role too. When DC started to require DC bar to do doc review in DC, salaries went way up. For the most part, it was the same people getting the jobs, but the supply pool became a lot smaller, so the wages went up.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Just curious, does anyone know how much of the budget is currently going to welfare programs? I know that defense spending takes up a huge portion of the budget (good or bad that's not what I am asking), but I am just wondering about the welfare part. What exactly are we arguing over here? Is it a significant portion, or just a small piece?


If you are counting medical care and social security as welfare programs, it is a very large portion of our budget. In fact, even without social security (which is how I think you should look at it because if the congressmen would keep their hands off the social security fund it would pay for itself) it's huge (all federal health and human services spending is typically the single largest budget group of the federal budget). If you take out medical care it's not all that big (by no means small, but doesn't compare to defense) and the states have quite a bit of the burden. I used to know the numbers, but I've forgotten them. That's the trend though.

I don't think the amount of spending is too low, it's just used poorly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I think in sectors where there is no unionization it's hard to get a fair wage.


Really, that is all I need to hear from you. It sums up your ability to think on this subject.



marlinspike said:


> BUT, as I said I do agree that economics play a significant role too. When DC started to require DC bar to do doc review in DC, salaries went way up. For the most part, it was the same people getting the jobs, but the supply pool became a lot smaller, so the wages went up.


What you have just cited here is the classic protectionist scenario with the expected results. It is *bad economics* as the cost to the consumer was artificially increased through trade protectionism and absolutely zero value was added to the product. As you said, the same people basically did the same work...just for more money due to an artificial barrier stopping market forces from working.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> What you have just cited here is the classic protectionist scenario with the expected results. It is *bad economics* as the cost to the consumer was artificially increased through trade protectionism and absolutely zero value was added to the product. As you said, the same people basically did the same work...just for more money due to an artificial barrier stopping market forces from working.


Same people, but I would say that the quality of work has gone up. Back in the $17-25/hr days doc review attorneys were pretty awful (spent more time chatting than working). Even now, I noticed the same attys did much better work (more documents reviewed per hour and higher evaluation scores) at the rare firm that offered a premium wage. Happy workers are better workers and higher wages tend to make workers happy.

None of this has been at the cost of the consumer because clients have been billed consistently (i.e. when the wages went up the bill rates didn't).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Of course, you would make the claim that I left out pubic housing even though at the end I pointed out that 1.3 million families are subsidized under public and indian housing.
> 
> That leaves 1/4 of the TOTAL HUD budget to cover some 20 million homes
> 
> ...


I never made any claim that you left anything out. Subsidized energy is windmill farms not LIHEAP.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Same people, but I would say that the quality of work has gone up. Back in the $17-25/hr days doc review attorneys were pretty awful (spent more time chatting than working). Even now, I noticed the same attys did much better work (more documents reviewed per hour and higher evaluation scores) at the rare firm that offered a premium wage. Happy workers are better workers and higher wages tend to make workers happy.
> 
> None of this has been at the cost of the consumer because clients have been billed consistently (i.e. when the wages went up the bill rates didn't).


Marlin:

You should have stated all this at the same time as making the claim. Now it is merely an ad hoc rescue. Were you not the very guy in another recent thread saying that it is not money, but rather the satisfaction of a job well done? Now you are arguing that a raise made people work hard. You really should get what side of this argument you are on straight.

Which is it?

In the above scenario, there was no reason for a pay increase. You have the same people, doing the same work...well actually, now they are doing better work  You have a corporation paying more with no cost being pass on to the consumer.

It is an amazing world you live in. However, it has come to bore me.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Marlin:
> 
> You should have stated all this at the same time as making the claim. Now it is merely an ad hoc rescue. Were you not the very guy in another recent thread saying that it is not money, but rather the satisfaction of a job well done? Now you are arguing that a raise made people work hard. You really should get what side of this argument you are on straight.
> 
> ...


I believe what I said was that for most nurses it's not only about the money. I think in some later post I did say that people should get satisfaction making the maximum contribution (I might have said that I do, but I definitley never said that all people do. remember my post about personal pride instead of national pride - not to be confused with nationalism?).


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Hey Guys......*

So.......How about them Giants.....:icon_smile_big:


----------

