I give the Chinese better odds of hitting the mark than Obama. Then they will be joining our textiles industries that went there as well. Pakistan in particular is becoming a center for that. At least they are doing something right vis a vis the people in that country--creating jobs. I read a study a few years back dealing with gender imbalances in society. IIRC when the male population gets about 5% higher than the female population you see more violence across the board until something like a war throws things back into equilibrium. It wasn't about China, but far more longitudinal based on all societies over time for which they could find data on. The migration of strong back weak mind workers from rural areas to manufacturing centers will probably keep them from having food independence, which is another reason they need to pile on some wealth.
Speaking of not complaining, what better result could possibly happen, than a Troll removing himself from the debate? Notice... I'm not complaining one bit!
It's pretty easy for someone who doesn't hire people, to claim that others must be a poor judge of character. You are telling me that you have never, at any point in your life, thought well of someone, who turned out to be scum? You've never been betrayed by someone you thought was decent? Never thought highly of someone, only to find out later they were jerks? Now granted I have never been in the position of hiring someone, but I can easily see how difficult it would be to pick out of hundreds of applicants, one that was good. People these days lie a ton. You yourself have lied several times on this very thread, and this means nothing. How much more do people lie when it involves getting a paycheck? And you think you are going to be a perfect judge of character? There have been several times where I've seen people hired on, with excellent 'credentials' who ended up being worthless useless people. Especially since the left, has eliminated the ability of employers to contact previous employers, and determine the history of the potential employee. Which is another scummy aspect of the left. Here you are attacking employers for hiring bad employees... and yet it's you people on the left that prevent employers from ever learning anything significant about the people they consider hiring. Leftard- "How dare you dig up dirt on someone's work history, and use that in determining if they are good employee!" Leftard- "Man you employers must really suck at judging character if you hire bad employees!" You don't see the hypocritical contradiction in your own position?
All of that stuff he posted was completely correct. You just willfully choose to ignore the truth. If the moral standard is that you are only "wonderful" if you give away your money for free.... then that standard applies to you. Do you give away all your money for free? Does anyone give away all their money for free? Nope. So you are a hypocrite, and your moral standard is just bull crap. Second, you also make moronic points about charity being their least profitable thing. Duh. Here's a better question. Do *YOU* provide even a fraction to charity, as corporations do? Answer... no. Not even close. Lastly, your implication, is that the corporation is not needed. If that's true, then go out and earn your millions. Let's see you do it. Put up, or shut up. This is where you actually back up your claim, with actions. Go out, earn your paycheck, and live your life, without anything from corporations. Start by getting rid of the computer you are on, since that was built by corporations.
I think we all agree that Corporate monopolies are an abuse, except for natural monopolies like electric power or water and sewage. When you throw out a garbage comment like that it tells us you really have never understood what we have said about economics.
Geezus..you admit monopolies are an abuse? Am I seeing things? Monopolies restrict the very 'free market' right wingers like to crow about.
Of course not! Your surprise tells me you have very obviously never read and understand my posts. I have always been against monopolies (excepting some natural monopolies with profits controlled by the states.) Effectively monopolies are not free markets, they are markets controlled by the monopolies, which in the case of socialism, the monopoly is the government. It has never been anything I have crowed about. Actually I don't crow about much of anything except absolutism, broad brush claims, and good corporate citizens. Simply because you don't like something does not mean it is not good business.
I did a breakdown of a low wage couple living in and around small town America. Even with only one working and earning $20,000 a year it is a living wage. One of the reasons we have such a large population deeply entrenched in" poverty" is directly related to their inability to manage the money they have. Consider a person who earns $20,000 a year, or $1,700 a month here in South Alabama. Rent for a 1 BR or 2 BR apartment will cost between $140 a month and $350 a month depending on location and quality of housing. Assume the highest. Two people can eat well for $400 a month. Utilities of water, sewage costs about $50 without even conserving. A basic telephone can be had for $40 a month and the electricity for a small apartment (if not covered by the rent) is about $60.. Added together the basic needs of a couple costs $900 a month leaving $800 a month for discretionary spending like small car payments, entertainment, cable TV and even internet. Then consider that most couples both work. That is what most people on this forum consider poverty, and we can reasonably say it IS RELATIVE POVERTY as they earn less and are less wealthy than most people, but it is a living wage. How do I know this? I have a grandson who earns that and his recent wife also earns that. They have 2 cars and the most expensive part of their car ownership is insurance of about $400 a month. The come over to visit, or go to his or her parents home to visit, or watch TV. They are saving for a down payment on a small house and they are smart enough to keep their credit rating good, mostly by paying their car notes on time. I could help them, but they don't want me too, so I give as much as he makes to several charities and live on very little more than the grandson makes.
I've been very split in my opinion on minimum wage for a while... I have come up with a much more complex & in depth system which in essence is a sort of "graduated mobile minimum wage". If I had more time I would explain detail, but I'll keep it short for now: basically companies with large net worth will have to pay higher minimum wages, & the average minimum wage a company would have to pay would change with the companies net worth increases & decreases & a company's net worth would be appraised monthly or bimonthly. The biggest problems with this is that 1 what happens if a company is failing & their losing so much money it is a greater capitol worth than all their profits & assets combined? & 2 How would the government make an accurate appraisal without spending copious amounts of money on a large appraisal agency which would most likely be inept at its job?
People can live under bridges and drink urine to survive too. Doesn't make it right, or mean that they should. Especially with the gigantic wealth the 1% of the population owns over the rest of us. But, you're right, it's all "relative". I could live under the freeway and eat pigeons, sleep on cardboard and gather my drinking water from the drips of the sewer drains from the freeway, and have it better 'relative' to the homeless guy with no cardboard, pigeons, or drinkable sewer water. The homeless need to be grateful, I guess?
I believe the right is being disingenuous by not faithfully executing our own Doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will, and unemployment compensation in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
Yes it should be raised. I got a couple plans I think are viable. first is raising it to 10.00 over the course of a 24 month period then tying it to inflation/deflation. Second one is 14.50 over 4 year period and tying it to inflation/deflation after. It wont lower poverty levels much, but it will decrease dependance on the government
Why would you bring up such idiocy when I described that my grandson and has wife are living well? Are you suggesting that living frugally is someone bad? What some people make is totally irrelevant and does not have an effect on what I make or what the grand kids make. Why are you so envious? Poverty is relative. Living according to the poverty guidelines does make people poor, it only means they have less wealth that those more wealthy. I certainly don't want anyone to live under a bridge and sleep on card board. I have no idea why you chose to make that kind of statement, but to carry on with your wild imagination, but while you are at it, pigeons are very good to eat. Pigeons and doves are part of the same family of birds and they are a delicacy. What ever, I am proud of the grandchildren as they are doing what is right by not over spending their income. One can never be considered living in poverty if as my grand kids: They have decent housing, good food, proper clothing (for working), heating and cooling and transportation, and the intelligence to maintain good credit for future use to buy a car or a house. - - - Updated - - - Welcome back Daniel. I presume you will no longer troll the threads with nonsense? Good, I missed you.
Eating pigeons under freeways is better than not eating pigeons and living under freeways. I got it. It's all relative, and thank God for the corporation, or pigeons might not be available under freeways.
Yes, there are those who read words, and imagine they don't say what they say. Those people vote for Obama.
Nobody has a right to a living. If some doesn't earn a living on their own, they have the right to die. Freedom. It's not complicated.
Their body, their choice, right? Shouldn't they be? It wasn't the taxes they didn't pay that built that bridge, was it? If it wasn't for the productive citizens, there'd be no bridge at all.
Monopolies can't exist with abusing the power of government to exclude competition. Why did Warren Buffet pay off King Obama and other fascists in recent elections? Because Warren Buffet is making a fortune with his trains being the only hauler of oil that would otherwise by carried by the Keystone XL pipeline.
I think C is a fair point here, and this is one of the real problems. so many people just struggle to do this, especially the middle classes - they are the worst offenders here IMO
Some people are just too ignorant, or lazy or both, to see that my making $100K does not keep them from making more. They just dodge the issue and keep on keeping on complaining.
