Well I'm not really advocating for us to be as foolish as the US, this will end in disaster, the Japanese are already following, if the ECB does it the crash will happen even quicker.

That might be best, though, to bring about real changes.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 150): That might be best, though, to bring about real changes.

Oh, no, that would require fortitude, wisdom, and will to make a decision. Much easier to blame blame conservatives and continue to promise the moon.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 140): Heck, this headline is a doozey: "EU Faces Highest Social Unrest, Strikes and Riot Risk in the World"

Soon coming to the US if this social injustice continues. We have seen this in history many times before, I like France as an example. Pay the people who do the work. Save your asses while you can, or your head.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 145): You screw over nobody? You've been cashing checks and benefits earned on the labor of others for 16 years!! And you BOAST about it!!!

I will say again, I never screw over anyone. I earned those benefits under US laws, all legal, all earned. I and millions of others. If there is not enough in the funds when you get there, blame the politicians, blame the corporations for sending the jobs overseas and replacing them with poor paying, low tax jobs. I get a chuckle from your replies, thanks for making my day more pleasant.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 144): I have to say I have not found such skepticism in leftists I know - and especially not in a few members of this forum (ahem - you know who they are).

I say old chap, am I one of those who never loses faith, or shows skepticism? Why did I ask that/ Of course I am. I and others are on the side of the downtrodden, the unfortunate, the lowly paid. There are millions of them and growing fast. We are on the side of social justice, how could we be skeptics?   

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 154): I and others are on the side of the downtrodden, the unfortunate, the lowly paid.

I believe you. But I do not believe most of the programs and ideology you espouse serve to help them. If I did I'd be a liberal as well.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 157): I believe you. But I do not believe most of the programs and ideology you espouse serve to help them. If I did I'd be a liberal as well.

I have no problem with that, we all have to go with what we truly believe. We both believe in freedom of thought and speech. A cherished right.  

Quoting cmf (Reply 142): Good for you. Don't expect it when you get here

I don't expect it to be. Not sure why you felt it was necessary to say this considering it was one little bit..

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 144): I have seen some conservatives who believe too easily. Birthers, for instance. But generally they are healthily sceptical - which is why the GOP is so fractured right now - you have at least 4 schools of thought in conflict, and everyone is not willing to simply fall into line. I have to say I have not found such skepticism in leftists I know - and especially not in a few members of this forum (ahem - you know who they are).

I agree with you on all counts. But I think it is more just the tea party vs everybody else. The tea party is destroying the party from the inside. They are the best thing to ever happen to the democrats.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 147): When you approach it like that and get the audience fired up, of course you're gonna think the President is up to no good.

Well that is his job. To get people fired up and to come back. Nobody likes boring shows. You have no desire to come back. But if you get some emotion going, they'll be back. Is the way he goes about it wrong? Yeah, probably. But even those who hate him have to admit he does a good job of getting people to listen.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 147): nstead of the sly, narcissistic politician, I saw a man who loved his country and just had some policies I disagreed with

I think there is a strong belief in some that because you disagree with the President you think he hates America. I know the people close to me who are also conservatives just disagree with his policies. I don't think he hates America at all. I think he loves the country. I just don't agree with how he goes about things is all.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 153): blame the politicians, blame the corporations for sending the jobs overseas and replacing them with poor paying, low tax jobs.

We can also blame the boomers for having less kids. Because the problem is more that less people are paying into the system than ever than it is jobs going overseas. Everybody pays social security if they have a job. We aren't talking about 30% unemployment here.
Pat

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 157): Well that is his job. To get people fired up and to come back.

True. It's possible to fire people up yet not move to an extreme but it definitely helps. (I'm not saying all his political positions are extreme but I think his view on the President is)

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 157): I think there is a strong belief in some that because you disagree with the President you think he hates America.

Agreed. Sorry if I lumped you into that category. There are Obama supporters that often disagree with the President. BUT... there is a nice sized chunk of the population that does harbor quite a bit of hate for the President. You can tell by the things they say. Not saying it's 30% or anything, but definitely a lot of them out there

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 157): We can also blame the boomers for having less kids

A valid point, no doubt. Thank goodness we do not have more unemployment than we do. I will say, when you shop, and look at the labels of origin, I am surprised we do not have more. I am an expert on finding labels of origin, no matter where they hide them.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 147): They don't even have to agree with the President, they just realize he's not a bad guy and the GOP goes way too off the deep end describing him.

Which is why I would rather listen to what you have to say than some others.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 141): Then why the heck listen to her?

She does not spend her whole three hours telling us how awful Obama and Democrats are. She talks about other things like Fukushima and what the right is not doing in Congress.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 141): At least I can come out and say the right is wrong on things.

Like? Guns? Gay rights? Abortion?

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 141): There is Fox everywhere, just like MSNBC. There is the Huff Po everywhere, just like the drudge report.

If you limit your search strictly to the internet, yes. However, if you listen to AM radio and watch TV and don't go on the web much, you are wrong. Give it a try.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 141): Like I said, you work to get a degree in demand

And, when they do, they still have to get a low wage job because the jobs they trained for were either shipped overseas or given to contractors who do the work for six months and then are given to someone else. That is why Google is so profitable. They contract their work. Contracts end.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 97): No. Slave wages would be $0 per hour. That's what a slave is.

Erm....No...Far from it.

Slavery is about choice, freedom and self-determination.

When I was looking at work experience as part of my degree there were many companies willing to offer me a position at zero salary (plus expenses) That wouldn't have made me a slave as I could have walked away if I chose.
Most charity workers are on zero salary but they aren't slaves.

If we look at history for the Romans a slave could save enough from their income/allowance to buy their freedom. They had income but not the freedom to leave. The owner also had a duty to house, clothe and feed them. Slaves had less freedom but more protections than the common people.
In Roman times and also now in some cultures people sell themselves as slaves to improve their position in life.

In feudal times many of the lord's household were unpaid. They were housed, fed and clothed but not paid. They were not slaves because they had the freedom to leave at any time they chose.
Serfs on the other hand were also not paid. They worked a certain portion of the time for their lord and in return they had a lodging and land. They had to work this land in their time off to feed themselves and their families. The lord had no duty to clothe or feed them so financially they were potentially worse off than slaves but they also had the right to leave if they chose.

This freedom of self-determination or lack thereof is a key point in defining slavery.

If due to the ecomonic climate people feel that they have no choice, no opportunity to change then psychologically they experience a form of slavery. Theoretically they do have the freedom to leave and make a change but if the opportunity, the jobs aren't there then practically their choices can be very limited. They may not actually be slaves as we define it but sometimes the difference is really a matter of semantics.

From the dictionary in front of me: Slave : 4) a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay.

Quoting Philby (Reply 161): Slavery is about choice, freedom and self-determination.

Except he said "slave wages." Pretty much everyone has no choice but to work in order to survive. Being paid little to do a menial job does not make one like a slave.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 162): Being paid little to do a menial job does not make one like a slave.

I refer you to my post above.

Quoting Philby (Reply 161): If due to the ecomonic climate people feel that they have no choice, no opportunity to change then psychologically they experience a form of slavery. Theoretically they do have the freedom to leave and make a change but if the opportunity, the jobs aren't there then practically their choices can be very limited. They may not actually be slaves as we define it but sometimes the difference is really a matter of semantics.

That's not slavery, that's LIFE! Poor wittle baby's life did not turn out to be all roses? Take two slaps and call me in the morning.

Quoting Philby (Reply 161): From the dictionary in front of me: Slave : 4) a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay.

Show me someone in the US who is truely in slavery - forced labor, threats of violence and death if they don't, or try to leave, and I'll be the first in line to help bust him out. But by your definition, a lot of entrepreneurs are actually slaves - especially in the restaurant business, where all the cash flow goes to the employees and suppliers, and there is little or nothing left over for the owner, but he has to spend 18 hours a day at the restaurant or else he loses everything.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): Always easy to hide behind undefined issues.

What's there to hide behind? You can't think of issues on your own that might lead to one being reliant on social assistant for a time?

Well, here's a few:
- brought up poor with no support system
- recently released from prison
- a veteran who couldn't find meaningful work after returning home

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): reality is that they try to make the best they can. get as much money they can by working as many jobs as they possibly can. Not every single one of them but the vast majority. And it is still not enough. That is the real problem.

Trying to make the best they can would be looking to better themselves rather than "settling for the tie". I refer you back to those educational programs previously mentioned.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): This isn't a fix as we actually need most of those low-paying jobs performed.

Right...but filled by teens, the disabled, and people who are just looking for something to do. I will never advocate for anyone who walks into a burger joint looking for a long-term solution.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): That they don't understand the definition is their problem. The definition is what I posted.

Doesn't mean that's how it's used in practice. But it's good to know that every word in your vocabulary is used strictly within the confines of its definition.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): Do you agree laws punishing burglars and murderers are worth having? It is the same principle.

It's really not, because there's no argument that supports the notion that getting rid of those laws would reduce burglary and murder, that's indisputable. But the question of legislated pay raises is highly disputable.

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): Seems to me you think the government is an entity with its' own agenda.

It's not?

Quoting cmf (Reply 87): Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85): You think that's how most CEO got to where they are? If so, I've got more than a few CEOs in contact book you should meet... No idea what point you think you made.

You're being blindly accusatory of people you apparently know very little about. I'm telling you I know many successful/wealthy individuals who didn't get to where they are through "greed, power, old boys network, and so on".

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 92): 15 dollars an hour as I said earlier is still slave ages in a one wage earner household in the US

Are you shitting me?! I make around that much working for a NFP and I'm doing just fine. I don't take vacations, but I'm able to feed/house myself, pay my cell phone bills, go out with friends, and put gas in my car. I also make monthly repayments for my student debt. I also happen to live in a province with higher consumer taxes than the US, to boot!

But apparently I'm making slave wages?   

Quoting mad99 (Reply 133): Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129): Maybe they're happy being unemployed. That's funny! Next time i see a unemployment protest that's what i'm going to tell them.

To be fair, there are some people that enjoy being unemployed. When I was 19 I worked with a guy who maintained a sheet counting down the hours worked until he qualified for unemployment benefits, at which point he planned on getting fired so he could live off those monthly cheques. I left for school before seeing if he succeeded in his plan.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 137): The left is more likely to say "That could be right but I'll check anyway."

I look forward to seeing how you backup that statement.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): ?! I make around that much working for a NFP and I'm doing just fine.

You realize he is talking about a family right? that 15 bucks goes to dual minimum wage. If you have kids, it dwindles even faster.

For a single person 15 bucks an hour Is good. I had to live on that as a single person for about 2 years, working part time. It is definitely doable, but there isn't too much fancy about it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 146): Because Europeans hate investing? What do they think entitles them to someone else's money? It isn't theirs, so they should keep their hands to themselves.

What does that have to do with anything that I said? If you are gonna use the same soundbites over and over, at least make sure they are relevant to what I am saying, or to the realities in this world.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 164): That's not slavery, that's LIFE! Poor wittle baby's life did not turn out to be all roses? Take two slaps and call me in the morning.

Because of something someone else did? We have been told to not tax the super rich because they are job creators. We have to give our money to the job creators so they can create jobs. Now, you are saying it is the workers' fault those jobs are not being created and the workers have to take low wage jobs to survive? Typical right-wing response: blame the workers.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 164): But by your definition, a lot of entrepreneurs are actually slaves -

Collins English Dictionary

My point was that slave is a more complex term than $0 per hour = slave / slave = $0 per hour.

In the case of the entrepreneur they may be slaving away 18 hours a day but mostly they can choose to walk away. The choice to become an entrepreneur suggests a mentality that is aware that they have a choice. If not they can always claim to be slaves to the system.  

Around and around we go., ring around the Rosie, except the ring is the circle of low paying, dead end jobs created by the job creators, who want tax subsidies to create those same shit jobs. I am amazed at the stubbornness of the people unwilling to admit the country is getting screwed over by subsidizing these type of jobs. We give the so called job creators, special tax cuts, they then create jobs that need government money for those working those jobs. Welfare and food stamps. The job creators are being subsidized twice on the government dime. which I might point out is our dime. So we give them tax breaks, and we give their workers welfare and food stamps.

We are getting screwed over twice my fellow Americans. I love the Titans of economics, and government experts and the pros of labor management we have on here defending a system of exploitation, first of us and our government, and then the workers. Laughable if it was not so sad, and enraging at the same time.

[Edited 2013-10-30 09:09:42]

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 92):15 dollars an hour as I said earlier is still slave ages in a one wage earner household in the US Are you shitting me?! I make around that much working for a NFP and I'm doing just fine. I don't take vacations, but I'm able to feed/house myself, pay my cell phone bills, go out with friends, and put gas in my car. I also make monthly repayments for my student debt. I also happen to live in a province with higher consumer taxes than the US, to boot! But apparently I'm making slave wages?

Here, you would be, you are there, I am here. Do not presume to make such judgments about the economy in which I live, and have for all my life. I will say again, you will live like a Pauper here on 15 bucks an hour in a single family household. I would hate to tell you what I earned an hour, and I have been retired for 16 years in January. Union wages. Now if you can survive, good for you. If you ever do feel the need to live in poverty, move here making 15 bucks an hour. You will then be qualified to judge. Not now.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 171): I will say again, you will live like a Pauper here on 15 bucks an hour in a single family household. I would hate to tell you what I earned an hour, and I have been retired for 16 years in January. Union wages.

I presume that as a long-time Union member, you had a skill? A metal-worker, perhaps - something that took you years to master? That made your job more valuable than minimum wage - presumably much more so.

The people working at McDonalds are not in the same league. Someone who has been taking orders at the drive through for 10 years will probably be no better at it than someone who has only done it for a month.

It's a matter of using your educational years to learn how to do something useful. If you don't have one because your family was poor and you had to go to work at age 14, I feel for you and would do what I can to help. If you went to college and got a degree in Art History, I have no pity for you - you had your chance and you wasted it, and it's your fault that you are stuck shuffling french fries.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 166): You realize he is talking about a family right? that 15 bucks goes to dual minimum wage. If you have kids, it dwindles even faster.

My paycheque is addressed to WestJet747, not WestJet747's Family. Employers pay the individual for the individual's work. Family shouldn't even come into the equation when considering how much to pay someone.

On that note, there's the whole other issue of people having kids when they can't afford them. If an individual can live comfortably on a specific wage, you can't consider it "slave wage" just because that person selfishly decided to have more kids than they could support at that wage.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 171): Here, you would be, you are there, I am here. Do not presume to make such judgments about the economy in which I live, and have for all my life. I will say again, you will live like a Pauper here on 15 bucks an hour in a single family household. I would hate to tell you what I earned an hour, and I have been retired for 16 years in January. Union wages. Now if you can survive, good for you. If you ever do feel the need to live in poverty, move here making 15 bucks an hour. You will then be qualified to judge. Not now.

So where is "here" then?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 172): I presume that as a long-time Union member, you had a skill? A metal-worker, perhaps - something that took you years to master? That made your job more valuable than minimum wage - presumably much more so. The people working at McDonalds are not in the same league. Someone who has been taking orders at the drive through for 10 years will probably be no better at it than someone who has only done it for a month.

Excellent point.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): What's there to hide behind? You can't think of issues on your own that might lead to one being reliant on social assistant for a time? Well, here's a few: - brought up poor with no support system - recently released from prison - a veteran who couldn't find meaningful work after returning home

And which of those should not be fixed by working full time? Be that McD, someone else or in combination with. The part of my answer you ignored...

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): Trying to make the best they can would be looking to better themselves rather than "settling for the tie". I refer you back to those educational programs previously mentioned.

So you think they should not take those jobs? Who will do those jobs then? And it doesn't explain why those jobs should not pay a living wage. Or why we should let some companies get away with paying less than living wages. Why should they be subsidised like that? What should their customers be subsidised like that? If the product isn't valuable enough to cover living wages then it should die.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): Right...but filled by teens, the disabled, and people who are just looking for something to do. I will never advocate for anyone who walks into a burger joint looking for a long-term solution.

If they can't pay a living wage then they should not exist.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): Doesn't mean that's how it's used in practice.

It is how it is used by everyone but the uneducated.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): It's really not, because there's no argument that supports the notion that getting rid of those laws would reduce burglary and murder, that's indisputable. But the question of legislated pay raises is highly disputable.

It really is the same principle. Only difference is that one has been implemented and the other suffer from the "earth is flat" syndrome.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): It's not?

How can it be? It isn't an individual. It is the only entity every adult citizen has the right to influence. Unlike companies where only owners have that right and often most of the owners are excluded.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): You're being blindly accusatory of people you apparently know very little about. I'm telling you I know many successful/wealthy individuals who didn't get to where they are through "greed, power, old boys network, and so on".

Never said it covered everyone, did I? But the things I listed play a big role in why the income disparity is increasing.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): To be fair, there are some people that enjoy being unemployed.

Outliers. The way to fix problems isn't to exclude the smart solutions because of them. Implement the smart solutions and then deal with outliers separately.

http://news.msn.com/us/many-fast-foo...rkers-need-public-assistance-study

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 173): So where is "here" then?

In Rhode Island, the smallest state, with high costs of living, including tax burdens. When you get through paying taxes, federal and state on 15 dollars an hour, and buying the basics of life, paying for transport, paying for healthcare etc. You will not own a house, you will rent. You will not own a new car, never, with the sales tax, registration, insurance, fee's . You will not go on vacation etc. You will need public assistance, if you have any children. If you do not, you will survive, probably living with Mom and Dad. I am talking about a lone wage earner, not two wages. I just remembered, at the coffee shop where I have coffee, the girl there works two jobs, at minimum salary, and tips. She works 60 hours a week, husband gone. She has a 7 year old. She has told me, that without her family, helping with childcare, and living with Mom and Dad, she would be on welfare. She is not because of family help. She said God Bless my family. Many more do not have that support, many more.

[Edited 2013-10-30 13:45:05]

[Edited 2013-10-30 13:47:10]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 172): The people working at McDonalds are not in the same league. Someone who has been taking orders at the drive through for 10 years will probably be no better at it than someone who has only done it for a month.

I certainly agree.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 172): It's a matter of using your educational years to learn how to do something useful. If you don't have one because your family was poor and you had to go to work at age 14, I feel for you and would do what I can to help. If you went to college and got a degree in Art History, I have no pity for you - you had your chance and you wasted it, and it's your fault that you are stuck shuffling french fries.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 172): If you don't have one because your family was poor and you had to go to work at age 14, I feel for you and would do what I can

I applaud you on your offer of help for the unfortunate, I feel the same. Unfortunately charity will not be enough, too big, too widespread.


Absolutely, in many cases, millions in fact, circumstance is the cause of continuing poverty, no choice, no opportunity. We let this system continue, and fester. In my opinion, where this is the case, these people through no fault of their own are exploited to enrich others. It has always been so. I do not think it is morally right. I think it is evil in fact, and unconscionable.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 158): It's possible to fire people up yet not move to an extreme but it definitely helps. (I'm not saying all his political positions are extreme but I think his view on the President is)

You have a point, but he found something that brings the listeners in.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 158): Sorry if I lumped you into that category.

You didn't! No worries.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 158): BUT... there is a nice sized chunk of the population that does harbor quite a bit of hate for the President. You can tell by the things they say. Not saying it's 30% or anything, but definitely a lot of them out there

Oh absolutely. I see it to a fair degree living in a conservative state. But some act like there are protests acting for his resignation all the time.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 159): I will say, when you shop, and look at the labels of origin, I am surprised we do not have more. I am an expert on finding labels of origin, no matter where they hide them.

I buy American as much as the next guy. But I do also appreciate the fact that we live in a global economy now though.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 160): and what the right is not doing in Congress.

Ah, of course.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 160): Like? Guns? Gay rights? Abortion?

Guns I'm for background checks, I think gay's deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, and I'm indifferent on abortion. What else do you have? It is possible to be moderate in social issues and conservative in fiscal issues and not have the two clash.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 160): However, if you listen to AM radio and watch TV and don't go on the web much, you are wrong. Give it a try.

I don't even.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 160): And, when they do, they still have to get a low wage job because the jobs they trained for were either shipped overseas or given to contractors who do the work for six months and then are given to someone else. That is why Google is so profitable. They contract their work. Contracts end.

Um read what I said again. Why not go back to school and learn a new skill?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 164): Show me someone in the US who is truely in slavery - forced labor, threats of violence and death if they don't, or try to leave, and I'll be the first in line to help bust him out.

Well I kind of got in deep with the maffia, help!   

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 165): I also happen to live in a province with higher consumer taxes than the US, to boot!

Are you one of the Canadians that raids our Targets and Walmarts every weekend? .

Quoting seb146 (Reply 168): Typical right-wing response: blame the workers.

Typical left wing response. Blame the rich. I miss when personal responsibility meant something.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 170): We give the so called job creators, special tax cuts, they then create jobs that need government money for those working those jobs.

You basically get two options with those contracts. You either hand them a massive contract with provisions for worker pay or you stay on the current track and pay them along with providing food stamps. Either way the government is paying for it.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 173): Family shouldn't even come into the equation when considering how much to pay someone.

Ding-ding! My choices to have or to not have children should not be considered in my pay. Only my performance. With that mentality should we pay single people less for doing the same job because they don't have a family at home?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 173): On that note, there's the whole other issue of people having kids when they can't afford them. If an individual can live comfortably on a specific wage, you can't consider it "slave wage" just because that person selfishly decided to have more kids than they could support at that wage.

Another excellent point. Listen having a family is wonderful. I cherish the time I have with my family. But you are doing a child a disservice by bringing him or her into the world when you don't have the money to support them fully.

Quoting cmf (Reply 174): Or why we should let some companies get away with paying less than living wages.

I asked this somewhere but I don't think anybody responded. Are these companies doing something illegal by paying minimum wage? Because last time I checked minimum wage is the legal minimum to which an employer can pay someone. If the wages are too low call up your senator and try to get something in action to raise them. But as of right now they are paying what is legally acceptable in this country.
Pat

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 175): You will not own a house, you will rent. You will not own a new car, never, with the sales tax, registration, insurance, fee's . You will not go on vacation etc. You will need public assistance, if you have any children. If you do not, you will survive, probably living with Mom and Dad. I am talking about a lone wage earner, not two wages.

Yup, that's life in Western Europe for a lot of people.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with renting a house. Only in the US and in Brazil do I see this weird fetish with home ownership. Must be a big country thing. Crazy.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 178): By the way, there is nothing wrong with renting a house. Only in the US and in Brazil do I see this weird fetish with home ownership. Must be a big country thing. Crazy.

I agree. Having owned four houses in Europe and the US, and now renting, I can say I am the happier for it. No worries.

If you know for certain that you are going to live someplace for the rest of your life (i.e. you are retired) fine, own a home. Renting ensures your mobility. If I get a better job offer someplace, I can be out of here in a month, without looking back. Unlike one of my houses which took over 2 years to unload at a tremendous loss.

And new cars? Even worse. The last new car I bought new was in 1998 (My wife insisted). Used cars are minimum half the price, and if you look around, just like new.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 178): weird fetish with home ownership.

It's usually cost effective, especially now when housing prices are low. I'm getting a house but will only be here for a few years. I foresee making a nice profit, but as long as I don't lose more than, IDK, $50K all said and done on the house, it will be cheaper than renting all these years. Maybe it's just an American thing, but I don't see why I should pay someone else and never recoup that money when I can basically pay myself (buy a house - pay mortgage - sell the house and make your money back)

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 180): It's usually cost effective, especially now when housing prices are low. I'm getting a house but will only be here for a few years. I foresee making a nice profit, but as long as I don't lose more than, IDK, $50K all said and done on the house, it will be cheaper than renting all these years.

There are advantages to home ownership. I sold a house a while back after 8+ years of owning it including the recession, for the same price I bought it, including realtor's fees Sure, I paid some interest, but it was better than renting. My new home is already worth 20 K more than I paid for it.


I will say this though. Make sure when you buy that it is properly sized. I did not plan well enough when I bought my last house for my family growing so large. That being said, it was a good run while it lasted.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 181): I will say this though. Make sure when you buy that it is properly sized. I did not plan well enough when I bought my last house for my family growing so large. That being said, it was a good run while it lasted.

I'll only be here 4-8 years. I do not plan on outgrowing the house anytime soon (it's a 3 bed/2 bath house with an extra room as an office, so if I manage to make more than 2 kids in that amount of time and outgrow the house I have issues   )

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 177): I miss when personal responsibility meant something.

"IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!" sound familiar?

BTW, what is the right wing response to ACA? What is the right doing about reducing debt and deficit? What is the right doing to bring jobs back to the United States?

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 177): Guns I'm for background checks, I think gay's deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, and I'm indifferent on abortion. What else do you have? It is possible to be moderate in social issues and conservative in fiscal issues and not have the two clash.

Yes. And those people are called either America hating "liberals" or RINOs.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 177): Why not go back to school and learn a new skill?

That is why people go to school in the first place. To learn things like engineering or computer programming or social sciences and education. But, since those jobs are shipped overseas, the only option is low wage jobs at Wal-Mart or McDonalds. You people keep complaining about no jobs. Do something about it instead of blaming Obama.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 180): It's usually cost effective, especially now when housing prices are low. I'm getting a house but will only be here for a few years. I foresee making a nice profit, but as long as I don't lose more than, IDK, $50K all said and done on the house, it will be cheaper than renting all these years. Maybe it's just an American thing, but I don't see why I should pay someone else and never recoup that money when I can basically pay myself (buy a house - pay mortgage - sell the house and make your money back)

With the government subsidizing mortgages, that may be true.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 178): Only in the US and in Brazil do I see this weird fetish with home ownership.

It's big in the UK as well.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 177): Are these companies doing something illegal by paying minimum wage?

I don't recall anyone claiming it to be illegal, only that the legal level is possibly immoral.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 177): Are these companies doing something illegal by paying minimum wage?

It flies in the face of what the party stands for. Look at the standard bearers of the party. They claim the United States is based upon the Christian Bible. They claim the United States is a Christian nation. By giving people who are trying to support their families less than what they need these same "Christians" are saying "Screw you, lazy people! You need to work more! Jesus said so!" But, did He really? It flies in the face of everything they say they stand for. They warp everything all out of proportion, too. They say "liberals" just live off the government, but they don't understand that "living off the government" means they MUST have income. They must WORK and CONTRIBUTE. But, that does not fit their narrative of hate and their definition of "Christianity".

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 178): By the way, there is nothing wrong with renting a house. Only in the US and in Brazil do I see this weird fetish with home ownership. Must be a big country thing. Crazy.

Nothing wrong with renting, but owning is way better (here at least).

- Tax deduction
- Economic security (not subject to rent increases, build equity over time)
- You're not subject to moving out at the whim of your landlord
- You can plant whatever you want in the yard, hang pictures, paint, make modifications etc.

I've lived in 10 different dwellings over the past 20 years (military) and it feels GREAT to finally settle down. I've been leaving houses and apartments 'better for the next guy' over and over again but now I know for example that I will be the one enjoying the new deck we just put on the back of the house for years to come.

And there is something to be said for being the king of your own castle and owner of land, as humble as it may be.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 187): And there is something to be said for being the king of your own castle and owner of land, as humble as it may be.

Must be a closet Englishman!

(Old Adage - An Englishman's home is his castle)

Having purchased a house that was ecomonical due to a) being over 400 years old and b) a little delapidated it's great to be able to renovate and customise. All the kitchen and bathroom furniture we hand-made ourselves (it's an exact fit for the curvature of the walls and therefore unuseable anywhere else). There are trees planted that will be very fruitful in 5-30 years time adn the vines will mature in a few years. There's now a nice custom-built darkroom in the attic space.

It's good to have personal space. Although that said, it's tough on a measly engineers wage.

Quoting Philby (Reply 188): Must be a closet Englishman! (Old Adage - An Englishman's home is his castle)

Perhaps! I'm mostly of Irish descent with some English/German mixed in (I think).

Quoting Philby (Reply 188): a) being over 400 years old

Needless to say we don't have that kind of opportunity here...my place is from the 1980s, not the 1580s  

Quoting Philby (Reply 188): Although that said, it's tough on a measly engineers wage.

Definitely have to "pace yourself"...which is what I keep telling my wife. Let's just say she has a strong nesting instinct.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 187): - Tax deduction

That's an artificial incentive.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 187): - Economic security (not subject to rent increases, build equity over time)

1. Your budget becomes significantly inflexible because of large mortgage payments. Better hope for no significant income fluctuations.
2. If you get an ARM, payment increases are possible.
3. Alternative investments generate earnings. Houses generate expenses.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 187): - You're not subject to moving out at the whim of your landlord

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 187): - You can plant whatever you want in the yard, hang pictures, paint, make modifications etc.

That is true. There are some small advantages to renting as well, but I understand the feeling that owning a home is better. However, it comes with huge expenses and it's not always a wise investment.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 190): That is true. There are some small advantages to renting as well, but I understand the feeling that owning a home is better. However, it comes with huge expenses and it's not always a wise investment.

Everywhere I seem to have lived have a lot of trees. Owning a house, I was constantly worried that a storm or a dead limb would put a hole in the roof (Except in Switzerland where I had these old clay tiles that would probably bounce off a crashing airplane). The big problem in the US is that while houses are relatively cheap - the biggest reason they are cheap is that they are built so flimsily. Just a lot of 2x4s and sheet rock. Roof tiles are hardly more than thick tar paper. US homes, generally speaking, are crap. Sure, they are very pretty and they'll have nice features (nicer than in Europe, generally), but it feels like it's made of cardboard.

When I first moved to the US I got with an architect and asked if he would go into a venture with me - building homes in the US but basically with Swiss construction standards. Floors and load-bearing walls would use reinforced concrete instead of 2x4s, for example. I showed him all the specs. He said that there might be a tiny niche market, but you would never be able to sell them at a reasonable price (to cover costs) on the open market, because realty agents just want to know how many rooms, square footage and general condition. Whether the house is made of cardboard or built to last 500 years, they don't care and they set the prices.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 191): Sure, they are very pretty and they'll have nice features (nicer than in Europe, generally), but it feels like it's made of cardboard.

Funny you say that, because when I first moved to the US, I described them as luxury "favelas"! Extreme, I know, but the plywood feel reminded me of just that.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 186): They warp everything all out of proportion, too.

And you just warped the GOP's stance out of proportion, again. Please, find out what they really stand for and portray it accurately. I've never met any right winger that holds the view you just described. Now I disagree with a lot on the right, but I at least understand what they believe

You're doing the exact same thing as the people that say everyone on the left is a whiny liberal that wants to live off the government because they're lazy. You know that's not true so make an effort to not do the exact same thing against the other side

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 193): And you just warped the GOP's stance out of proportion, again. Please, find out what they really stand for and portray it accurately. I've never met any right winger that holds the view you just described. Now I disagree with a lot on the right, but I at least understand what they believe

It seems you only read the last few words of my post.

Writing the list of disclaimers for my posts would take a long time. First off, there is a small and vocal group of right wing extremists who control the media. They control the talking points. Also, there are a million shades of grey and not just one solid answer. Keeping that in mind, go back and read my entire post, please.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 194): Keeping that in mind, go back and read my entire post, please.

I did. Not even the weirdos in the party say that. What you were saying could not logically exist in someone's head, people must have justifications for what they do. I read a study about it once... if you keep doing something that goes against your beliefs it will eat away at you until you stop doing it or until you change your beliefs. Your definition of being a good Christian may differ from theirs, but no one is going around yelling "screw you lazy people!" They don't even think that, while you may think their actions do screw the poor, it isn't in their minds

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 184): With the government subsidizing mortgages, that may be true.

I am glad you agree, the government subsidizes many things including fast food, on which this thread is based.

Quoting Philby (Reply 185): I don't recall anyone claiming it to be illegal, only that the legal level is possibly immoral.

An excellent point, not illegal, nobody claimed it was, but now is it immoral? I think so, especially where they are using government subsidy to enrich themselves, off the back of taxpayers. The whole point of this discussion.. We could mention many more subsidies, like the flood insurance program for flood prone areas, which basically is for the wealthy, so they can replace their home with bigger homes on our money once again.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): "IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!" sound familiar?

Considering he has set the course in regard to regulation he can certainly be put at fault. Personal responsibility would be obeying those laws and regulations. Which these companies who pay minimum wage are doing.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): BTW, what is the right wing response to ACA? What is the right doing about reducing debt and deficit? What is the right doing to bring jobs back to the United States?

What has the left done to make the ACA work? It's a freaking mess. The republicans have been trying to reduce the debt. Remember the shut down? What is the left doing to bring jobs back? I don't think regulating the hell out of everything accomplishes bringing jobs back.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): Yes. And those people are called either America hating "liberals" or RINOs.

Those people? I was talking about myself. You talk like I'm an angry conservative, but yet now say I should be considered a liberal or a RINO. So what am I in your book? For the record I find it funny you consider those stances would make me a RINO. I was tagged as a fascist in my liberal home town.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): To learn things like engineering or computer programming or social sciences and education. But, since those jobs are shipped overseas, the only option is low wage jobs at Wal-Mart or McDonalds. You people keep complaining about no jobs. Do something about it instead of blaming Obama.

You keep on disregarding what I am saying and yet saying I'm blaming Obama. You look too hard for blame on Obama. I said to take the personal responsibility and go back to school and become educated in a field that is in demand. Where in the heck did I blame Obama for that?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 193): And you just warped the GOP's stance out of proportion, again. Please, find out what they really stand for and portray it accurately. I've never met any right winger that holds the view you just described.

  . I respect the position of the left. I don't agree with it, but that is their view. But it is insane some of the conclusions brought up in regard to the right.
Pat

This surely must be one of the most bizarre premises I've ever seen; the notion that employers whose employees earn wages which are low enough that the employee qualifies for taxpayer-funded public assistance (AFDC, food stamps, etc.) are somehow being "subsidized" by the government is simply ridiculous.

Let's run with this, though: let us say that, in order to make things "fairer," every job performed by people with minimal skills has a mandatory increase in pay to a level deemed "adequate" or "fair"; presumably, this would put these workers into a pay level which is commensurate with other workers in the marketplace who possess greater education, skill, experience or other marketable attributes. Even the most committed apologist for these doctrines would not suggest that people who have committed themselves to self-improvement through education, hard work and discipline should not be rewarded for their energy and enterprise, so at this point, it would become mandatory that these higher skilled, better qualified wage earners receive a concomitant increase in their pay, in order to assign the appropriate value (in relation to the new, higher value given to the work of the inexperienced and untrained entry-level workers, the poor suffering abused people at McDonald's or Walmart) to the higher skilled, better qualified wage earners.

You see where this is going, don't you?

Just as you cannot increase the wealth extant in the economy by simply printing more money, you also cannot increase the inherent value of any given workers labor and contribution by simply giving them more money; all you really do is devalue the very currency with which they are paid. Ultimately, all you'll achieve is an increase in the cost of everything we needed, use and purchase, such that, while the numbers on the paychecks maybe larger, the quantity of "stuff" that can be purchased with the pay is no greater.

But, it's great fun to rag on McDonald's, isn't it?

By the way, if you want to make a lot more money working at McDonald's (or Starbucks or Burger King or Walmart) than you ever expected, try living in and around Midland, Texas, where the desperate shortage of labor (both skilled and unskilled) has led to a huge increase in wages paid. A great deal, as long as you don't have to pay the going price for "cost-of-living" items as well; homes, apartments and other means of shelter are incredibly costly just now. A few weeks ago, I had a business trip to Midland, and after aggressive shopping, I was able to secure a room at the La Quinta, one which might run me 80 bucks or so in Dallas, but I had to pay $290 for a room night.

I hear the same thing is happening in the South Dakota oil patch, as well.

The market, she's a smart girl!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 186): It flies in the face of what the party stands for. Look at the standard bearers of the party. They claim the United States is based upon the Christian Bible.

Have never seen that party plank; can you cite to it? I know plenty of people who are Republicans, and are not of the Christian faith. I believe you are mistaken here

Quoting seb146 (Reply 186): They claim the United States is a Christian nation.

Ibid. I have never seen any indication of a claim like this as part of the Republican Party platform or policy; by all means, feel free to educate each and all of us.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 186): By giving people who are trying to support their families less than what they need these same "Christians" are saying "Screw you, lazy people! You need to work more! Jesus said so!"

This is just getting silly now; where are you getting this from?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 186): They say "liberals" just live off the government, but they don't understand that "living off the government" means they MUST have income. They must WORK and CONTRIBUTE.

I believe you are getting a couple of different concepts confused here; while the standards of performance and productivity for government employees tended to be less demanding than for positions of similar responsibility in private enterprise (if for no other reason then the governmental entity, generally, cannot fail, while an unproductive private enterprise, by definition, will fail), the vast majority of government jobs, just like private sector jobs, require that the employee perform their job function ("work"), in order to earn a paycheck.

That said, of course, the more fundamental reality is that, with very few (and extremely limited) exceptions, work performed in the public sector is not "productive" work, which is to say, work performed in the government sector consumes resources which the government has only by virtue of having extracted those resources by force of law from productive, private enterprise. That doesn't mean nothing the government does is of value; it simply means that, in order for any resources to be available for a government job to be done, there must be a substantially greater quantum of resources being generated through productive private enterprise.

http://answers.ask.com/Society/NonProfit/what_is_a_humanitarian.


One has to admit, that corporations are people. Mitt said that. One has to admit that people are human. Now corporations are people, people are human. The question is if corporations are people, and people are human, what the hell happened to (Human)itarianism? You see the word human in it, do you not ? Now if our blessed country was born on Christian Principles, as the right are so eager to point out, and they sure are. What happened to them? They are surely lacking in business, and in some minds. I find hypocrisy in a person going to church, donating to that church, and yet exploiting people, and yes even in that church they attend. Wait, wait I see now, one has to forget Christian Principle and use business principle. Of course we have Biblical principle also, see link below. Which this man claims works in business, his business of course.






http://kscetv.com/archives/3638