he will bring living wage jobs back to America from the sweat shops of asia, and build a wall for the immigrants so that crony capitalists are forced to raise wages to attract American workers back to low skilled jobs. your robots won't save you when the people demand gainful employment in their pursuit of happiness.
You announced that rich people have no right to what they own. That you plan to confiscate their stuff and redistribute it all to folks who "don't want" to learn skills. A rich guy told you he will build a wall around you and force American's "back to low skilled jobs." Labor so simple even a machine could do itbut it's gonna be your job instead. And you're supporting this plan. wow. (these guys built a wall too)
have you lived on minimum wage in one of America's poor violent third world communities? if you did you would know that crony capitalism in America is the same evil as communism in soviet russia. there are good rich people and bad rich people, all of the bad rich people are paying for clinton to keep wages down with immigrants for both high skilled and low skilled jobs. the bad rich people want immigrants and global trade because they get to separate their unfair huge pot of gold from everyone else's small pot of gold, who actually work real jobs for wages instead of how the rich make their money.
The rich invent things and employ us, without them there would be no things and no jobs only death. 1+1=2
everything the rich own was allowed to them by the majority of people whom they used to get rich, when the masses wake up to that fact there will be a reckoning.
living wages through government force, the government will not always serve the interests of the rich who pay for it to keep the people poor with minimum wages. with a few more election cycles, the people will end campaign funding by the rich it is becoming popular.
You seem to alternatively condemn and demand that people use folks who "don't want" to be skilled or educated. Those folks are not being used. They have no use. That is why they are unemployed.
people have the right to not want to be skilled or educated, either because they are too old to learn a new trick, or simply it isn't in their interests for their own pursuit of happiness. that luxury belongs to the people, just as the luxury of getting rich through the labors of the people belong to the rich.
People have a right to choose to be uneducated and unskilled. They don't have a right to have the things skill and education produce provided for them. You are not pursuing happiness by demanding someone else bring it to you. You want me to work for you... work for me in return. That work starts by learning how to be useful.
they do have both rights because the rich aren't the only ones who can create jobs, what the rich are allowed to do the government can easily do, and more efficiently and fairly than crony capitalists if organized properly. the people have allowed the rich to create jobs instead of the government out of the goodness of their own hearts. when the rich become thieving and greedy in their pursuit of happiness by outsourcing their living wage jobs to foreign countries, or importing cheap labor from immigrants to work minimum wages, the people can and will seize their wealth with government force for their own pursuit of happiness.
Any minimum wage will result in greater unemployment. And those in most need of a job (because they are the workers with the lowest productivity) will be regressively affected. The fundamental problem with the minimum wage is that it arbitrarily raises the price of low productivity labor which will result in less low productivity labor being used. Economics 101. The best way to raise unemployment (I'm talking U6 and the LFPR) is by growing the economy. The goal should be 4% or greater per year. This is doable with the correct economic policies in place. A good source for ideas on how to accomplish this is the book "The Four Percent Solution - Unleashing the Economic Growth America Needs" - 2012.
allowed to them?? what you mean is was earned in free, peaceful, voluntary economic transactions in which both sides engaged because it increased their standard of living. Allowed is merely a communist term that is not accurate. Do you understand. you could be rich too, all you have to do is invent something that millions of people think will improve their standard of living more than anything else on the planet. Can you do that?? Do you have anything at all to offer except your proposal to steal at gun point from those saintly folks who actually do improve our standard of living?
Government force?? How do you think that will work in the best interest of the USA? What is a living wage...how about an amount? Only 1.5 million Americans out of a workforce of perhaps 150 million earn minimum wage. The median wage in the USA is around $34K...or about $17/hour+/- Campaign funding has limitations...the maximum amount is $2700...
I think generally people will get back based on their investment and effort; no education no skills = the lowest pay and least opportunities. Higher education with job skills = median pay...and so on. Further, there always seems to be more people with little education and few skills which means lots of competition for jobs which means lower wages. I agree that people have the right to not want to be skilled or educated; but this comes at a great cost to people who take this path...they are basically and forever relegated to the bottom rungs of society. This is their choice but when it doesn't work so well they should not blame others...
I agree that the best option to solve many problems today is increasing GDP. But no matter how an improved economy can appear to make things better, forever there will be those who find themselves on the lower 25% of the bell curve regarding jobs and pay and wealth, etc. People earning at or near minimum wage today will also be earning at or near minimum wage in a growing economy...same problems with a higher cost of living...
I would disagree. Those on the bottom will move up if they put in some effort both on the job and after hours via education. That is why education is so important today and will be increasingly important in the future. To ensure a quality education for most IMO the best way is to give each student a voucher which they can use at the school of their choice. As in everything competition will raise the bar and result in higher quality - especially for students stuck in underperforming public school systems.
By offering to ensure an education or blame not achieving knowledge on an under-performing school, you are removing the responsibility for learning from the student. Acquiring knowledge is rarely like an oil change. Most learning can't be done to youit must be done by you. If competition in all things will raise the bar, maybe it's time we stop promising to leave no child behind. The only way to deliver on that promise is to carry those that won't push ahead. Students who are being carried, are not competing.
No I'm not. I'm advocating for competition among schools so that each individual student (actually their parents of course) has a choice. In that way quality education opportunities are provided - it is still up the the individual student to do the work. Why would anyone be opposed to that ?? The meaning of "no child left behind" is just that. Currently a great many inner city students are left behind because they do not have access to quality schools.
Did you notice you used the word opportunity now? It's a subtle but important difference. I'm fine with the competition you propose. I agree we should provide access and opportunity. But when your claim to ensure an education or promise no child will be left behind... that's different. Access and opportunity will not ensure education, we cannot promise that no child will fail. Require educators to deliver. But measure educators by the opportunities they create not the success of students facing those opportunities. Doing so misleads students to believe getting the right educator or the right school means they will then be carried to success once they do. It causes competition for getting into a class but also complacency after they do. And that does more harm than out of date textbooks. The threat of being left behind is necessary to move people forward.
Opportunity is the point whether stated explicitly or not. Currently that does not exist for many low income students. No one is claiming that all children will succeed and that is not what the "no child left behind" program was all about. It was about opportunity, accountability, and a quality education. In the current system kids are passed on whether they show up for school or the perform or not. And there are cases in which straight A students in public schools could not pass entrance exams in charter, private, or higher education schools.
Then maybe it was a mistake to promise those students they would not be left behind. Hold educators accountable for their performance. Hold students accountable for theirs.
The commitment that the program made was that no student would not be given the opportunity. The measure was standardized test scores and accountability of the individual public schools and teachers. The incentive of the program was that a high percentage of students pass the standardized tests. Results by teachers and schools would be published. There was never any promise that all students would be passed regardless of test results.
That doesn't measure the commitment. The mistake of incentivizing passing instead of opportunity predictably increases passing, not opportunity.
