Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama To Take A 5% Pay Cut...  
User currently offlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2911 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ama-salary-furlough-hagel/2050121/

Really just 5% ? That is actually more insulting than helpful. Kind of reminds me of this Dilbert strip




short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
224 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

The President gives up $20,000 in salary and you're insulted? Sorry, but I think you just want to be insulted because you don't like the guy. Believe it or not, heads-of-state have the right to be paid as well, and I think "President of the United States of America" is a little more stressful than your average CEO. I'm not an Obama supporter, but even I see a lot of goodwill behind this gesture.

If my Prime Minister willingly cut his pay by any amount I would have absolutely no problem with it, let alone get insulted.  



Flying refined.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter):
Really just 5% ? That is actually more insulting than helpful. Kind of reminds me of this Dilbert strip

Helpful? even if he took 100% pay cut- how is that helpful in anyway?

He is showing solidarity - that all that matters really..

Politics? of course?.. insulting? Not even close!

[Edited 2013-04-03 14:46:49]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5114 times:

He should keep his money and do his job properly, ie give the entire public sector a 15% paycut.

Obama is quite possibly the most opportunistic politician i've ever witnessed.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5105 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Obama is quite possibly the most opportunistic politician i've ever witnessed.

See I know that's not true, because you're from the UK so you have to know about Ed Milliband.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
Politics? of course?.. insulting? Not even close!

  



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7119 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

Just some political move. I'm not insulted but I am far far from impressed. He is president of the United States. In three years he will make tens of millions of dollars a year on book deals, interviews, and speaking arrangements. He can probably spare so more money but I get his point. Honestly I think it would have been just better if he didnt say a word about his pay.


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
The President gives up $20,000 in salary and you're insulted?

He spends that much just flying to single golf outing.


User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5036 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 6):
He spends that much just flying to single golf outing.

Either way, the American tax payers are funding it.....


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3938 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5030 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 5):
He is president of the United States. In three years he will make tens of millions of dollars a year on book deals, interviews, and speaking arrangements

Heck, he's never had a real job in his life and is a millionaire already, just imagine after (if) he leaves office, with all the cult of personality brainwipes out there.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 705 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

oh wow, another Obama thread.
Although winning a decisive victory for a 2nd term. Airliners.net dudes!, Your supposed to lick your wounds to allow healing, but I guess it's gonna be a long time before you can get your tongue off your arm..

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
Heck, he's never had a real job in his life and is a millionaire already, just imagine after (if) he leaves office, with all the cult of personality brainwipes out there.

Not sure what your definition of a 'real job' is, but I think you should go read his career biography but first of all, me thinks you should take a higher road and go and help deal with your country's 16% unemployment rate lol. What are YOU doing about that?


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 9):
What are YOU doing about that?

More than Obama i should think.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11531 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter):
Really just 5% ? That is actually more insulting than helpful.

Bush took how much of a cut?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
He should keep his money and do his job properly

That would be......?

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 7):
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 6):He spends that much just flying to single golf outing.
Either way, the American tax payers are funding it.....

It would be so much better for him to be flying off somewhere every two weeks to clear brush?

I also find it hilarious that people are saying he is not creating enough jobs. Excuse me, but, those tax breaks he hates but signed off on anyway were supposed to create jobs. Where are those jobs? Let's try it his way for a while. We all had to suffer through what Bush wanted because he threw a tantrum when he didn't get what he wanted. Obama tries to be a diplomat. You can't be a diplomat in a room full of egotists.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 6):
He spends that much just flying to single golf outing.

Right, 'cause he's totally the only President who does that.  

But for the heck of it, here's a read: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goodwill

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
Heck, he's never had a real job in his life

Not sure if you're being facetious or elitist...



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3938 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 9):
me thinks you should take a higher road and go and help deal with your country's 16% unemployment rate lol. What are YOU doing about that?

"Never ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself" - not JFK.

Simple, if people want to wallow in socialism and live with a gigantic state let them, but don't expect me to pay for it, I will take my skills and hard work to where they might be appreciated and properly rewarded, not frowned upon.

Sorry, forgot: lol



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
Believe it or not, heads-of-state have the right to be paid as well, and I think "President of the United States of America" is a little more stressful than your average CEO.

  

Especially when some CEO's can leave with an 8 figure golden parachute for f*cking up royally.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 6):
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
The President gives up $20,000 in salary and you're insulted?

He spends that much just flying to single golf outing.

Where were you when his predecessors were doing the exact same thing. A lot of business deals get done on the golf course so why not very important political decisions.

The resaon that this is done is that there are two ways to know the character of the one you are signing a deal with: Get them drunk or take them golfing. I am sure Clinton/Gingrich and Reagan/O'neill did the same thing.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
Heck, he's never had a real job in his life

Have you?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
and is a millionaire already

Are you?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
Simple, if people want to wallow in socialism and live with a gigantic state let them, but don't expect me to pay for it, I will take my skills and hard work to where they might be appreciated and properly rewarded, not frowned upon.

Fantastic! When is your flight? Do you need a ride to the airport?



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11531 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
he's never had a real job in his life

Senator in Illinois, Senator in Washington, DC, president, editor of Harvard Law Review. Nope. Never worked a day in his life. Just lounged around sipping mai-tais on the beach...



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
Heck, he's never had a real job in his life

Not sure if you're being facetious or elitist...


Flying refined.

Neither, Pyrex is being loud and ignorant. Everyone needs a hobby. Being boorish seems to be his.

[Edited 2013-04-03 22:57:20]


volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3938 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14):
A lot of business deals get done on the golf course so why not very important political decisions.

Simple - if a company decides to spend money on T&E, they do so using money that shareholders decided to entrust them with, more likely money their clients voluntarily paid them for. If government decides to spend money on T&E, they do so with money that was forcibly taken from people who had no choice in the matter. That is why T&E policies in the "public" sector cannot and are not the same as in the private sector.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 15):

Fantastic! When is your flight? Do you need a ride to the airport?

You've missed that boat several years ago...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
Senator in Illinois, Senator in Washington, DC, president, editor of Harvard Law Review. Nope. Never worked a day in his life

Being a politician is not a job, it is (or should be) a service you do after you have had a successful career at something, not something you do professionally. And exactly how much of his net worth came from being a co-editor on a school newspaper during grad school?

The reality is that he never worked a single day in his life in the private sector: never had to provide a good or service people were willing to pay for more than what it cost to make or provide, never had to manage to a budget, never had to worry about responding to someone or generating a bottom-line. So no, he has never had a real job a day in his life and that is what causes his warped view of the private sector as merely something he can exploit to implement his policies.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

Who cares Pyrex? Obama is the best president in ages. Already the fact that you don't like him proves it.

Setting more taxes to the filthy rich is always a great thing, United States needs more social equality.

[Edited 2013-04-04 03:11:16]


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
Being a politician is not a job, it is (or should be) a service you do after you have had a successful career at something, not something you do professionally.

This pretty much summarizes the problem with your argument. Politics is far too important to be handled by people with little interest for what happens as total. It affects individuals and the country too much to be handled by people who do it for single cause or time filler to make retirement more interesting.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4744 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 19):
Setting more taxes to the filthy rich is always a great thing, United States needs more social equality.

How utterly naive and juvenile. Discouraging the most productive from working is a sure-fire way to diminish the economy.

I really wish some people would try and consider the unintended consequences of their actions before they open their mouths.

Obama is a disaster for America, almost as bad as his predecessor.


User currently offlineiMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6278 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4719 times:

If he really meant to cut government spending and had any courage he'd cut military spending 30%.


Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineStarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4742 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
The President gives up $20,000 in salary and you're insulted?


Sure, he is taking a 5% hit while every other federal employee going on furlough is taking a 20% hit. That's really fair isn't it? He is just so full of himself while he still goes on his golf trips and his family has been of vacation since this all started.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4737 times:

Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 25):
Sure, he is taking a 5% hit while every other federal employee going on furlough is taking a 20% hit. That's really fair isn't it? He is just so full of himself while he still goes on his golf trips and his family has been of vacation since this all started.

Hah you think that kinda behavior is something unusual for high ranking politicians? No, it's a norm.

Around here our prime minister earns more than David Cameron, our capitals mayor and vice-mayor and mayor tried to give each other a huge salary raise during these harsh economic times (thankfully that one was blocked)...

The list of these things is endless. If you seriously think that some other president would have cut his salary any more than Obama is doing you are wrong.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinecmhsrq From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 990 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

I'll admit, I had hope for Obama, now it's cope. I strongly disliked Bush, and I find that all Obama has done is taken Bush policies and ramped them up. Obama's policies are worse than Bush's, they just don't seem to be reported. With the exception of gay marriage. (which I support)

Obama blasts the 1% but he is a perfect example of the 1%. Obama has more vacations, more Air Force One trips, more assinations via hellfire missles, twice the national debt, more patroit act, more TSA, more taxes, less transparency, less freedom.

If Obama was a Republican then he would probably be considered worse than Bush.

What they should do is cut all pay and benifits to the President, congress, and the senate, and sequester them to Washington DC and not let them leave until they fix the easily fixable problems that this country is facing.



The voice of moderation
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4792 times:

Really the ultimate fix for a lot of the things would be cutting 30 to 50% from US military, it's after all huge money eater and people there mostly do nothing productive.

Of course after that United States couldn't keep playing world police as effectively as before, but who cares? Surely you don't need more than half of current US military to effectively defend your country from any possible threat.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4805 times:

The US needs to make a huge amounts of cuts and military is certainly an area with scope for that. 2% of GDP seems a good figure - not 4%! However, cuts to defense alone won't come anywhere near filling the hole.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7804 posts, RR: 52
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

Meh, I'll give the benefit of the doubt, but personally, I think it could've been a bit better. What I really want to see is Congress get cut pretty heavily


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7119 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4739 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
If my Prime Minister willingly cut his pay by any amount I would have absolutely no problem with it, let alone get insulted.

The New Zealand PM John Key donates his pay to charity. He's paid 411,000 NZD, which is approx 350,000 USD.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

Having read through all of the replies and considered all of the opinions, I'm left with the impression that no matter what Obama did in this situation, no one would be left happy. Personally, I'm glad that he's at least made some kind of gesture, which is a lot more than any other president has done in regards to their salary during an economic downturn.


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter):
Really just 5% ? That is actually more insulting than helpful.

Let's face it - he didn't stand a chance of being right whatever he chose to do, did he? He could work for free and you'd probably still be 'insulted'.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

Quote:
And exactly how much of his net worth came from being a co-editor on a school newspaper during grad school?

Well, it was good practice since most of his money came from the books he authored.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
The reality is that he never worked a single day in his life in the private sector:

Why does being in the private sector matter? Are people in the public sector never hard workers?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 39):
I want to see people keep the fruit of their labour. Others seem to want to steal money from high earners and give it to people who didn't earn it. Completely disrupting the work/reward incentive and resulting in a poorer economy for everyone.

That only makes sense if the highest earners always produce the most value, which isn't always the case.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 42):
That only makes sense if the highest earners always produce the most value, which isn't always the case.

RB can't let Reaganomics go, I would ignore it. It just devalues those that do work hard aren't in the upper echelon.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently onlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7583 posts, RR: 32
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4598 times:

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter):
Really just 5% ?

Just one thought/ question

How did the other 525 idiots in Congress give up of their salary?
And the Cabinet Secretaries?

Every single one of them is just as responsible for this mess as the President.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4589 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 44):
Just one thought/ question

How did the other 525 idiots in Congress give up of their salary?

Tricky one though isn't it. One could argue with a lot of these radical left wingers or right wingers that they are representing their electorate. Many were voted in on an extreme platform, by people who (presumably) want no compromise on anything.

It's a curious dichotomy. By the standards of electoral representation (and after all they are called as such) they are probably doing very well. Yet almost everybody agrees as a unit they are doing an appalling job.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4553 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 45):
It's a curious dichotomy. By the standards of electoral representation (and after all they are called as such) they are probably doing very well. Yet almost everybody agrees as a unit they are doing an appalling job.

At the end of the day all politics is local and the reason that the same people in congress get elected is that they do good for their districts and will seek the pork barrel spending for their district while railing on another congressman for doing the same thing.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 40):
I've read enough stories about people with serious diseases and such having to suffer because they lack money to pay for the ridiculously expensive medical operations in the US... That alone makes me to happily pay all the taxes as I get proper healthcare in return.

The biggest thing about taxes that no one talks about is that if you as a taxpayer feel you are getting value for the money you pay to the government then you are more inclined to give more of it. In your case in Finland and a lot of European countries you see more value in what your tax money produces.

In the US however the government is seen as inefficient, wasteful and corrupt with tax money which is why many people have a sour attitude towards taxes. I bet if you compared Helsinki with a US city of a similar size there is probably next to no public corruption in HEL as compared to lets say Chicago.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4534 times:

Pyrex, you just pissed of ALOT of career soldiers, sailors, aimen, etc...public service....I know MANY of the aforementioned that joined up just out of high school and stayed for the duration...If your measure of a person's work is where they work rather that what they produce....Ask the folks on Wall Street....

Yeah, we are STILL feeling the pain of the stuff they produced...



Carpe Pices
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4495 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 39):
I want to see people keep the fruit of their labour. Others seem to want to steal money from high earners and give it to people who didn't earn it.

Until we get the income gap between high and low full time income to a reasonable proportion, prob around 30 times, this point is void.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 39):
Completely disrupting the work/reward incentive and resulting in a poorer economy for everyone.

Completely disrupting work/reward incentive? What ideological black hole are you in? You can set the tax at 99% and the people who create value will continue to do so. Not that it is that high anywhere.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 46):
if you give poor people money they'll spend it and boost the economy thus it's good... but that is not the case.

Care to tell us what happens with the money..... They save it?


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
Until we get the income gap between high and low full time income to a reasonable proportion, prob around 30 times, this point is void.

   Also pretty void so long as we have people around who can't afford bread.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
You can set the tax at 99% and the people who create value will continue to do so.

No.

Now let's say you put it at a more realistic high figure say 70%. The people who own all the factories might carry on because after all what do they have to lose. But you can bet your bottom dollar very few people are going to bother competing or climbing the ladder. You won't get many Richard Bransons if they have to take all the risk but only get 30% of the rewards.

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
Care to tell us what happens with the money..... They save it?

They put money in the bank, which is lent out to business who use it to invest in capital and improve their efficiency.

Now before you go wild, i'm well aware that central banks and fiat currency have more or less completely destroyed the system, which is why we are in such a mess today.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 55):
Also pretty void so long as we have people around who can't afford bread.

It's not void at all. The best way to make sure everyone can afford bread is by allowing people to innovate in making bread cheaply. You can only get rich by enriching other, making a cheap an affordable source of bread would be a good start to gaining riches.

Look at what FR did with flying. They made it cheap for people to fly and now are one of the most successful airlines going. MOL must make a lot of money, but he's provided huge levels of value to others.

[Edited 2013-04-04 13:06:40]

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13512 posts, RR: 62
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4413 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
Believe it or not, heads-of-state have the right to be paid as well

Even when they perform poorly at their job?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 19):
Obama is the best president in ages.

Are you sure you don't want to be a nightclub comic? Because you're a really, REALLY funny guy!  



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 59):

Even when they perform poorly at their job?

Did you have a problem with GWB' salary?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

Regardless of what one thinks about the guy, he is the president of the United States. He should be paid a decent salary and $20,000 doesn't even register on the budget (nor do salaries for politicians as a whole, by the way--a miniscule amount of money in comparison to the rest.) He should keep the five percent...


The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13512 posts, RR: 62
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4346 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 60):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 59):
Even when they perform poorly at their job?
Did you have a problem with GWB' salary?

No, but then again in my opinion he didn't perform poorly. And spare me a response; it'll just give me a headache and be of no use.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 64):
No, but then again in my opinion he didn't perform poorly. And spare me a response; it'll just give me a headache and be of no use.

I can't see how one can defend GWB personally.

He got us involved in some terrible middle east entanglements and created one of the biggest economic bubbles in history.

Granted he was basically a puppet to all of that but that's no excuse.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 59):
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
Believe it or not, heads-of-state have the right to be paid as well

Even when they perform poorly at their job?

Yes. The good thing about heads-of-state is that if you don't like the job they're doing, you get to vote them out (or in this case, he has to leave office due to term limits, but you get the idea).

Anyway, how do you decide they are doing poorly and thus don't deserve to get paid? Hold an expensive vote to determine it?



Flying refined.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11531 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 43):
but it sounds like you subscribe to the theory that if you give poor people money they'll spend it and boost the economy thus it's good... but that is not the case.

Except it has worked every time it was done. Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. W had the feds send out checks to every person in the country. Clinton cut tax rates on the poor and raised them on the rich. What happened? The economy came back. Just a little in W case and a lot in Clinton's case.

But that was all a myth, I suppose.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4277 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 63):
how do you decide they are doing poorly and thus don't deserve to get paid? Hold an expensive vote to determine it?

Its easy - you just ask him who is deserving.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 61):
id you have a problem with GWB' salary?

No, but then again in my opinion he didn't perform poorly.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 21):
Discouraging the most productive from working is a sure-fire way to diminish the economy.

Marginally higher taxes don't discourage people from working. The people who create the really valuable stuff in the world don't do it because they want to be rich, they do it because they want to create something that will help people, or will change the world, or just something that they think is cool. The money comes after that.

Would Google or Facebook really not exist if their owners had to pay a bit more in taxes? I very much doubt it. In fact, I very much doubt they'd be any different from the way we know them today.

You can, of course, take that to an extreme and then you'll get a negative impact on productivity, but people act like any increase at all will discourage innovation, when that's really not the case.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 32):
The rich get richer, the poor get richer too.

Except that that's not happening. Lower income wages are relatively stagnant, while upper income wages just keep getting bigger.

The "a rising tide lifts all boats" theory has had a lot of time to prove itself, and yet it hasn't.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 53):
Now let's say you put it at a more realistic high figure say 70%.

But is that really that realistic? The number you hear bandied about in the US is 40% as opposed to 35% - that's a world away from 70%.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4207 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 64):
Except it has worked every time it was done. Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. W had the feds send out checks to every person in the country. Clinton cut tax rates on the poor and raised them on the rich. What happened? The economy came back. Just a little in W case and a lot in Clinton's case.

But that was all a myth, I suppose.

And what about Kennedy/Reagan/Thatcher who cut taxes substantially on the rich?

There are far too many variables at play to draw such a conclusion from you examples, particularly in an economy with a centrally planned interest rate which distorts the whole mechanism anyway - interest rates are disconnected from the scarcity of savings. There is absolutely no theoretical reason to support the basis however.

Quoting Mir (Reply 67):
The people who create the really valuable stuff in the world don't do it because they want to be rich

I earn in the top 2% (certainly not the suprer valuable) here, and i only work all year because i can get through certain tax loopholes which means i avoid the 40% rate.

If that was not the case i would only work about 5 months a year. Then i'd go on holiday. There is no way in hell i am working 2 days a week for the government.

Google and Facebook are fluke products, not products that took years of expensive research. Certainly over here in Europe they operate all of through Ireland to take advantage of their low corp tax anyway.

Quoting Mir (Reply 67):
The "a rising tide lifts all boats" theory has had a lot of time to prove itself, and yet it hasn't.

Jesus Harold Christ that is quite a spectacular statement. Because the poor 100 years ago had ipads and widescreen TVs right?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4046 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 68):
Because the poor 100 years ago had ipads and widescreen TVs right?

They did not. Mind you, I don't recall the rich 100 years ago having iPads and widescreen TVs either.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Might have done it somewhere else though.

Very unlikely. Starting up a business overseas is a whole lot more risky than starting one up at home. The tax difference has to be pretty damn unfavorable in order to make that worthwhile. An increase of 5% doesn't really count.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4014 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 74):
Everyone talks a lot income inequality, the simple fact of the matter is that most jobs aren't worth the kind of money in the first place.

Well, perhaps. But why is it that income inequality has grown over the past few decades? Because we're eating more burgers?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4016 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):
If you can't understand how a 70% marginal tax would reduce people's desire to work then there's not really much point in continuing.

I have paid 80% marginal tax and it didn't influence me or any of the people I worked with who were in the same situation. We were all driven by seeing our projects succeed. If you don't understand that most people who actually develop and create new things are not motivated by money then indeed, there is no point in discussing with you.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):
LOL, but you claimed they would spend their money. LOL.Get your story straight. LOL

Get my story straight??? I laughed at your suggestion that poor people don't spend whatever money they get hold of quickly. They certainly do not put money in the bank and thus it doesn't slowly trickle down as you suggested.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):
People are compensated fairly.

Not even a little bit. Just look at how women are earning much less than men for same jobs despite almost always being more productive.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):
Everyone is greedy, in fact the left are often the greediest - they want more for themselves and others than they can earn with hard/smart work.

I'm sure that fits your world view. There certainly are a lot of greedy politicians and I have the same despite for them as I have for the companies constantly widening the salary gap.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 71):
No, i absolutely do not. That is ridiculous assertion. I work to live. I don't work because i especially enjoy it, or because i want to serve the government. I'm not a slave.

So when you work because of a certain tax rate you have your priorities right??? If you don't like your work then take the 5 months vacation you stated you can.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 74):
How do you propose to close the income gap?

The biggest problems are on CxO level and some sales positions. No-one is worth 10 million USD compensation packages. Essentially it exists because a group of people scratch each others backs while stepping on everyone else.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 74):
If you don't have millionaires, the guy that's making little wont make a dime.

I want every successfull person who create value to be a millionair. They should make that money from selling their companies or ideas, not by lifting a salary.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4001 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 77):

The gap increases because skill required to design a structure increases while the skill to flip a burger does not.

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):

So the guy charged with running a multi billin dollar company isn't worth a few million? Bull.

BTW... Running a multi billion dollar company as a CEO should make you a millionaire. It's the level of responsibility. No one cares if you drop a burger on the ground, it goes in the trash. Everyone cares if the CEO signs off on faulty product, people get put in the ground. It's all relative.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3994 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 79):
The gap increases because skill required to design a structure increases while the skill to flip a burger does not.

The gap didn't increase for 30 years though. The gap hasn't increased in the same way (or at all) in other countries. If the march of technology were responsible the same trend should be visible the world over, and yet it isn't.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):
Very unlikely. Starting up a business overseas is a whole lot more risky than starting one up at home. The tax difference has to be pretty damn unfavorable in order to make that worthwhile. An increase of 5% doesn't really count.

We're skipping a part though, and it's a pretty damn important one. Education, which is where Google and to a lesser extent Facebook got their starts. These aren't the companies that need to be concerned with moving because the US is one of maybe a handful of places where they can get sufficient numbers of highly trained people.

It's the manufacturing and other largely low skill businesses that will see benefits by moving offshore. Americans won't do things cheaper than overseas workers, but we can hope to be able to do things better or things that others can't.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 76):
In this civilized country we have other values than just money and I'm proud of it.

In the US you're allowed to have whatever values you want. You don't have to value money.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 76):
Maybe in a couple of hundreds of years United States will reach the European level of civilization and finally start to put more value on health

I put plenty of value on my health.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 76):
I bet we would be already travelling to space on regular basis if all the resources used on developing better ways to kill other people were used on developing technology that actually helps humankind.

Been there, done that. And for what it's worth, the USAF was always a player in the development of the Space Shuttle to the point where a second launch site was planned at Vandenberg before being scrapped. Air Force payloads were carried into orbit more than once and the size of the Space Shuttle's cargo hold was set so that it could carry the latest spy satellites.

And the Hubble Space Telescope is said to have benefited considerably from spy telescope technology too.

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
No-one is worth 10 million USD compensation packages.

Not to you. Obviously they are worth it to someone, which is why they get paid. That's how markets work.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3977 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 80):
The gap didn't increase for 30 years though. The gap hasn't increased in the same way (or at all) in other countries. If the march of technology were responsible the same trend should be visible the world over, and yet it isn't.

Perhaps we're a victim of our own success - too many skilled people and an insufficient number of positions to support them. Maybe the problem is the baby boomers not retiring which would allow the younger generation to move up. Or more controversially...maybe its women in the workforce....Gasp, yes, but think about that last one for a minute and look at it in the context of how the workplace has changed in terms of its gender since the 1970’s. Now consider the availability of jobs if women exited the professional workforce tomorrow only to retain administrative roles. I'm not advocating women being barefoot and pregnant, but this is a reality of the workforce today that didn't exist 40 years ago. The dual income model which also gained a foothold in the last 30 years also causes massive income disparity particularly when two people with professional positions are married. Blaming it on CEOs is simply a bunch of bull, there aren't enough of them to go around. The problem is larger and taxing people isn't a solution.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter):
eally just 5% ? That is actually more insulting than helpful. Kind of reminds me of this Dilbert strip

5 % is quite a lot, and as a whole is more than the budget was cut by the sequester. Would I like to see more ? Sure.
I saw my paycheck get hacked by more in 2009 when the economy went south, However the fact that he is Voluntarily doing this is much greater than my forced pay cut. How many out there would cut their pay voluntarily, and give back to the treasury?


It is a big step.

Can he afford it ? Sure as all hell.
Could he do more? Probably
Does it matter,...... Grand scheme ? Minutely
Does it matter politically? Wait till Boehner and him get in another tiff on the budget....



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3941 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
If you don't understand that most people who actually develop and create new things are not motivated by money then indeed, there is no point in discussing with you.

Then why do so many people offshore? Why do people go to such lengths to reduce their tax burden?

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
Just look at how women are earning much less than men for same jobs despite almost always being more productive.

Men have a little threat of leaving due to pregnancy/maternity. This means men provide a competitive advantage of consistent employment which makes them more valuable and in essence more productive. Harsh but that's the way it is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 78):
So when you work because of a certain tax rate you have your priorities right??? If you don't like your work then take the 5 months vacation you stated you can.

I work for remuneration, if the government decided to reduce that remuneration to a value that i don't deem worthy, i stop working and get on with enjoying my life. It's pretty bloody simple really.

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):
They did not. Mind you, I don't recall the rich 100 years ago having iPads and widescreen TVs either.

Yes but the debate was are the poor getting richer, clearly they are.

[Edited 2013-04-06 04:17:41]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3936 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 79):
So the guy charged with running a multi billin dollar company isn't worth a few million? Bull.

Where did I say that? Tens of millions, certainly not.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 79):
No one cares if you drop a burger on the ground, it goes in the trash. Everyone cares if the CEO signs off on faulty product, people get put in the ground. It's all relative

That you have to use such extreme examples shows how extreme your opinion is. Care to explain why the typical result of a burger flipper dropping a few burgers on the ground is a kick out the door whereas the CEO who signed off on a faulty product will typically be driven home with a big wad of cash?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 79):
It's all relative.

No it isn't. That is the problem. That is why it is taking money from others instead of generating it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 81):
Not to you. Obviously they are worth it to someone, which is why they get paid. That's how markets work.

It is an indication the market isn't free.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
Then why do so many people offshore? Why do people go to such lengths to reduce their tax burden?

Offshore, the adventure of course. Been there, doing that. Why reduce tax burden. For the same reason we shop for the best price.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
Men have a little threat of leaving due to pregnancy/maternity. This means men provide a competitive advantage of consistent employment which makes them more valuable and in essence more productive. Harsh but that's the way it is.

Wagglewoops, poor attempt at justifying inexcusable behavior.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
I work for remuneration, if the government decided to reduce that remuneration to a value that i don't deem worthy, i stop working and get on with enjoying my life. It's pretty bloody simple really.

You have stated you don't like your job and that you make enough money to take almost half the time off. Then bloody do what you say instead of pretending you spend full time at a job you don't need because you manage to get in a lower tax bracket.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
Yes but the debate was are the poor getting richer, clearly they are.

No, the discussion was about the gap widening again. That the rich are largely taking money from the poor instead of generating money.


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3931 times:

You know, a lot of you are saying that POTUS isn't a real job. He currently gets $400,000/year (I believe) plus an expense account as POTUS. His working hours - January 20, 2009 - January 20, 2017. He is ALWAYS President. Your typical CEO gets to go home at the end of the day and not think about work. POTUS - be it Obama or whomever - doesn't have that ability. Yes, he can take vacations but every day he still gets briefings, has meetings of some sort, but is ALWAYS the POTUS while he is in office. It actually is a very stressful job. He can't do things that we take for granted. He can't just go for a drive spur of the moment (that trip to Five Guys - it wasn't as spur of the moment as you think. I have a friend in the Secret Service). Every single thing he does, someone is there any time he leaves the residence, even to go to the Oval Office.

Okay, so if anything I'm glad to see him giving back a portion of his salary. The percentage is irrelevant. All those in the anti-Obama camp would still be annoyed even if he gave back 20% or more because of what he'd still be making. Realize that for everything that happens in the White House - State Dinners and functions like that, someone has to foot the bill - and believe it or not, it is NOT the American taxpayer. Every month the first family is given a bill for their groceries. When he was using AF1 for his campaign he had to pay for it - fuel, everything. I'm not saying that the Obamas are in the same financial straits as many of you (hell, I don't even have a job), but I think that the pay cut is a very good gesture.

Marc


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3917 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 86):

I agree with the sentiment of your post but you have some factual errors.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 86):
Your typical CEO gets to go home at the end of the day and not think about work

The typical CEO doesn't get home not to think about work either. It is there, always. Heck you don't need to be CEO for that kind of situation. Be the manager of a restaurant and try to have a full day without calls or something that you're thinking about fixing.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 86):
State Dinners and functions like that, someone has to foot the bill - and believe it or not, it is NOT the American taxpayer. Every month the first family is given a bill for their groceries. When he was using AF1 for his campaign he had to pay for it - fuel, everything.

He does pay for his and his families groceries. He does not pay for sate dinners. The pay for using AF1 for "private" is (I assume it hasn't changed) the cost of a first class ticket on the route for each person flying "privately." The rest is picked up as cost of security.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):

So it's not really about who makes what for you, it's about envy. You know, envy is a terrible thing. It's destroying this country.


User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 1):
The President gives up $20,000 in salary and you're insulted?

Giving up 5% isnt whats insulting, its that his inability to do his job and balance our country's budget requiring other government agencies to take 7-12% pay cuts thats insulting.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 11):
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
He should keep his money and do his job properly

That would be......?

Balance the budget
Reduce spending/borrowing
Reduce Unemployment
Lower taxes
Work with congress
Leave American's bill of rights alone
Secure our country's borders
Get our troops out of foreign nations
Quit pissing off every other country in the world

I could think of a lot of things he could be doing instead of vacationing every few days and making a mockery of us by taking a smaller paycut than those who work for him.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 41):
How did the other 525 idiots in Congress give up of their salary?
And the Cabinet Secretaries?

Every single one of them is just as responsible for this mess as the President.

I would argue more so them than him but no, they didnt take one cent pay cut.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 19):
Who cares Pyrex? Obama is the best president in ages

I wouldnt call him the worst but you have GOT to defend this statement with reason... I cant get my head around anyone who isnt an illegal alien or a habitual social welfare sucker believing this. Our nation has had some amazing leaders.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
The typical CEO doesn't get home not to think about work either. It is there, always. Heck you don't need to be CEO for that kind of situation. Be the manager of a restaurant and try to have a full day without calls or something that you're thinking about fixing.

What I was getting at is that if you own a business, be it a store or a Fortune 500 company, you can go home at 5:00 or whenever, and unless there's a problem, you can lead a normal life. Let's use Google as an example. Do you really think that the CEO's are thinking about the business 24/7/365? I actually feel bad for POTUS and his family because they can't lead normal lives. Obama's daughters for example can't just go over a friend's house whenever they want. Barack can't decide to go for a drive by himself to clear his mind. Michelle can't just suddenly decide she wants to go on a shopping trip (yes, I know that infamous trip to Target I believe it was and only one person recognized her but she had a ton of Secret Service near her).

While I might not like a given President, I give every one credit because my lifestyle - if I want to go on a spur of the moment errand or trip, I'm doing it...they don't have that ability because Secret Service has to plan everything. Especially in times like this when Americans are potentially in harm's way with the current situations in Korea, Afghanistan, etc...I don't know how I'd deal with that stress, while having my every move watched by the media and Secret Service. It's not an enviable job.

I don't like being alone, but I like the ability to be alone with my thoughts occasionally. No President since the USSS was assigned the duty of guarding him and the first family has that ability, but a CEO does.

Marc


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3882 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
Wagglewoops, poor attempt at justifying inexcusable behavior.

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? I'm not attempting to justify anything. I'm just stating a reason why women often get paid less. What a person gets paid is only the business of the employee and the employer - these are the only 2 people who can judge what a salary means to each other. There's no reason why an employer would want to pay any less money to a women if she wasn't as productive.

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
You have stated you don't like your job and that you make enough money to take almost half the time off. Then bloody do what you say instead of pretending you spend full time at a job you don't need because you manage to get in a lower tax bracket.

Are you saying i'm lying now?

I don't know why you are struggling to understand this. It's playschool stuff. When i work for a company i have to justify my rate. But i only receive ~80% of my rate for the first X part of the year. I can tolerate that. But for the rest of the year without loopholes i'd get just under 60% of my rate. That means i have to provide 66% more value to a company than i get paid and i simply don't want to do that. I'd much rather just relax for the rest of the year because i enjoy my leisure time more than what i could earn with a 40% penalty. I work to live i don't live to work.

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
No, the discussion was about the gap widening again. That the rich are largely taking money from the poor instead of generating money.

No the statement was that the poor are getting poorer. The gap doesn't mean anything. Nor does money mean wealth. Purchasing power means wealth. People don't get rich at the expense of the poor unless they steal. The poor get richer and the rich get richer, this is the historical trend.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):

CEOs are always thinking about their business and thanks to this new fangled thing called a smart phone, they have an eternal tether. So don't kid yourself that a CEO goes home and walks into "leave it to beaver" land. That's an outrigt lie perpetuated by the crowd of envy.

[Edited 2013-04-06 09:43:43]

User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

I'll be more impressed if him & Michelle didn't take anymore vacations until Labor Day weekend.
The 5% pay cut is all for show.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
The reality is that he never worked a single day in his life in the private sector: never had to provide a good or service people were willing to pay for more than what it cost to make or provide, never had to manage to a budget, never had to worry about responding to someone or generating a bottom-line. So no, he has never had a real job a day in his life and that is what causes his warped view of the private sector as merely something he can exploit to implement his policies.



  
Every single dollar Obama has earned in his adult life has been through government coercion. Politicians salaries come from tax dollars. He has never worked a day in the private sector and his short stint at the law firm Michelle gave him the 'hook up' at in Chicago doesn't count. There is no record and not a single case he tried in a court of law.
He was a high-paid intern.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):
And exactly how much of his net worth came from being a co-editor on a school newspaper during grad school?


  
And the only co-editor that never wrote anything while in that position.

Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 23):
Sure, he is taking a 5% hit while every other federal employee going on furlough is taking a 20% hit. That's really fair isn't it? He is just so full of himself while he still goes on his golf trips and his family has been of vacation since this all started.


  
What was the cost for Obama Spring Break 2013?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3841 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
Heck, he's never had a real job in his life and is a millionaire already, just imagine after (if) he leaves office, with all the cult of personality brainwipes out there.

..while you're spending your time posting anonymous, uninformed comments on some pointless online forum. I can see where your anger is coming from  



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
It is an indication the market isn't free.

It is free. Their employers are free to pay them highly, and you are free to not pay them at all.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 93):
Every single dollar Obama has earned in his adult life has been through government coercion. Politicians salaries come from tax dollars. He has never worked a day in the private sector and his short stint at the law firm Michelle gave him the 'hook up' at in Chicago doesn't count. There is no record and not a single case he tried in a court of law.
He was a high-paid intern.

What's the problem with that anyway? It doesn't matter what he has or hasn't done before, his job is to do his best to make United States a better country, and that he surely tried to do. Obama getting elected is probably one of the first sign of hope for the US in decades.

I hope more people like him will get elected in the future, then United States as a whole might some day become a civilized country comparable to what we have in here Europe. And this this I mean civilized as a whole, even the most dark spots like Alabama. Sure certain other areas have quite a lot of potential already.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3772 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 98):
I hope more people like him will get elected in the future, then United States as a whole might some day become a civilized country comparable to what we have in here Europe.

More civilized as in losing monetary sovereignty, having higher tax rates, and drowning in debt? Nothing says civilization like freezing people's bank accounts and skimming money from them.

And, while we're on the subject of how civilized Europe is, perhaps you'd like to explain a little bit about the rampant racism at soccer games.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3736 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):

More civilized as in losing monetary sovereignty, having higher tax rates, and drowning in debt? Nothing says civilization like freezing people's bank accounts and skimming money from them.

Heh drowning debt, that's not any different from the US, although you have somehow managed to waste all that huge amount of money even without all the proper equality creating social programs that many European countries have.

Though my country doesn't have particularly much dept anyway.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
And, while we're on the subject of how civilized Europe is, perhaps you'd like to explain a little bit about the rampant racism at soccer games.

Yeah yeah we have big masses of dumb people too, but I think the percentage of them is smaller than in religious parts of United States at least. I think American TV culture is to be blamed here also, all that trash makes people act dumber than they would otherwise.

To make people less ignorant worldwide I think some quality control with television programs could help, good start would be blocking at least 90% of "reality" TV shows, especially ones coming from the US or that are based on a format that originates from the US. I think they have very bad effect on big masses of people who lack the ability to question things and use their own brains.

Sure that's against freedom and wouldn't happen through democratic process, but who cares? I think democracy works only if majority of voters actually know something about relevant things.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3724 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
And, while we're on the subject of how civilized Europe is, perhaps you'd like to explain a little bit about the rampant racism at soccer games.

That's more of an Eastern European thing. And to some extent Italy and Spain. Extremely rare in the UK and North/West Europe.

The Russian World Cup will be interesting to say the least.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 103):
I think democracy works only if majority of voters actually know something about relevant things.

Indeed and you are more or less living proof of that. Many people wrongly believe the free market results in a race to the bottom but ironically its the democratic process itself that possesses such dynamics.

Most voters are ignorant and/or apathetic as to how an economy functions best and are more interested in voting themselves privileges instead of going out and earning them, creating a set of perverse incentives that results in ultimate failure.

Churchill put it best.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 103):
Heh drowning debt, that's not any different from the US,

Except all the civilized Europeans decided to give away their monetary sovereignty so they can't really do anything about it. And add in the massively expensive social programs which nobody wants to cut because they live off of them instead of being productive plus high taxes which already aren't helping growth and probably can't go higher.

What you have is a situation where you're between a rock and a hard place, which has led to Cyprus resorting to robbery.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 103):
even without all the proper equality creating social programs that many European countries have.

Economics isn't about equality. The point is that I try to create as much inequality for myself as I can and everyone else should try to do the same. Trying to level out economics results in standardized mediocrity. I'll be perfectly honest and say that there is no economic system that can guarantee that everyone is rich, and pretty much all of them require that some people be relatively poor. But there are plenty of economic systems that can and do guarantee that everyone is poor.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 103):
I think American TV culture is to be blamed here also, all that trash makes people act dumber than they would otherwise.

Feel free to think that all you like, just know that you're wrong.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 103):
To make people less ignorant worldwide I think some quality control with television programs could help, good start would be blocking at least 90% of "reality" TV shows, especially ones coming from the US or that are based on a format that originates from the US.

So you're in favor of state control of the media? You think people cannot be trusted to watch and read what they want? It's clear that you don't really care about freedom at all, so it begs the question: what good is equality if you have no freedom to do anything with it? Seems to me that everyone in your ideal society would be equal in the same manner that prisoners in the maximum security block are equal.

But, on the plus side, I'm sure you will even get your own talk show on Gulag TV. Right between Gordon Ramsay's Bread Line Nightmares and reruns of Lifestyles of the Equal and Miserable.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 104):
That's more of an Eastern European thing. And to some extent Italy and Spain. Extremely rare in the UK and North/West Europe.

Well there was that thing with France outlawing burqas.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3684 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 88):
So it's not really about who makes what for you, it's about envy. You know, envy is a terrible thing. It's destroying this country.

To me it is about fair compensation. About not underpaying most workers based on them having no real options and giving it to a few who scratch each others backs while slowly destroying the country.

But of course it is much easier to justify the injustice but claiming that it is envy...

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):
What I was getting at is that if you own a business, be it a store or a Fortune 500 company, you can go home at 5:00 or whenever, and unless there's a problem, you can lead a normal life.

I have no idea from where you get the idea that owners (I take it to mean top level managers) of stores and fortune 500 companies end their days at 5:00. Has never happened in the companies where I have worked and that include start-ups to fortune 500 companies. We had satellite phones already in the late 90's for any manager vacationing in a remote area. The best part of international flights was that you would not be disturbed for several hours  
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):
I actually feel bad for POTUS and his family because they can't lead normal lives. Obama's daughters for example can't just go over a friend's house whenever they want. Barack can't decide to go for a drive by himself to clear his mind. Michelle can't just suddenly decide she wants to go on a shopping trip (yes, I know that infamous trip to Target I believe it was and only one person recognized her but she had a ton of Secret Service near her).

I agree with all of this. It is one thing for him but the deal really sucks for his family.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
There's no reason why an employer would want to pay any less money to a women if she wasn't as productive.

LOL. Employers are not even paying men doing the same job the same.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
Are you saying i'm lying now?

I'm saying your statements do not add up.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
I work to live i don't live to work.

Yet you work 5 months a year in a job you don't like without needing the money. Seems you work to store money instead of living.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
The poor get richer and the rich get richer, this is the historical trend.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in relative terms. That is the widening gap. There was a time when poor were getting richer but it is gone.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
It is free. Their employers are free to pay them highly, and you are free to not pay them at all.

More BMI727 platitudes. Then there is reality.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):
So you're in favor of state control of the media? You think people cannot be trusted to watch and read what they want? It's clear that you don't really care about freedom at all, so it begs the question: what good is equality if you have no freedom to do anything with it? Seems to me that everyone in your ideal society would be equal in the same manner that prisoners in the maximum security block are equal.

You obviously think that freedom means that whoever has most money is allowed to stamp on everyone else.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3670 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
More BMI727 platitudes. Then there is reality.

That's exactly what the free market is. Something is worth what you can get someone else to pay, but you don't need to find many people willing to pay that particular price, just one.

If I walk past a random item in a store, stop to look at it, and decide it isn't worth paying for and the person directly behind me walks by it and decides to purchase it, who is right? The answer, of course, is that we are both right.

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
You obviously think that freedom means that whoever has most money is allowed to stamp on everyone else.

How have I, as a non-wealthy person, ever been stomped on by the wealthy? I certainly don't feel I have, although I know I've put plenty of money in their pockets but that's because they've been selling things that I've wanted or needed.

When it comes to being stomped on, I'm much more worried about what the lower classes might do.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
That is the widening gap. There was a time when poor were getting richer but it is gone.

But the poor are getting richer in absolutely terms, and that is all that matters, anything else is just jealousy. If they want to get even richer then they need to study/work harder so they can provide more value to an employer and command a higher wage.

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
Yet you work 5 months a year in a job you don't like without needing the money. Seems you work to store money instead of living.

I don't know where this idea came that i didn't like my job. I don't mind it, but i don't really like working full stop. It's very disappointing that you continually fail to understand the utterly simple argument. It's pre-school stuff and it's really leaving me questioning your intelligence.

Very few people would actually go to work if they didn't get paid, i am one of them. Thus it takes a certain amount of money to incentivise me to go to work. When the government takes 40%+ of my earnings, that threshold is exceeded. You see money can be exchanged for goods and services and improve a person's life, which is why i will go to work if i am paid adequately.

Quoting cmf (Reply 106):
LOL. Employers are not even paying men doing the same job the same.

Probably because they are not equally as good at it? Or they can not bargain as well as another guy. None of that matters though, all that matters is the employee and the employer have agreed a mutually beneficial salary.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):
What you have is a situation where you're between a rock and a hard place, which has led to Cyprus resorting to robbery.

The situation in Cyprus and other countries with economical crisis has been caused by corruption and incompetence in their governments, not by social programs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):
I'll be perfectly honest and say that there is no economic system that can guarantee that everyone is rich, and pretty much all of them require that some people be relatively poor. But there are plenty of economic systems that can and do guarantee that everyone is poor.

Yeah sure, but the best system can be found from the middle, mixture of capitalism and socialism. It works just well around here.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):

Feel free to think that all you like, just know that you're wrong.

Big masses of Americans who have no clue about rest of the world but just keep watching rubbish like Honey Boo Boo are a living proof about it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):
So you're in favor of state control of the media? You think people cannot be trusted to watch and read what they want? It's clear that you don't really care about freedom at all, so it begs the question: what good is equality if you have no freedom to do anything with it? Seems to me that everyone in your ideal society would be equal in the same manner that prisoners in the maximum security block are equal.

I like certain freedoms such as freedom to travel, freedom to live wherever you want, freedom to walk around the nature instead of some dumbass declaring his/her area as a private one. I appreciate free unspoiled media that can report about things factually and honestly.

However I don't appreciate TV and other medias being full of shallow junk that has negative effect on behavior and thinking of weak minded people.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 76):

There's no such thing as injustice when it comes to compensation in a free market. You earn what you're worth and you get paid what you're worth. It's only in the socialist environment of government jobs that I've actually seen people get paid more than they are worth. In the private sector you get what you're worth. Some will make more, some will make less. That's not injustice and anyone that complains about it has an envy problem, an inflated sense of entitlement or grossly overestimates their abilities and qualifications.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3599 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
There's no such thing as injustice when it comes to compensation in a free market. You earn what you're worth and you get paid what you're worth. It's only in the socialist environment of government jobs that I've actually seen people get paid more than they are worth.

Maybe in some fantasy, in reality not. There are huge amount of incompetent people working in leadership of many private companies, earning way more than they are actually worth. And workers who get more than others because they happen to know right people and so on.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 77):
If I walk past a random item in a store, stop to look at it, and decide it isn't worth paying for and the person directly behind me walks by it and decides to purchase it, who is right? The answer, of course, is that we are both right.

The difference between theory and reality. This isn't the free market your theories are based on. Nor will there ever be a free market. You live in utopia.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 77):
How have I, as a non-wealthy person, ever been stomped on by the wealthy?

Now you expect me to know your personal situation... The most common method is unreasonably low compensation for work done. Leading to the public having to step in and thus costing all of us money.

You can look it up at www.google.com

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
But the poor are getting richer in absolutely terms,

Are they? Please provide data that their purchase power is increasing.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
I don't know where this idea came that i didn't like my job.

From you. In one of the posts that got deleted. That you only work because of a tax loophole and would spend 5 months a year vacationing is still here:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 50):
i only work all year because i can get through certain tax loopholes which means i avoid the 40% rate.

If that was not the case i would only work about 5 months a year. Then i'd go on holiday.
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
Very few people would actually go to work if they didn't get paid, i am one of them. Thus it takes a certain amount of money to incentivise me to go to work.

We were taking about the wealthy who create value. They don't care about the tax rate. They care about creating things. They don't suspend their lives for a certain number of hours per day, as you apparently do.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
You see money can be exchanged for goods and services and improve a person's life, which is why i will go to work if i am paid adequately.

Take your condescending attitude somewhere else. At least have the intelligence to use arguments for your points.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
Probably because they are not equally as good at it? Or they can not bargain as well as another guy. None of that matters though, all that matters is the employee and the employer have agreed a mutually beneficial salary.

Doesn't change what I stated.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
There's no such thing as injustice when it comes to compensation in a free market.

There is no free market.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
That's not injustice and anyone that complains about it has an envy problem

You guys must have enormous envy problems. It is the only thing you can imagine as the reason for everything. I have everything I want in my life so I certainly do not feel envy. I wish everyone else was as fortunate as I am. Part of the reaon why I hate when people in power positions abuse said power. There you have my motivation.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):

How would I have an envy problem. I'm not the one complaining about what someone else is making or perpetuating the myth of "economic injustice".

Quoting pvjin (Reply 81):

That's interesting. I know my company has zero tolerance for incompetence.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3551 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
Are they? Please provide data that their purchase power is increasing.

I already have. Since then you have continually tried to change the argument.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
From you. In one of the posts that got deleted. That you only work because of a tax loophole and would spend 5 months a year vacationing is still here:

Just because i won't work for free does not mean i don't like my job.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
They don't care about the tax rate. They care about creating things.

If they don't care about the tax rate why do so many companies offshore? Your idea that people don't care about how much they're being taxed is so utterly naive.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
Take your condescending attitude somewhere else. At least have the intelligence to use arguments for your points.

Sorry but you seem so incapable of understanding something so simple i have to break it down to the fundamentals.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 79):
The situation in Cyprus and other countries with economical crisis has been caused by corruption and incompetence in their governments, not by social programs.

The social programs are a big part of it and a big part of why these situations are so difficult for countries to fix.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 79):
Yeah sure, but the best system can be found from the middle, mixture of capitalism and socialism. It works just well around here

No, the best system is as close to pure capitalism as you can get: maximum freedom, minimum interference, and maximum opportunity. And for what it's worth, you will absolutely never have a system without capitalism, it's just a matter of whether or not it's legal.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 79):
Big masses of Americans who have no clue about rest of the world but just keep watching rubbish like Honey Boo Boo are a living proof about it.

If they want to do that fine with me. But if they do that instead of working or going to school don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their laziness.

With every post you make you're illustrating exactly why socialism and Communism are such awful ideas.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 79):
freedom to walk around the nature instead of some dumbass declaring his/her area as a private one.

So now you're going after property rights too?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 79):
However I don't appreciate TV and other medias being full of shallow junk that has negative effect on behavior and thinking of weak minded people.

Do Finnish remotes not have a button to change the channel?

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
The difference between theory and reality. This isn't the free market your theories are based on. Nor will there ever be a free market. You live in utopia.

Okay so you're looking to hire a manager for a company. You bring one guy in, interview him, and decide he's not exactly what you're looking for and hire someone else for $100k per year. Later, you find out that the first guy got a job at a large company making $10M per year. Again, you're both right.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
The most common method is unreasonably low compensation for work done.

If it was really unreasonably low people would either not accept the jobs or stay only a short time. For some industries that's actually a workable model, but that's not actually abuse.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
You guys must have enormous envy problems.

I know I do, very much so. Every time I see a nice house or a nice I car have to think to myself what it took to get there and how I can get there myself. One evening I remember passing a Lamborghini on the street and my first impulse was to turn around, go back to school and do more work on the off chance that whatever I could get done would mean the difference between owning a Lambo versus something else.

So yeah, I have envy but I wouldn't call it a problem and the way to deal with it is not to simply try and seize what you want from those who have it. It's motivation more than anything and that's why I don't want excessive taxes or social programs dragging my economic well being downwards.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
We're skipping a part though, and it's a pretty damn important one. Education, which is where Google and to a lesser extent Facebook got their starts. These aren't the companies that need to be concerned with moving because the US is one of maybe a handful of places where they can get sufficient numbers of highly trained people.

Which works out well, since those are the sort of companies that we really want to retain - companies that not only employ their own people, but who, through their products, create whole new markets that didn't exist before for other companies to fill (and, of course, those companies employ people as well). Those companies generally are the innovative ones, and that requires an educated workforce, which we have.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 78):
If they want to get even richer then they need to study/work harder so they can provide more value to an employer and command a higher wage.

That's a pretty tough sell when social mobility is as low as it is these days.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 59):
Yes but the debate was are the poor getting richer, clearly they are.

If you're trying to make that point by saying that the poor have access to the same basic technologies as the rich, I think you'll find that that was generally the case 100 years ago as well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 86):
Which works out well, since those are the sort of companies that we really want to retain - companies that not only employ their own people, but who, through their products, create whole new markets that didn't exist before for other companies to fill (and, of course, those companies employ people as well). Those companies generally are the innovative ones, and that requires an educated workforce, which we have.

That's fine by me as long as the educated workers doing the innovating don't have their success attenuated by having to drag along everyone else as well.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
I already have. Since then you have continually tried to change the argument.

I have not seen where yo have provided anything but your own statement but great, then you can just tell me the number of the post.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
Just because i won't work for free does not mean i don't like my job.

You did also post that you don't like your job, sadly it was deleted.

Then you have a funny way of defining free. If you actually earn in the top 2% then even after 40% tax you make more than some 90% before taxes. yet they shall be happy.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
If they don't care about the tax rate why do so many companies offshore? Your idea that people don't care about how much they're being taxed is so utterly naive.

Never said they don't care. Said the productive people continue to produce also during high taxes.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 84):
Sorry but you seem so incapable of understanding something so simple i have to break it down to the fundamentals.

I'm sorry, I should have understood this is the level your knowledge ends at.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
No, the best system is as close to pure capitalism as you can get: maximum freedom, minimum interference, and maximum opportunity.

LOL, it has been an utter disaster whenever we have anywhere near, look at the late 1800's.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
If they want to do that fine with me. But if they do that instead of working or going to school don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their laziness.

Very few do. More money is wasted on corporate welfare and costs due to the negatives of the things you insist on wanting.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
So now you're going after property rights too?

Obviously you have no idea how it work in Scandinavia.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
Do Finnish remotes not have a button to change the channel?

At least Finns understand when they watch indoctrination.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
Okay so you're looking to hire a manager for a company. You bring one guy in, interview him, and decide he's not exactly what you're looking for and hire someone else for $100k per year. Later, you find out that the first guy got a job at a large company making $10M per year. Again, you're both right.

There isn't a single job on this planet where 10MUSD is reasonable compensation. Only way a salary like that is approved is because the old boys network where you take money from owners or other employees.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
If it was really unreasonably low people would either not accept the jobs or stay only a short time. For some industries that's actually a workable model, but that's not actually abuse.

It really is abuse. Your Utopian theories are based on that negotiations are between equal partners. That isn't reality.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
I know I do, very much so.

Of course you take the discussion sideways by using a different definition of envy...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
excessive taxes or social programs dragging my economic well being downwards.

No-one want taxes and social programs dragging down the economy. Just the suggestion is ridiculous.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 87):
That's fine by me as long as the educated workers doing the innovating don't have their success attenuated by having to drag along everyone else as well.

They are not asked to do that.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
LOL, it has been an utter disaster whenever we have anywhere near, look at the late 1800's.

During that time there were actual abuses. If you got the flu and couldn't work for a day, you got fired. I'm not saying that regulations and work rules need to be abdicated completely, but further distortion of the market does no favors.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
At least Finns understand when they watch indoctrination.

Most television that isn't Fox or MSNBC is not indoctrination. Pointless, but not indoctrination, and if people choose to watch it or like it, fine with me.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
There isn't a single job on this planet where 10MUSD is reasonable compensation.

To you. You, however, are not the whole market. I'm sure you can go through life without ever having to pay someone even 10% of that sum, which is perfectly fine. Why you believe that your valuation should be imposed on everyone else is beyond me. Part of the free market is the freedom to make a bad deal.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
It really is abuse. Your Utopian theories are based on that negotiations are between equal partners. That isn't reality.

It's not abuse, it's the market. Secondly, there's nothing utopian about how I'd like to see things be. Like I've said, there's no system for everyone to be rich but far too many people advocate a system to make everyone poor. Any strong economy is going to need some low value labor. Being poor sucks, and it always will suck, but that doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

And, no, not all negotiations are between equal partners. That's part of how the market works. Sometimes it's a buyers' market and sometimes a sellers' market. Getting on the right side is sometimes luck, sometimes skill and sometimes in the middle.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
No-one want taxes and social programs dragging down the economy. Just the suggestion is ridiculous.

For every dollar you use to raise the floor, there is a dollar coming off the top. You can justify it all you want with the "they don't really need it" defense, but that's what it is. People talking about expanding welfare and using the wealthy to solve fiscal problems don't want their solutions to drag down the economy, but that's the effect. It's taking money out of one person's pocket and putting it in someone else's.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
They are not asked to do that.

Of course they are. The majority of the taxes are paid by those in the top income brackets. I forget exactly what the numbers were, but it's something like the top quarter pays 60% of income taxes. Those taxes go to things like the military and homeland security, which protect everyone pretty much equally. They go to roads and airports which is fine too. They also go towards education which is the great equalizer, or at least it should be.

Where it goes off the rails is that tax revenues are used to fund an extensive education system. It could be better, but overall the opportunity exists for the most part. But what happens if someone decides they are too cool for school? Or they don't want to apply themselves and utilize the educational system taxpayers are funding? Not to worry, there's a safety net for those people. Instead of being educated, they can just collect welfare and maybe benefit from an artificially high minimum wage too.

Frankly, I don't want to see America spend more money on stupid-proofing life.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3437 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
Why you believe that your valuation should be imposed on everyone else is beyond me.

Yet you constantly insist we accept your valuation.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
It's not abuse,

Apart from that it is.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
there's nothing utopian about how I'd like to see things be

Sadly your theories are. Once you get to see the real world you will learn.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
but far too many people advocate a system to make everyone poor.

Very few do, as in just about no-one. Pretty much it is fear mongering by the extreme right.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
Getting on the right side is sometimes luck, sometimes skill and sometimes in the middle.

And very often abuse and thus a problem.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
For every dollar you use to raise the floor, there is a dollar coming off the top.

Nope.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
People talking about expanding welfare and using the wealthy to solve fiscal problems don't want their solutions to drag down the economy, but that's the effect.

No, it is about creating a society with higher productivity. It is great return on investment.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
Of course they are.

Nope.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 89):
Frankly, I don't want to see America spend more money on stupid-proofing life.

What you call stupid-proofing in reality is the exact opposite. It creates a much more productive environment.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
I have not seen where yo have provided anything but your own statement but great, then you can just tell me the number of the post.

50

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
You did also post that you don't like your job, sadly it was deleted.

Well, i don't mind it, i wouldn't do it for free.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
Never said they don't care.

Hmm...

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
They don't care about the tax rate.
Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
Then you have a funny way of defining free. If you actually earn in the top 2% then even after 40% tax you make more than some 90% before taxes. yet they shall be happy

First of all this isn't about anyone else, this is about me. Secondly, and i've already clearly outlined this, i need to provide 67% more value to my client than i get paid. There is a lot at stake on my job and if i make a mistake it could cost a company a lot of money and i would be liable. Additionally i've done a lot of (self-funded) training to get where i am, and i'm up against a lot of competition.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
I'm sorry, I should have understood this is the level your knowledge ends at.

The implication was that that your knowledge doesn't even get this far. Because you don't seem to understand that when people earn less money, they don't really want to work as much.

Anyway this is going nowhere. You obviously just can't get your head round the fact that some people aren't going to be good little pawns and happily pay an enormous levels of tax. The result is that people are less productive and the economy suffers as a result.

There's quite a few studies on the effect. Typically for a 10% reduction (ie 40%->36%) in the top rate of tax the economy improves by around 1.5%-4.5% depending on the country measured.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
Yet you constantly insist we accept your valuation.

Not at all. Depending on who it is and what they do I might find a given price to be outrageous as well.

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
Very few do, as in just about no-one. Pretty much it is fear mongering by the extreme right.

There are not as many advocating an "everybody must be poor" system as there are advocating a "nobody can be rich" system. Personally, I find them equally horrific.

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
And very often abuse and thus a problem.

Simply having the market not in your favor is not abuse. Nobody is entitled to a given price or level of demand for what they offer.

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
No, it is about creating a society with higher productivity. It is great return on investment.

Screw society. The very idea of trying to manipulate economics for the betterment of "society" is where a lot of these problems start. It should be about creating a system to allow as much economic freedom to maximize individual wealth as possible. People need to care about themselves and their well being without relying on the government to provide it to them, other than education and basic services.

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
What you call stupid-proofing in reality is the exact opposite.

It is stupid proofing. No matter how many times someone screws up, liberals will always be there with some encouragement and somebody else's dollar. Don't want to go to school? No problem, we'll raise minimum wage for you. Made a dumb decision and had a kid you can't afford to care for? Just up the welfare check.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3414 times:

The only welfare that could conceivably create higher societal productivity would be a basic level of state-funded education for children.

Beyond that taking money from some people to give to others is an appalling way to promote productivity. People acknowledge theft is wrong and bad for an economy, then go and grant the state the privilege to do it. People add the most value when their earnings are directly linked to the amount of value they can provide.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3391 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
50

Nothing but your statements there. Show the data.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
Hmm...

OK, I worded it poorly, grant you that. Though the meaning was clear. It is about creating things that is the important and the driving force.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
First of all this isn't about anyone else, this is about me. Secondly, and i've already clearly outlined this, i need to provide 67% more value to my client than i get paid. There is a lot at stake on my job and if i make a mistake it could cost a company a lot of money and i would be liable. Additionally i've done a lot of (self-funded) training to get where i am, and i'm up against a lot of competition.

Poor you, like that is unique. Yet, why should the 90% find it worthwhile to work when most of them earn a tiny fraction of what you state is too little to get in to the office?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
The implication was that that your knowledge doesn't even get this far. Because you don't seem to understand that when people earn less money, they don't really want to work as much.

You need to get out in the real world.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
You obviously just can't get your head round the fact that some people aren't going to be good little pawns and happily pay an enormous levels of tax. The result is that people are less productive and the economy suffers as a result.

The problem isn't with me. It is you who need to understand that people do not stop working just because they have to pay tax. Look at the world out there. How many people in developed countries work and do not pay tax? Go back to the times of very high marginal tax and there was plenty of entrepreneurial activity. Arguably more than today. What you state isn't supported by historical facts. You have created your own little island and fail to see what is happening outside it.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 91):
There's quite a few studies on the effect. Typically for a 10% reduction (ie 40%->36%) in the top rate of tax the economy improves by around 1.5%-4.5% depending on the country measured.

LOL, it is far more complicated than that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
There are not as many advocating an "everybody must be poor" system as there are advocating a "nobody can be rich" system. Personally, I find them equally horrific.

You and your word twisting. Where have I suggested nobody can be rich? Who is advocating everyone must be poor? The world isn't black or white. When people (or companies) interact with each other you want to meet around the middle where it is fair to everyone.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
Screw society.

That would be your death.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
People need to care about themselves and their well being without relying on the government to provide it to them, other than education and basic services.

You're trying to eat the cake and keep it too.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
It is stupid proofing. No matter how many times someone screws up, liberals will always be there with some encouragement and somebody else's dollar. Don't want to go to school? No problem, we'll raise minimum wage for you. Made a dumb decision and had a kid you can't afford to care for? Just up the welfare check.

You're wearing blinds.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):
The only welfare that could conceivably create higher societal productivity would be a basic level of state-funded education for children.

LOL, health, transportation, legal system, the list goes on. Without the tools and common framework to work in productivity would collapse.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
LOL, health, transportation, legal system, the list goes on. Without the tools and common framework to work in productivity would collapse.

The legal system has nothing to do with welfare, and you don't need "welfare" to provide the others. LOL indeed.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Poor you, like that is unique. Yet, why should the 90% find it worthwhile to work when most of them earn a tiny fraction of what you state is too little to get in to the office?

This is nothing to do with those people. Fact is i don't need to work all year, and when the government ups the tax rate for the 2nd half of the year they are guaranteeing that i don't. So instead of getting a little taxes and a productive member of society, they're getting nothing. This is why I am arguing that marginal taxes and even income tax at all is very bad for the economy.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
LOL, it is far more complicated than that.

You do realise that "LOL" isn't a substitute for an argument right?

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
It is you who need to understand that people do not stop working just because they have to pay tax.

But they do. The more tax people pay the less they want to work. I'm not saying that people never work again, but they certainly won't want to do it as much. It's just basic economics.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Go back to the times of very high marginal tax and there was plenty of entrepreneurial activity. Arguably more than today. What you state isn't supported by historical facts. You have created your own little island and fail to see what is happening outside it.

Well funny because when Kennedy cut taxes to the top earners, tax revenue increased! Would you believe it. But sure, i don't look at historical facts, i just bury my head in the sand. LOL!

Anyway it's a sad day. The greatest British PM of the modern age has died and it wouldn't be fitting to spend the day reiterating arguments she resolutely put to bed decades ago.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Where have I suggested nobody can be rich?

You never said they couldn't be, although you did say that nobody should make $10 million per year. People can become rich, as long as they give you a hefty cut...for some reason.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Who is advocating everyone must be poor?

Start with everybody in the American Communist Party.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
You're trying to eat the cake and keep it too.

You can do that when you have enough cake.

But, that aside, you have a system that spends a lot of money on education and then spends a lot more for when people decide they don't feel like using it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
You're wearing blinds.

No, actually I just looked around. I grew up among some people who decided that leaving campus for a smoke was more important than showing up to class and spend far more time partying than doing anything productive. I know that they'll probably all be on welfare for most of their lives. I've seen where these people come from and for the most part it's self inflicted. I don't care to pay for anyone's poor decisions but mine.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):
The legal system has nothing to do with welfare

If only. Poor welfare system push problems to the legal system.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):
This is why I am arguing that marginal taxes and even income tax at all is very bad for the economy.

Because money grows on trees... Reality is that we need active governments to have a productive society. They need to be funded. You can play around with where you take it but in the end it must be funded. Sure there are plenty enough programs that are done poorly or shouldn't exist at all but all in all governments is what has enabled the modern society, and they need money to run.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):
You do realise that "LOL" isn't a substitute for an argument right?

Do you?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):
But they do. The more tax people pay the less they want to work. I'm not saying that people never work again, but they certainly won't want to do it as much. It's just basic economics.

That part of the discussion was about the most productive. Their motivation isn't this or that tax rate. It is building things and thus the tax rate has minimal impact.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):
The more tax people pay the less they want to work.

They never take 100%. Unlike what companies frequently do when they require you to work overtime without additional pay, salaried employees of course.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):
Well funny because when Kennedy cut taxes to the top earners, tax revenue increased! Would you believe it. But sure, i don't look at historical facts, i just bury my head in the sand. LOL!

There was quite a bit more to it than that. Calling it burying your head in sand is very appropriate.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):
The greatest British PM of the modern age has died and it wouldn't be fitting to spend the day reiterating arguments she resolutely put to bed decades ago.

It is very clear you loved her. You use the same blinded arguments she did.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
although you did say that nobody should make $10 million per year

What I actually said is that there isn't a job generating value worth 10 MUSD in compensation.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
Start with everybody in the American Communist Party.

I have not studied the American Communist Party but it certainly isn't what Marx said.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
You can do that when you have enough cake.

We know you try to regurgitate no matter how foul something is but it just doesn't work.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
But, that aside, you have a system that spends a lot of money on education and then spends a lot more for when people decide they don't feel like using it.

The extreme rights fear of someone other than them getting a cent without putting in a dollar worth of work. Reality is that it isn't the poor getting welfare dollars who are the welfare queens. By large they work extremely hard. The welfare without return is the corporate welfare,

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
No, actually I just looked around. I grew up among some people who decided that leaving campus for a smoke was more important than showing up to class and spend far more time partying than doing anything productive. I know that they'll probably all be on welfare for most of their lives. I've seen where these people come from and for the most part it's self inflicted. I don't care to pay for anyone's poor decisions but mine.

There will always be some extreme cases but that isn't the norm and I am sure most of them will actually be productive. Either way. It is much cheaper to deal with them than the defense industry you want us to pay for.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
Reality is that we need active governments to have a productive society.

No, in fact quite the opposite is the case, government causes many problems by trying to play an active role in the economy, including the current problems we're living through. But as you still haven't got your head around wage/price signals and opportunity costs, i shan't strain your mind with business cycle theory just yet.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 98):
No, in fact quite the opposite is the case, government causes many problems by trying to play an active role in the economy, including the current problems we're living through. But as you still haven't got your head around wage/price signals and opportunity costs, i shan't strain your mind with business cycle theory just yet.

I'm not walking around with blinds like you. Still waiting for you to provide support for your statement. Post 50 certainly didn't contain anything. Or have you put supporting your claim on the blind side...


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
What I actually said is that there isn't a job generating value worth 10 MUSD in compensation.

Not to you anyway, which makes it quite convenient that nobody is forcing you to pay someone $10 million to do a job you don't believe deserves it. Employers filling minimum wage jobs are (sometimes) not as lucky.

Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
I have not studied the American Communist Party but it certainly isn't what Marx said.

That's because Marx had his head even further up his ass than the Communists actually trying to gain influence.

Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
The extreme rights fear of someone other than them getting a cent without putting in a dollar worth of work.

No, it's about doing a dollar's worth of work to get a dollar. And how much work that is has to be largely market based, not based on arbitrary regulations designed to buy votes.

Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
Reality is that it isn't the poor getting welfare dollars who are the welfare queens. By large they work extremely hard.

Work hard? Perhaps some, but they may not work smart. Either way, their inability to make money should not become my problem, or anyone else's, as well.

Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
There will always be some extreme cases but that isn't the norm and I am sure most of them will actually be productive.

Such people are far more common than liberals would love to admit, and I know my hometown has no shortage of them. I think some are going on multiple generations now. As far as producing, the only things some of them will likely produce are cookies and sub sandwiches.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Employers filling minimum wage jobs are (sometimes) not as lucky.

You must have lost it. When has a minimum wage job been filled with a livable salary, much less 10 MUSD???

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
That's because Marx had his head even further up his ass than the Communists actually trying to gain influence.

Taking your description of the American Communist Party to be anything like Marx talked about it is hard to decide who of you is in most denial.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
No, it's about doing a dollar's worth of work to get a dollar. And how much work that is has to be largely market based, not based on arbitrary regulations designed to buy votes.

If that was true then every full time job would pay enough a living wage.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Work hard? Perhaps some, but they may not work smart. Either way, their inability to make money should not become my problem, or anyone else's, as well.

It is very clear you turn a blind eye to abuse.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Such people are far more common than liberals would love to admit

At least far more common that what you think liberals admit. reality is that around 85% of households on welfare work full time or more.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11531 posts, RR: 15
Reply 102, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
reality is that around 85% of households on welfare work full time or more.

Some households make far too much to receive any kind if assistance. But, they still don't make enough to survive. All because the right-wing decided to double down on trickle down. The "trickle down" economics theory is to give the very wealthy all the money and they will re-distribute it to everyone else and create jobs. How has that worked so far? Can everyone afford to survive? Is the jobless rate at zero? We have been doing "trickle down" now for about 30 years. Where is my share? I have been working my adult life. Why am I not rich, like the right-wing promised I would be?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
At least far more common that what you think liberals admit. reality is that around 85% of households on welfare work full time or more.

CMF, conservatives will never admit that anyone on welfare should actually be so. I would just ignore it.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
You must have lost it. When has a minimum wage job been filled with a livable salary, much less 10 MUSD???

You get the freedom to not pay anyone $10 million per year because you don't believe there is any job that is worth it. Fine, that's your choice and you're free to make it.

Of course if someone believes a job is only worth $6 per hour, they are not free to pay what they believe the value of a job is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
If that was true then every full time job would pay enough a living wage.

No it isn't. Where does this idea come from? Absolutely nowhere should it be guaranteed that the ability to show up somewhere and perform a task for eight hours a day will provide a given standard of living.

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
It is very clear you turn a blind eye to abuse.

It's not abuse. If I buy a stock and it drops to a penny, I have not been abused. Simply having the market not be in your favor is not abuse.

But for what it's worth, I'm not that interested anyway. If someone does not have the intelligence to do anything more complicated than sweep floors, that isn't my problem.

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
At least far more common that what you think liberals admit. reality is that around 85% of households on welfare work full time or more.

Working at what? And I know that it's not possible that any of those people are uneducated. Or had substance abuse or legal problems.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 102):
We have been doing "trickle down" now for about 30 years. Where is my share?

You earn your share. You don't get a share just by being alive. Your problem isn't that you want money, your problem is that you want someone else's money and you want it without doing anything for it, other than voting perhaps.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
You earn your share. You don't get a share just by being alive. Your problem isn't that you want money, your problem is that you want someone else's money and you want it without doing anything for it, other than voting perhaps.

And maybe perhaps, by paying taxing.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 103):
conservatives will never admit that anyone on welfare should actually be so. I would just ignore it.

Apart from the disabled people really don't need benefits. Benefits just distort human behaviour including what they are willing to work for or study for, how hard/smart they are willing to work and how much they are willing to pay for things.

Benefits in effect just subsidise poverty.

Human's managed to survive for 1000s of years without any of the technology we have today. The notion that people now need benefits to do that is ridiculous.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 103):
CMF, conservatives will never admit that anyone on welfare should actually be so. I would just ignore it.

They want us to let it go. That way they can continue their unsavory act of stealing money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
Of course if someone believes a job is only worth $6 per hour, they are not free to pay what they believe the value of a job is.

They are free to pay anything they want above livable wage. If you have a position where you can't get enough value to cover a livable wage then you are well due to look over your process because you're making other cover your costs and you compete unfairly against responsible companies.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
No it isn't. Where does this idea come from? Absolutely nowhere should it be guaranteed that the ability to show up somewhere and perform a task for eight hours a day will provide a given standard of living.

It absolutely should. Anything else is unfair practices toward workforce, competitors and society.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
It's not abuse. If I buy a stock and it drops to a penny, I have not been abused. Simply having the market not be in your favor is not abuse.

It is abuse because below livable salary isn't fair compensation.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
But for what it's worth, I'm not that interested anyway. If someone does not have the intelligence to do anything more complicated than sweep floors, that isn't my problem.

Why so much contempt for a very important job?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
Working at what? And I know that it's not possible that any of those people are uneducated. Or had substance abuse or legal problems.

As long as they have full time jobs and they perform the assigned tasks it really doesn't matter what they do or if the have substance or legal problems.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 108, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 106):
Human's managed to survive for 1000s of years without any of the technology we have today. The notion that people now need benefits to do that is ridiculous.

SOME human's (sic) have been able to survive for thousands of years. Others died of hunger, or exposure, or disease.

If you accept the concept of a society you must accept that we should try to avoid that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 106):
Benefits in effect just subsidise poverty.

They do in some cases, it's true. In other cases they act as a safety net, allowing people the freedom to take risks and haul themselves up out of poverty. Who is going to risk that when the alternative is starving to death?

I am as appalled as you, believe me, when I see scumbags claiming benefits to buy fags and booze every week. If anything even more so, because it turns the rest of the population against the idea that benefits can be a useful thing. If it was possible to selectively target those people and cut off those benefits, I would be all for it.

The problem is that such a solution invariably costs more money than it saves.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 109, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 108):
SOME human's (sic) have been able to survive for thousands of years. Others died of hunger, or exposure, or disease.

We've had such great advances in technology since that time though it is pretty safe to say that almost every able bodied person in the west could survive these days without benefits. Sure your life might be pretty crap but you could survive quite well, if you really knuckled down to it ...and you would do if you were exposed to the full costs of your lifestyle.

*This is on the assumption that the gov stopped making a mess of the economy and we had a true free market.

[Edited 2013-04-09 12:24:55]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 110, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 105):
And maybe perhaps, by paying taxing.

People collecting welfare are almost certainly in the half of the country that pays basically no federal taxes.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 106):
Benefits just distort human behaviour including what they are willing to work for or study for, how hard/smart they are willing to work and how much they are willing to pay for things.

Benefits in effect just subsidise poverty.

  

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
They are free to pay anything they want above livable wage.

Why? There is not a single reason why a job cannot be worth below a certain threshold. The price of labor is not determined by cost of living but by value to the employer.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
If you have a position where you can't get enough value to cover a livable wage then you are well due to look over your process because you're making other cover your costs and you compete unfairly against responsible companies.

Some jobs just aren't worth that much. Minimum wage is just the government tossing welfare costs on employers. And when you talk about "responsible" companies, it's the ones overpaying for labor that are irresponsible to their shareholders.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Anything else is unfair practices toward workforce, competitors and society.

Companies have no responsibility to society or their competitors and only owe their workforce fair compensation as determined by the market.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
It is abuse because below livable salary isn't fair compensation.

No it isn't. Fair compensation is based on the labor market, not the cost of milk and bread. It's not abuse any more than it is abuse to buy a home for less than the seller paid for it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
Why so much contempt for a very important job?

It's not contempt, it just isn't worth very much.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
As long as they have full time jobs and they perform the assigned tasks it really doesn't matter what they do or if the have substance or legal problems.

No it doesn't, but the reasons someone has a job that pays below a livable wage versus one that pays better often have a lot to do with poor personal decisions, which you believe should be subsidized by employers or taxpayers.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 108):
If you accept the concept of a society you must accept that we should try to avoid that.

Try and avoid it, just don't do it by forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 111, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 109):
We've had such great advances in technology since that time

What technology is that? What technology provides a house to somebody who doesn't earn enough to rent one? What technology provides somebody food who can't afford to buy it? What technology gets medical help to those who can't afford to pay for it?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 109):
*This is on the assumption that the gov stopped making a mess of the economy and we had a true free market.

The true free market does not exist.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 112, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 106):
Human's managed to survive for 1000s of years without any of the technology we have today. The notion that people now need benefits to do that is ridiculous.

Not really, the most unfortunate ones just died from hunger, diseases, cold etc.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 109):
We've had such great advances in technology since that time though it is pretty safe to say that almost every able bodied person in the west could survive these days without benefits. Sure your life might be pretty crap but you could survive quite well, if you really knuckled down to it ...and you would do if you were exposed to the full costs of your lifestyle.

How? If you have no house, no job, don't happen to live in some tropical place where you could grow your own food around the year? Advances in technology don't matter as they cost you money.

Also what about all those people with bad mental problems and such, do you count them as disabled? Sure as hell many of them would never be able to do normal work even if physically they were okay.

The ultimate truth is that some amount of welfare benefits, state funded education for the poor and such are essential to prevent people from getting divided into different classes.

If you born into poor family and lack money to educate yourself you will most likely stay poor no matter how talented you would otherwise be, while way less skillful people born into rich families just get better educated and richer. Thus those born into poor families will stay poor and so will their children too.

The only thing that can stop this continuing cycle is proper state funded education, all the way to university levels and so, it allows even the poorest people to become anything based on their ability and motivation.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 113, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Try and avoid it, just don't do it by forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab.

If you accept it has to be done, there's no other way.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2493 posts, RR: 7
Reply 114, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 64):
Balance the budget
Reduce spending/borrowing
Reduce Unemployment
Lower taxes

Needs congress to act first and put legislation on his desk to sign

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 64):
Work with congress

Have you paid any attention to that conglomeration of fools in the past 8 to 12 years? They aren't willing to work with anyone that doesn't have the same letter (D or R) after their name as they do. Goes for both sides.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 65):
I actually feel bad for POTUS and his family because they can't lead normal lives.

He knew this going in - I have no empathy for him in that regard. His kids, maybe - they got dragged along for the ride.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 68):
Every single dollar Obama has earned in his adult life has been through government coercion.

I'm going to guess he made more than a few bucks off the sales of his books.

This was a symbolic gesture that was pure political grandstanding to be sure. It will give him some ammo next time he has a chat with Boehner and his pals, that's about it.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 115, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 112):
How? If you have no house, no job, don't happen to live in some tropical place where you could grow your own food around the year? Advances in technology don't matter as they cost you money.


In a genuinely free market, why would you not have a job?


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 116, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 115):
In a genuinely free market, why would you not have a job?

Why would you? Or more specifically why would a free market lead to full employment?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 117, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 116):
Why would you? Or more specifically why would a free market lead to full employment?

No benefits - more incentive to work
Low/no taxes - cheaper to hire people
Low/no regulations - easier to hire people
No minimum wage - low paying jobs aren't banned


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3143 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Why? There is not a single reason why a job cannot be worth below a certain threshold. The price of labor is not determined by cost of living but by value to the employer.

Again, because they are taking unfair advantage of someones misfortune.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Some jobs just aren't worth that much

The they shouldn't exist. When the only reason you can survive is by stepping on others then you take resources instead of generating value. Stop the zombies.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Companies have no responsibility to society or their competitors and only owe their workforce fair compensation as determined by the market.

They most certainly do. That is part of being allowed to operate in this society.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
No it isn't. Fair compensation is based on the labor market, not the cost of milk and bread. It's not abuse any more than it is abuse to buy a home for less than the seller paid for it.

Nope, fair minimum compensation is based on living costs in the area where the work takes place. Anything else and you ask other people to subsidize your business.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
It's not contempt, it just isn't worth very much.

It is worth a living wage.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
which you believe should be subsidized by employers or taxpayers.

It is amazing that you still don't get it. I want to get rid of the majority of subsidies. I don't want full time employees to subsidize companies and then requiring to be subsidized by society. If you can't run a company without under living wage salaries then you should not be in business.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
just don't do it by forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab.

You can't avoid the tab. Problems do not go away because you put on blinds.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3139 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 117):
No benefits - more incentive to work

Only of use if the jobs are there, spread perfectly throughout the country based on population- a free market does not achieve this.

Quote:
Low/no taxes - cheaper to hire people

Why would a company hire unnecessary workers rather than keeping the profits? Why would a company not hire workers they needed even if the tax rate is higher (assuming it is graduated rather than stepped)?

Quote:
Low/no regulations - easier to hire people

What sort of regulations?

Quote:
No minimum wage - low paying jobs aren't banned

Only of use if the jobs pay enough to live on. Since minimum wage is already not enough to live on in many parts of the country (as evidenced when people have to have two jobs to support themselves), that's clearly not the case.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 117):

No benefits - more incentive to work
Low/no taxes - cheaper to hire people
Low/no regulations - easier to hire people
No minimum wage - low paying jobs aren't banned

Somalia fits pretty much all of those, yet it has unemployment rate of 54%. Why is that?

Also somebody will be always ready to do that job cheaper abroad, thus companies will move their operations to China, India, maybe some African countries in the future and so on. So unless you are ready to work 12 hours / day for minimum wage as those poor slaves in India & China there's no way you will ever get everybody employed.

Also with minum taxes there obviously wouldn't be proper state funded education system either, thus amount of educated workforce would decrease, after that there would be even less reasons for companies to keep their manufacturing in whatever western country instead of many developing countries with extremely cheap workforce.

Really the best way to compete is to put more money on educating people and that way providing skilled highly educated workers, something that many low income countries still lack.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 121, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 120):
Somalia fits pretty much all of those, yet it has unemployment rate of 54%. Why is that?

It's too dangerous for anybody to be able to do anything there. That has nothing to do with a free market or lack of it.

Practically no countries have a truly free market. It's a mythical concept which doesn't really exist outside of horrible Randian didacts.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 122, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 112):
The only thing that can stop this continuing cycle is proper state funded education,

Which is why the state should fund a quality education system. Not welfare, or higher minimum wages, or punitive taxes on the wealthy. Education.

The catch of course is that people must use it. If they don't I don't care, just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 113):
If you accept it has to be done, there's no other way.

I don't accept that it has to be done. Private charities can handle a lot and I find the government forcing people into an obligation to support others rather distasteful.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
Again, because they are taking unfair advantage of someones misfortune.

What misfortune? Not being smart enough to go to medical school? Any unfairness needs to be ironed out by education. But then what would you do? Institute a "smart tax" since it isn't fair that some people are born with more ability than others?

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
The they shouldn't exist. When the only reason you can survive is by stepping on others then you take resources instead of generating value.

Paying market rate rather than an arbitrarily excessive cost is not stepping on others.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
They most certainly do. That is part of being allowed to operate in this society.

Now you're getting out of control. Companies do not exist with some great charter from all of us. People and companies do not need my permission or yours to exist and do business. To even imply that is incredibly offensive to anyone who values liberty or free will. The idea that for someone to own and operate a business it must be allowed by "society" is quite frankly horseshit.

And capitalism will exist whether anyone gives it permission or not, it's just a matter of how legal it is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
Nope, fair minimum compensation is based on living costs in the area where the work takes place.

The market rate for compensation is set partially by the costs of where the business is done. Doing business in Nashville is always going to be cheaper than doing business in New York, but the government doesn't need to step in. And since you believe so strongly in compensation based on cost of living, you should have no problems with companies that pack up to move elsewhere.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
Anything else and you ask other people to subsidize your business.

That's why welfare should be phased out.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
It is worth a living wage.

Not if the market says it isn't. I think that toilet paper is more useful than Hallmark cards, but that doesn't make it worth more.

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
You can't avoid the tab. Problems do not go away because you put on blinds.

It's going to suck for people who can't or won't support themselves to not be able to live off the government. But that's the way it is. Besides, maybe without a safety net people will hang on a little tighter.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

Obviously, if people needed to work or have no money (from benefits) and there were no restrictions on selling their labour it would be almost impossible for somebody seeking work to not find a willing buyer.

Unemployment is largely a creation of the government.

[Edited 2013-04-09 14:22:04]

[Edited 2013-04-09 14:32:04]

User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 124, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
I don't accept that it has to be done.

Exactly, hence the reason I said "if". I'm aware of your views on this  
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
Obviously, if people needed to work or have no money (from benefits) and there were no restrictions on selling their labour it would be almost impossible for somebody seeking work to find a willing buyer.

Unemployment is largely a creation of the government.

Can you expand this? I must be misreading because it makes no sense to me.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 124):
Can you expand this? I must be misreading because it makes no sense to me.

Have amended slightly.

If you had to work because you weren't getting benefits. And there were no restrictions on what you could earn or the hours you had to work, the conditions, the terms of duration etc etc, and the government wasn't taking a cut of the voluntary agreement, then it would be basically impossible not to find somebody willing to buy your labour.

The only reason unemployment exists is because the government subsidises unemployment, and puts restraints on employment.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 126, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 125):
If you had to work because you weren't getting benefits. And there were no restrictions on what you could earn or the hours you had to work, the conditions, the terms of duration etc etc, and the government wasn't taking a cut of the voluntary agreement, then it would be basically impossible not to find somebody willing to buy your labour.

And can you think of a time in history when that might have been the case? What were the standards of living like for people who had those jobs?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 127, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 126):
And can you think of a time in history when that might have been the case? What were the standards of living like for people who had those jobs?

Why would historical standards of living apply to now?

[Edited 2013-04-09 14:49:44]

User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 128, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 127):
Why would historical standards of living apply to now?

Why wouldn't they? What would arrest the decline of working standards and pay? What would prevent wages from dropping below what is necessary to maintain an acceptable living standard?

History isn't irrelevant just because it's history.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 129, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 128):
What would arrest the decline of working standards and pay?

Market forces, just like with any other job.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 130, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 129):
Market forces, just like with any other job.

How? Be more specific. Would people choose starvation over near-starvation? Homelessness over living in slums? Again, history shows not.

I'm not saying a minimum wage is the entire equation, but you haven't responded to the other parts of post 119 either.

[Edited 2013-04-09 15:13:09]

[Edited 2013-04-09 15:18:00]


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 131, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3092 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Private charities can handle a lot and I find the government forcing people into an obligation to support others rather distasteful.

Private charities are incredibly inefficient. More often than not they are tax deductible parties and a place to ship the owners useless relatives.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
What misfortune? Not being smart enough to go to medical school? Any unfairness needs to be ironed out by education. But then what would you do? Institute a "smart tax" since it isn't fair that some people are born with more ability than others?

Not being able to negotiate as equal.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Paying market rate rather than an arbitrarily excessive cost is not stepping on others.

When you make other people pay for your employee cost it is.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
The market rate for compensation is set partially by the costs of where the business is done. Doing business in Nashville is always going to be cheaper than doing business in New York, but the government doesn't need to step in.

Why I mentioned the area... But your sweeping statement is wrong, again. There are plenty enough things that are more expensive to do in Nashville.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
you should have no problems with companies that pack up to move elsewhere.

I generally don't. Have moved plenty enough companies. But the reason for the move matters. Perfectly fine to do it for taking advantage of infrastructure, etc. Not acceptable if it is to take advantage of peoples poor circumstances.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Not if the market says it isn't.

If the market can't handle a living wage then the company should not have that position.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
It's going to suck for people who can't or won't support themselves to not be able to live off the government. But that's the way it is. Besides, maybe without a safety net people will hang on a little tighter.

It is going to suck for companies even more. Soon enough there is an uprising. Before that you have every other problem in the book. Including not enough people able to buy the companies products.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
Unemployment is largely a creation of the government.

You should work for the comedy channel.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 125):
If you had to work because you weren't getting benefits. And there were no restrictions on what you could earn or the hours you had to work, the conditions, the terms of duration etc etc, and the government wasn't taking a cut of the voluntary agreement, then it would be basically impossible not to find somebody willing to buy your labour.

Then why did they use slaves back in those times? Why did people die left and right from working?

B.t.w. when will you provide the data you promised?


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 132, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3082 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 130):
How? Be more specific.

Ask yourself why you do not work for pittance in appalling working conditions (assuming this is the case) and you will have your answer.

I ignored most of 119 (just like i'm going to ignore post 131) as it contained too many fallacies, so i approached the issue "bottom up".

[Edited 2013-04-09 15:23:59]

User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 133, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 132):
Ask yourself why you do not work for pittance in appalling working conditions (assuming this is the case) and you will have your answer.

Answer- I don't have to. But if I had the choice between nearly starving and actually starving, you can be damn sure I'd pick nearly starving. Do you have a family? Would you work to feed them even if you still went hungry?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 132):
I ignored most of 119 (just like i'm going to ignore post 131) as it contained too many fallacies, so i approached the issue "bottom up".

Then explain those fallacies. That's how debate works. Otherwise it just appears like you're sidestepping.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 134, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 133):
Answer- I don't have to.

I've already told you the answer, market forces. You asked me to expand and i told you to consider why your wages and working conditions aren't being constantly being pushed down - it's the same reason for anyone else.

If you want to learn more about free market economics, Friedman is a good place to start.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 135, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 134):
I've already told you the answer, market forces. You asked me to expand and i told you to consider why your wages and working conditions aren't being constantly being pushed down - it's the same reason for anyone else.

If you want to learn more about free market economics, Friedman is a good place to start.

Thanks for the tip  

Just saying the words "free market forces" isn't enough. You have to understand how those forces actually work, how they affect people and what people's motivations are. A textbook won't always tell you this stuff- you have to have an understanding of human nature and a solid grasp of history.

Again, how do free market forces prevent a situation where employers can offer jobs at positions which pay so little that people live in slums and are malnourished (since their alternative is being homeless and starving)?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 136, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 135):
Again, how do free market forces prevent a situation where employers can offer jobs at positions which pay so little that people live in slums and are malnourished

I have already told you the answer. And i've already offered you a practical example in your own life.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 137, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 136):
I have already told you the answer. And i've already offered you a practical example in your own life.

OK- I can see you're going to obfuscate to avoid elaborating. What about the other parts of post 119 which you labeled "fallacies"? Do you have an answer for those?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 138, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

I have elaborated.

If you went to work and your employer said, "i'm halving your salary". You'd say, ok i'm quitting and going to work for someone who will pay the market rate.

Was that so hard?


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 139, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 138):
I have elaborated.

If you went to work and your employer said, "i'm halving your salary". You'd say, ok i'm quitting and going to work for someone who will pay the market rate.

That's because I do a high-skilled job with very few qualified candidates among many jobs.

Low skilled jobs are never very scarce, especially in this era of outsourcing. More so when people have to take two jobs to survive. When labor availability is high, market forces will push wages down because people have to take what they can get. There is nothing to arrest this slide- market forces are causing it, not preventing it.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 138):
Was that so hard?

Much better- now I don't feel like I'm talking to a cryptic crossword  



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 140, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 139):
Low skilled jobs are never very scarce, especially in this era of outsourcing. More so when people have to take two jobs to survive. When labor availability is high, market forces will push wages down because people have to take what they can get. There is nothing to arrest this slide- market forces are causing it, not preventing it.

Ok let's just clarifying what you're asking here.

Will wages be constantly pushed down? No because market forces are keeping them up and over time purchasing power will rise as technology improves and prices come down.

Will wages be too low for an acceptable standard of living? That is entirely subjective question but they'll certainly be higher than the wages you get when you have no job.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 141, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 140):
Will wages be constantly pushed down? No because market forces are keeping them up

Except as shown above, that only happens when jobs are more plentiful than applicants. Otherwise those forces will do the exact opposite.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 140):
and over time purchasing power will rise as technology improves and prices come down.

It's possible (though there is a limit to how low prices can fall). However if it does, it will simply drive wages lower, since the employers will be able to pay less for the same labor. In other words, purchasing power will track wages.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 140):
Will wages be too low for an acceptable standard of living? That is entirely subjective question but they'll certainly be higher than the wages you get when you have no job.

They will be higher than having no job. As for an acceptable standard of living, that's not really that subjective. If you are so malnourished you die at 30, an employer won't care- plenty more fish in the sea- but few would agree that's an acceptable outcome in a civilized society.

So when will somebody cease to work? At what point will working cease to be worth it? Clearly working for 90% of the food needed to be healthy is worth it, if the alternative is death. What about 50%? 30%? Where is the equilibrium?



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11531 posts, RR: 15
Reply 142, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
Unemployment is largely a creation of the government.

When Target or Wal-Mart hires thousands for Christmas, then fires them in March, that is the government firing them? When two companies merge and redundant jobs are cut, those out of a job are ousted because of government? One could argue the Nummi plant closing was partly government. But, that, too was Toyota cutting costs and increasing profits. Not government.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 143, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3007 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 125):
The only reason unemployment exists is because the government subsidises unemployment, and puts restraints on employment.

Even the healthiest economies will have some level of unemployment.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 128):
What would arrest the decline of working standards and pay?

In the case of work standards, some regulations pertaining to safety, sick leave, and the like would have to remain.

As for drop in pay, it would be rough for commodity labor, the type of jobs that literally anyone with a pulse can do. Commodity is driven entirely by price. After all, how could one make french fries in a fast food joint well enough to justify being paid more?

Quoting cmf (Reply 131):
Private charities are incredibly inefficient. More often than not they are tax deductible parties and a place to ship the owners useless relatives.

Only some of them. Charities run by celebrities and athletes are notorious for not being useful, but other charities do their jobs quite well.

Quoting cmf (Reply 131):
Not being able to negotiate as equal.

Sometimes you don't get to negotiate as an equal. That's just how life and markets are. There are things that one could do to try and gain leverage, however. If you're a high school dropout with no skills and a criminal record, then you don't have leverage.

Quoting cmf (Reply 131):
When you make other people pay for your employee cost it is.

That's why welfare should be deep sixed as well.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 139):
That's because I do a high-skilled job with very few qualified candidates among many jobs.

  

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 139):
Low skilled jobs are never very scarce, especially in this era of outsourcing. More so when people have to take two jobs to survive. When labor availability is high, market forces will push wages down because people have to take what they can get. There is nothing to arrest this slide- market forces are causing it, not preventing it.

The solution is simple: don't be a low skilled worker.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 144, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 132):
I ignored most of 119 (just like i'm going to ignore post 131) as it contained too many fallacies

Rather you can't so you pretend they are not there.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 137):
OK- I can see you're going to obfuscate to avoid elaborating. What about the other parts of post 119 which you labeled "fallacies"? Do you have an answer for those?

Isn't it amazing that the best he can do is claim he has answered it yet can't even provide links to the data he claim he has posted.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
In the case of work standards, some regulations pertaining to safety, sick leave, and the like would have to remain.

Great to see you coming around step by step. Soon enough you will be on our side.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
After all, how could one make french fries in a fast food joint well enough to justify being paid more?

How can you justify partial slavery?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
Only some of them. Charities run by celebrities and athletes are notorious for not being useful, but other charities do their jobs quite well.

Only some, try most of the 1 million plus charities out there. Not even 300 people per charity. Fortunately there are some very efficient and successful. Several of them run by celebrities.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
Sometimes you don't get to negotiate as an equal.

It should never be because one side abuse their power position.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
If you're a high school dropout with no skills and a criminal record, then you don't have leverage.

Not a reason for employers to abuse employees and push the costs to the rest of us.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
That's why welfare should be deep sixed as well.

Some should. Most should remain but be used by many less. The solution certainly isn't to remove them while promoting all the things that made them required.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
The solution is simple: don't be a low skilled worker.

What do you think would happen if no-one did all the "unskilled" jobs? It would be a disaster.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 145, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
Great to see you coming around step by step. Soon enough you will be on our side.

I've never said otherwise. But I'll never advocate Robin Hood government.

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
How can you justify partial slavery?

Slavery isn't something you can do partially, and I don't advocate it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
It should never be because one side abuse their power position.

Using leverage is probably what you mean by "abuse" and that is purely to give it political weight. It's not actually abuse as nobody's getting their rights infringed on.

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
What do you think would happen if no-one did all the "unskilled" jobs? It would be a disaster.

Oh an economy is going to have a hard time without unskilled labor. That doesn't change the fact that being that unskilled labor is going to suck.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 146, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
As for drop in pay, it would be rough for commodity labor, the type of jobs that literally anyone with a pulse can do. Commodity is driven entirely by price. After all, how could one make french fries in a fast food joint well enough to justify being paid more?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 143):
The solution is simple: don't be a low skilled worker.

And I have total respect for your argument. You are consistent, and understand the consequences of your views. I find them personally abhorrent, but that's a personal view and I cannot dispute your position through logic. This applies to practically everything you espouse, although I will still occasionally rib you for it.

What I can't abide are those who espouse the same views but are not prepared to accept the consequences. I can't stand hypocrisy.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 147, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 114):
Needs congress to act first and put legislation on his desk to sign

Oh, BS! He has threatened and even enacted legislation via executive power/order that DOES NOT require their approval. Hell, look at Bush's declaration of 'war' (though he bs 'reworded') without congress' approval... This guy has the power to quit f**king up the world, he just doesnt want to.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 114):
Have you paid any attention to that conglomeration of fools in the past 8 to 12 years? They aren't willing to work with anyone that doesn't have the same letter (D or R) after their name as they do. Goes for both sides.

Oh, I dont doubt they are the greater problem. Our CIC is only partly to blame.

It is still HIGHLY offensive he is only taking a 5% pay CUT while requiring govt employees to take an 11% hit. It is posturing without knowing what actually moves the people.

Our country has so many problems that a REAL leader needs to address, merely pretending to 'feel our pain' with some BS pay cut lower than the rest is stupid.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11531 posts, RR: 15
Reply 148, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 145):
an economy is going to have a hard time without unskilled labor. That doesn't change the fact that being that unskilled labor is going to suck.

What happens when people are told they need a Master's in X. So, 100,000 people get a Master's degree in X. There are 5 positions open requiring a Master's degree in X, but 200,000 for cashiers at Wal-Mart. What you and the right are telling us is, it is just too effin' bad those 199,995 people are out of luck and it is their own fault and they better figure out how to pay $1000 a month in health care at the same time as they are feeding their family and paying rent and getting to work, all on a Wal-Mart cashier salary.

We were also told that if we give all the wealth to the top 1% that they would give us good paying jobs. They have a large majority of wealth, but where are the good paying jobs they promised us?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15717 posts, RR: 26
Reply 149, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 146):
And I have total respect for your argument. You are consistent, and understand the consequences of your views. I find them personally abhorrent, but that's a personal view and I cannot dispute your position through logic.

It's worth pointing out that common parlance is "minimum wage job" not "minimum wage career."

Quoting seb146 (Reply 148):
What happens when people are told they need a Master's in X.

You have to pay attention to who's doing the telling. Law schools will crow about how 95% of their graduates are employed but leave out that most of them are employed by Starbucks. A little due diligence goes a long way.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 148):
What you and the right are telling us is, it is just too effin' bad those 199,995 people are out of luck and it is their own fault and they better figure out how to pay $1000 a month in health care at the same time as they are feeding their family and paying rent and getting to work, all on a Wal-Mart cashier salary

Yes, assuming that those people are useless for anything that requires more skill. Walmart is pretty low on the pyramid, so plenty of people should be able to climb higher.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 148):
We were also told that if we give all the wealth to the top 1% that they would give us good paying jobs.

First of all, we aren't giving them anything. The top 1% are not coming around and stealing from us and simply allowing someone to keep what they've earned by not taxing it (via tyranny of the majority) is not giving them wealth either.

Secondly, and I don't know why you continue to repeat this fallacy, private companies are not jobs programs. Jobs are a means to an end, not the goal itself. Any job that does not further the actual aims of a business simply won't exist, but that's okay because the company doesn't owe you anything anyway.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?