NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[michaelskis]

Well, sometimes public perception turns out to be correct ... sadly in this instance: More Mass Shootings

I wonder how many of those were in Gun Free Zones or the number of those committed by Concealed Carry Permit holders.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I wonder how many of those were in Gun Free Zones or the number of those committed by Concealed Carry Permit holders.

Troll there much, dude.:not::wall:

 

[michaelskis]

Troll there much, dude.:not::wall:

Do you say that because you know but don't like the answer to the question, or because cause you are afraid to answer it.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Do you say that because you know but don't like the answer to the question, or because cause you are afraid to answer it.

No, it's the tail chasing, same !@#$, different day BS every time this issue comes up. :not::wall:

 

[Planit]

I wonder how many of those were in Gun Free Zones or the number of those committed by Concealed Carry Permit holders.

Troll there much, dude.:not::wall:

Do you say that because you know but don't like the answer to the question, or because cause you are afraid to answer it.

No, it's the tail chasing, same !@#$, different day BS every time this issue comes up. :not::wall:

I think he's just trying to post pad WYP...

 

[The One]

Ha....

The 4 G's
Guns, Gawd, Gays, Gubment.......
Yawn........

 

[rcgplanner]

Apparently the White House jumper made it much further in the building than first thought. This guy ended up making it all the way to the East Room before being tackled. Apparently after making it through an unlocked door :not:, the guy eluded capture because the alarm was turned off because staff found the noise going off too annoying.

This wasn't the first major lapse, apparently someone shot a semiautomatic rifle at the WH in 2011, causing $94,000 in damage. Even more shocking it took nearly 4 days for someone to discover that it was shot at The Washington Post has a great story about the event and the major breakdown in communication by the Secret Service. It is a damn miracle it wasn't a lot worse.

 

[The One]

Garbage

Here is the real problem with our economy......and it isn't unemployment.....It's the Median Income numbers. Finally Forbes has picked up on this:

This should be the number one issue for politicians. A few well placed equalizer laws and closing of tax loopholes for the filthy rich corporations who hide money overseas would be a good start......The sheeple have continued to make massive increases in productivity the whole time, while getting their income taken away.....AMAZING:-{

 

[michaelskis]

Here is the real problem with our economy......and it isn't unemployment.....It's the Median Income numbers. Finally Forbes has picked up on this:

This should be the number one issue for politicians. A few well placed equalizer laws and closing of tax loopholes for the filthy rich corporations who hide money overseas would be a good start......The sheeple have continued to make massive increases in productivity the whole time, while getting their income taken away.....AMAZING:-{

I agree... But as long as we have lobbyists in Washington and we buy plastic crap from Wal Mart, it's not going to change.

 

[rcgplanner]

Here is the real problem with our economy......and it isn't unemployment.....It's the Median Income numbers. Finally Forbes has picked up on this:

This should be the number one issue for politicians. A few well placed equalizer laws and closing of tax loopholes for the filthy rich corporations who hide money overseas would be a good start......The sheeple have continued to make massive increases in productivity the whole time, while getting their income taken away.....AMAZING:-{

I agree it is ridiculous that personal incomes have continued to fall. I am happy to see that unemployment numbers are rebounding but many of those jobs are poor replacements for the jobs that were lost during the Recession. Many of the replacement positions are either part-time, little to no benefits, or under paid. Corporations have become smart and realizing that us sheep will jump for joy at a job, even if it is shi**y pay and benefits, because hey at least it's a job! And if we get fed up and decide to leave there is always another drone to fill the spot. This is an example of nothing more than corporate greed and something any leader in Washington will have a hard time fixing, even if they want to! :-@

 

[ColoGI]

Here is the real problem with our economy......and it isn't unemployment.....It's the Median Income numbers. Finally Forbes has picked up on this:

This should be the number one issue for politicians. A few well placed equalizer laws and closing of tax loopholes for the filthy rich corporations who hide money overseas would be a good start......The sheeple have continued to make massive increases in productivity the whole time, while getting their income taken away.....AMAZING:-{

Far better IMHO would be to show the numerous charts that track increases in productivity and declining wages. Then contrast with wealth gains of the top 10%. Even better would be to include the recent chart that shows the gains coming out of The Great Recession all went to the top 10%.

If any of this actually enters the consciousness of the reg'lur Joe and Jane, you'll want to be in the business of selling pitchforks and torches and Molotov cocktails.

 

[The One]

Yeah.....

Far better IMHO would be to show the numerous charts that track increases in productivity and declining wages. Then contrast with wealth gains of the top 10%. Even better would be to include the recent chart that shows the gains coming out of The Great Recession all went to the top 10%.

If any of this actually enters the consciousness of the reg'lur Joe and Jane, you'll want to be in the business of selling pitchforks and torches and Molotov cocktails.

Watch Inequality for All......

oh and look at this in light of the recent decision by those scumbags at Walmart to cut health benefits to most part time workers!!:-@:-{ http://www.nbcnews.com/business/bus...ealth-benefits-most-part-time-workers-n220191

I've always thought there should be rules for companies with more than 50 employees on the number/% of part time workers hired. Since it is clearly just a way to HOSE the American worker out of benefits and pay. Maybe 50+ worker companies should not be allowed to have more than 15% part time workers. I mean this would allow for real part time positions that are required as a part of business to exist, but cut down on the Unethical practices by the BASTARDS that seem to run companies these days.

If your business plan is so marginal that you can't survive without shafting most of your work force.....maybe you should go under. I'm tired of subsidizing the Walton family....the richest family in the USA.

 

[wahday]

Here is the real problem with our economy......and it isn't unemployment.....It's the Median Income numbers. Finally Forbes has picked up on this:

This should be the number one issue for politicians. A few well placed equalizer laws and closing of tax loopholes for the filthy rich corporations who hide money overseas would be a good start......The sheeple have continued to make massive increases in productivity the whole time, while getting their income taken away.....AMAZING:-{

Dealing in affordable housing, a great deal of our work is impacted by Area Median Income (and the various percentages of AMI we serve through different programs). 2014 saw a drop in AMI across the country. In my little burgh, for a family of four, AMI dropped from 63,800 to 57,900. That is the lowest since 2008. It also priced a few people we were working with out of qualifying for home purchase. It's a huge problem and it is making affordable single family home ownership almost impossible with new construction. Construction costs have risen significantly and AMI is dropping, meaning there is no affordability to be had. Just selling a home for the bare construction costs is hardly viable. Even our state Mortgage Finance Authority is not going to support ANY affordable single family construction for the next 5 years (for single family ownership, "affordable" is households earning 80% or below of AMI). I am hoping things will improve in the next five years or so, but the trends and recent reports on employment (and the nature of that employment) are not encouraging.

 

[Hink]

I've always thought there should be rules for companies with more than 50 employees on the number/% of part time workers hired. Since it is clearly just a way to HOSE the American worker out of benefits and pay. Maybe 50+ worker companies should not be allowed to have more than 15% part time workers. I mean this would allow for real part time positions that are required as a part of business to exist, but cut down on the Unethical practices by the BASTARDS that seem to run companies these days.

If your business plan is so marginal that you can't survive without shafting most of your work force.....maybe you should go under. I'm tired of subsidizing the Walton family....the richest family in the USA.

Honest question: Do you think that all jobs deserve a living wage? Even those jobs that require neither education, talent, or skill? Do you suppose that there is enough money in the system (i.e. Profits to go around) that we can subsidize the jobs that clearly do not provide the same level of overall impact to our society?

My problem with the part time / full time employment argument is that I believe that minimum wage has also helped to create this "problem". If you could hire someone to do a job at a full time wage that was sustainable for your company, I am fairly certain people would. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense for McDonald's to hire people at $7.75 / hr. plus benefits for full time. I am not sure what the answer to that problem is, but I would argue that incentivizing business to want full time employees is more the answer than hitting them with sticks for a situation, most didn't create.

I guess I say all that to say this: we as a country are very good at blaming people for things many did not do. The wealthy (or the job creators as the republicans falsely claim) most the time didn't do anything other than what our government allows them to do. I am tired of seeing them blamed, when really we should be blaming our government and those we elect. You know what in November 75% of the representatives will be reelected. And you wonder why our government, and the policies it doesn't create even though it should be creating them, doesn't function?

Blame the people who are at fault for the situation, not the businesses / wealthy / etc. who are just benefiting from it.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Honest question: Do you think that all jobs deserve a living wage? Even those jobs that require neither education, talent, or skill? Do you suppose that there is enough money in the system (i.e. Profits to go around) that we can subsidize the jobs that clearly do not provide the same level of overall impact to our society?

My problem with the part time / full time employment argument is that I believe that minimum wage has also helped to create this "problem". If you could hire someone to do a job at a full time wage that was sustainable for your company, I am fairly certain people would. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense for McDonald's to hire people at $7.75 / hr. plus benefits for full time. I am not sure what the answer to that problem is, but I would argue that incentivizing business to want full time employees is more the answer than hitting them with sticks for a situation, most didn't create.

I guess I say all that to say this: we as a country are very good at blaming people for things many did not do. The wealthy (or the job creators as the republicans falsely claim) most the time didn't do anything other than what our government allows them to do. I am tired of seeing them blamed, when really we should be blaming our government and those we elect. You know what in November 75% of the representatives will be reelected. And you wonder why our government, and the policies it doesn't create even though it should be creating them, doesn't function?

Blame the people who are at fault for the situation, not the businesses / wealthy / etc. who are just benefiting from it.

I understand your perspective on this. I've read some awfully good policy debates regarding minimum wage's negative impacts. But overall, I consider it a net positive. The thing is, you absolutely CAN hire someone to do a job at a full time wage that is sustainable for a company. It really doesn't eat that much into company profits. The problem is the nature of corporate structures and ownership. Privately held companies tend to do things like living wages more voluntarily, although such benevolent private companies are still rare. Publicly held companies are beholding to shareholders. As a result, they tend to focus on short-term perspective and cost-cutting in order to maximize short term profits, with the CEO/board's goal to stay employed. I honestly can't blame them for doing this--the game is rigged to favor such short-term decision-making. We humans are a selfish lot. Those that have voluntarily paid a living wage are playing a long-game: they believe that by paying their employees more, they increase their buying power, get better employees and as a result see savings in other areas of the company due to employees feeling more appreciated/being more competent.

But I certainly agree that blame shouldn't rest squarely or exclusively on the owners. I actually tend to blame cultural issues more than anything--these companies and our government are a reflection of where we are as a society. 75% reelection statistics reflect issues we have culturally-accepted: apathy, intolerance of other viewpoints/polarization and acceptance of political manipulation to assure certain results (gerrymandering).

 

[The One]

Well......

The wrong people are getting subsidized (heavily) and not distributing that subsidy to their employees. Yes politicians shouldn't allow that to happen. But they are by doing nothing and in some cases supporting the business models that rely on subsidies to boost profits. It is hard to blame business for taking advantage of the pro corporate tax system and eating up all those subsidies from the government.....human nature and all. It is one thing for a mom and pop operation to take advantage of all these benefits just to stay alive and keep a few people employed. Once we start talking about SUPER-MEGA-Corporations, the rules should change. They should be held to a higher obligation and treat their employees as part of a team that includes share holders, CEO's and Board Members, all sharing in the profits in one way or another. It just makes good business sense and helps the economy as a whole by not creating a struggling class of workers and a SUPER MEGA ELITE group of rich pricks.

Every penny a minimum wage worker makes is put immediately back into the economy through purchasing. That feeds something like 70% of our economy. That is not bad. That brings our entire economy up. This is fact not theory. I just think the smaller companies that feel the minimum wage increases the most should be getting more subsidies and the SUPER MEGA Corporations don't need the subsidy. They made it past the initial "pain" threshold and have moved into a place where they can sustain increases pegged to inflation.

The bottom line is these big companies have a new expectation that includes pocketing subsidies and getting bigger returns based on decreasing benefits to employees. They are trying to build a new "normal" business model where simply making any profit is no longer good enough. They want the rest of us to view the cannibalism of their own employees as being "OK." Well.....it isn't OK!!!

 

[michaelskis]

The wrong people are getting subsidized (heavily) and not distributing that subsidy to their employees. Yes politicians shouldn't allow that to happen. But they are by doing nothing and in some cases supporting the business models that rely on subsidies to boost profits. It is hard to blame business for taking advantage of the pro corporate tax system and eating up all those subsidies from the government.....human nature and all. It is one thing for a mom and pop operation to take advantage of all these benefits just to stay alive and keep a few people employed. Once we start talking about SUPER-MEGA-Corporations, the rules should change. They should be held to a higher obligation and treat their employees as part of a team that includes share holders, CEO's and Board Members, all sharing in the profits in one way or another. It just makes good business sense and helps the economy as a whole by not creating a struggling class of workers and a SUPER MEGA ELITE group of rich pricks.

Every penny a minimum wage worker makes is put immediately back into the economy through purchasing. That feeds something like 70% of our economy. That is not bad. That brings our entire economy up. This is fact not theory. I just think the smaller companies that feel the minimum wage increases the most should be getting more subsidies and the SUPER MEGA Corporations don't need the subsidy. They made it past the initial "pain" threshold and have moved into a place where they can sustain increases pegged to inflation.

The bottom line is these big companies have a new expectation that includes pocketing subsidies and getting bigger returns based on decreasing benefits to employees. They are trying to build a new "normal" business model where simply making any profit is no longer good enough. They want the rest of us to view the cannibalism of their own employees as being "OK." Well.....it isn't OK!!!

I totally agree with everything you said... but what do you think the average guy on the street should do about it. It does not matter if you vote R or D, they all bow to special interest groups and mega corporations. Hell, even the farm lobby money ($256 Billion) goes for the production of corn and soy... most of which are not grown for direct human consumption. Instead it goes for ethanol, feed, or other products.

Personally, I try to buy as much from locally owned farms and businesses as I can. I refuse to shop at Wal*Mart.

 

[The One]

Well.....

I totally agree with everything you said... but what do you think the average guy on the street should do about it. It does not matter if you vote R or D, they all bow to special interest groups and mega corporations. Hell, even the farm lobby money ($256 Billion) goes for the production of corn and soy... most of which are not grown for direct human consumption. Instead it goes for ethanol, feed, or other products.

Personally, I try to buy as much from locally owned farms and businesses as I can. I refuse to shop at Wal*Mart.

1. Recognize that one of the political parties cares a little less than the other political party.
2. Un-elect ALL politicians until they start considering and passing laws that even things out a bit for the rest of us.
3. Support common sense subsidies for small companies and GET rid of subsidies for SUPER MEGA CORPORATIONS that clearly are beyond the need of that assistance.
4. Reform Executive Level Pay and peg it to some reasonable multiplier of the lowest paid full time worker at the company.
5. Any corporation that accepts federal subsidies must not be allowed to provide campaign funding to any federal level candidate.
6. Any corporation that accepts federal subsidies must provide a living wage for their area of the country and not employ more than 15% of their workforce as part time workers (under 30 hours a week) and must provide health benefits for full time employees equal to or better than required under the affordable care act.
7......I can go on for hours with these common sense rules for SUCKING ON THE PUBLIC TITS!!!!

 

[michaelskis]

1. Recognize that one of the political parties cares a little less than the other political party.
2. Un-elect ALL politicians until they start considering and passing laws that even things out a bit for the rest of us.
3. Support common sense subsidies for small companies and GET rid of subsidies for SUPER MEGA CORPORATIONS that clearly are beyond the need of that assistance.
4. Reform Executive Level Pay and peg it to some reasonable multiplier of the lowest paid full time worker at the company.
5. Any corporation that accepts federal subsidies must not be allowed to provide campaign funding to any federal level candidate.
6. Any corporation that accepts federal subsidies must provide a living wage for their area of the country and not employ more than 15% of their workforce as part time workers (under 30 hours a week) and must provide health benefits for full time employees equal to or better than required under the affordable care act.
7......I can go on for hours with these common sense rules for SUCKING ON THE PUBLIC TITS!!!!

Those are great ideas in theory, but none of it is going to made an ounce of difference. Personally, that is one of the things that I like most about the libertarian platform, they want to do away with all subsidies.

To expect Washington to change by voting for the Democrats over the Republicans is like saying that you can lose weight by going for a mile walk every day, but eating a McGriddle every morning, a foot long pastrami sandwich every afternoon, and an entire large pizza night... then blaming the weight gain on your shoes.

Change needs to happen at a local level by the way we spend our dollars. The biggest problem is people are sheep and the media is the shepherd. We hear and see so much advertising everywhere we go, that society gets sucked in. People buy things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like, because the media says that is what we need to do.

Voting with your wallet is the only real way to cause change to happen.

 

[michaelskis]

Wow, it looks like Jimmy Carter has even criticized Obama. (CNN link because if Fox posted it, it would be a lie.)

However, I am not sure if Obama did the wrong thing. I do think he publicly underestimated ISIS and made the US Intelligence community look like a bunch of idiots. But any action earlier than this would just be the US being the planet's police force. I even question if we are too involved now, but I do have to give the President credit for standing up against his party and against the Republicans in saying that we will not go this alone and any US involvement will be part of a greater collation of forces. Personally, I would like to see more countries involved and the US taking a much lesser role than we have now.

I think that we need to do a better job preventing terrorism on US soil and that the President needs to use the term when it happens. I think his handling of the Beheading in Oklahoma is totally inappropriate. This is terrorism not workplace violence.

 

[Hink]

Wow, it looks like Jimmy Carter has even criticized Obama.

When did you start respecting what Jimmy Carter thinks?

 

[michaelskis]

When did you start respecting what Jimmy Carter thinks?

Three weeks after never. I just think it is ironic that a person that many people claim is the worst president of the modern age is criticizing a sitting president of the same party. It would be like the town drunk telling you that you have had too much to drink.

I was also told by a coworker that when Obama's PSA came on the screen at the Michigan State Game last weekend, the student section booed.

 

[terraplnr]

I was at the Social Security office yesterday and learned some very interesting information about our federal government from a fellow citizen. Apparently, birth certificates are printed on bonded paper because they are actual bonds that are traded on the stock market. There is a number in red at the bottom of the certificate (which I didn't see on my son's, but I digress) that the U.S. government and the stock market use to track and trade each one of us. You can look up your number to find out how much you are worth on the market. They also track us using our SS numbers. This all started during the Great Depression when the federal government became bankrupt and realized that the best assets it had were its citizens, who earn money over their lifetimes (I hope I'm projected to become a decently performing asset ).

You can fill out a form that costs around $30 to become a sovereign citizen of the U.S., so they won't track you using your birth certificate, SS number, etc. anymore. You are still a citizen meaning you can vote, etc. but you can choose to follow whichever state's laws are most beneficial to you, regardless of where you physically live.

This was the first time I'd heard of all of this… has anyone else heard of it? Naturally I don't believe that you can choose which laws you will be subject to, if you choose to live here in the U.S. and choose to live in a certain state. I think the main reason I don't believe in conspiracy theories is because I just don't think that our government is that organized!

 

[Veloise]

...fellow citizen. ...birth certificates are printed on bonded paper because they are actual bonds that are traded on the stock market....
You can fill out a form that costs around $30 to become a sovereign citizen of the U.S., so they won’t track you using your birth certificate, SS number, etc. anymore. ...

Look up the term "sovereign citizen" and get your tin foil hat on to read all about it.

 

[michaelskis]

I was at the Social Security office yesterday and learned some very interesting information about our federal government from a fellow citizen. Apparently, birth certificates are printed on bonded paper because they are actual bonds that are traded on the stock market. There is a number in red at the bottom of the certificate (which I didn’t see on my son’s, but I digress) that the U.S. government and the stock market use to track and trade each one of us. You can look up your number to find out how much you are worth on the market. They also track us using our SS numbers. This all started during the Great Depression when the federal government became bankrupt and realized that the best assets it had were its citizens, who earn money over their lifetimes (I hope I'm projected to become a decently performing asset ).

You can fill out a form that costs around $30 to become a sovereign citizen of the U.S., so they won’t track you using your birth certificate, SS number, etc. anymore. You are still a citizen meaning you can vote, etc. but you can choose to follow whichever state’s laws are most beneficial to you, regardless of where you physically live.

This was the first time I’d heard of all of this… has anyone else heard of it? Naturally I don’t believe that you can choose which laws you will be subject to, if you choose to live here in the U.S. and choose to live in a certain state. I think the main reason I don’t believe in conspiracy theories is because I just don’t think that our government is that organized!

That does not surprise me, but no, I had not heard that. On one hand, it is bothering, but on the other hand I say who cares. The government does much worse things than this.

 

[Linda_D]

Honest question: Do you think that all jobs deserve a living wage? Even those jobs that require neither education, talent, or skill? Do you suppose that there is enough money in the system (i.e. Profits to go around) that we can subsidize the jobs that clearly do not provide the same level of overall impact to our society?

My problem with the part time / full time employment argument is that I believe that minimum wage has also helped to create this "problem". If you could hire someone to do a job at a full time wage that was sustainable for your company, I am fairly certain people would. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense for McDonald's to hire people at $7.75 / hr. plus benefits for full time. I am not sure what the answer to that problem is, but I would argue that incentivizing business to want full time employees is more the answer than hitting them with sticks for a situation, most didn't create.

I guess I say all that to say this: we as a country are very good at blaming people for things many did not do. The wealthy (or the job creators as the republicans falsely claim) most the time didn't do anything other than what our government allows them to do. I am tired of seeing them blamed, when really we should be blaming our government and those we elect. You know what in November 75% of the representatives will be reelected. And you wonder why our government, and the policies it doesn't create even though it should be creating them, doesn't function?

Blame the people who are at fault for the situation, not the businesses / wealthy / etc. who are just benefiting from it.

And you are blaming the minimum wage for employers hiring more part-time workers when, in fact, many employers who pay more than the minimum wage, and some who even provide benefits to part-times, have been increasing the number of part-timers vs full timers for decades.

One of the biggest groups of employers who do this are colleges and universities. When I was in college back in the 1970s and even when I returned in the 1980s, adjunct faculty (ie part time teachers) taught the night courses or at extension sites. Now, at some colleges, the majority of faculty are adjuncts. Even at well-known and well-endowed private universities, adjuncts make up a significant percentage of teaching faculty. Adjuncts make next-to-nothing compared to the big name profs who cement the big schools' reputations by their research and publishing, but it's adjuncts who mostly teach the students who fork over big $$$ to attend that particular school.

Adjuncts have in many cases supplanted teaching assistants as academia's slave class, since a few TAs might actually find full time tenure track positions while adjuncts seem to be permanently relegated to part-time, low wage status. Even low-ranking college and university staff -- admin assistants, computer operators, janitors, etc -- tend to have higher status than teaching adjuncts. The part-time staff at my college are better compensated relative to full-time staffers in similar positions than adjuncts when compared to full-time faculty, and adjuncts make up a majority of the teaching staff here.

 

[The One]

WOW!! More truth......

Take a look at this: http://www.chn.org/2014/10/09/head-...rs-say-need-cut-corporate-taxes/#.VDvkgVfp-tJ

Yet the sheeple continue to elect these corporate shills

 

[michaelskis]

So how many of you who are against corporate greed and want to see an increase in minimum wage spend money at places that pay staff minimum wage?

Really think about it for a moment. Are you contributing to this condition and complaining about it at the same time.

 

[The One]

Hmmm

There is NO real evidence it hurts the base line health of a business. At worst it eats a bit of profit at first, but every penny being spent on a new minimum wage goes right back into the same businesses that are hit the most. If it leads to fewer happy meals and less heart disease so much the better. Also, companies have already adjusted their operation plans by creating more part time jobs and cutting health costs, the only difference is....they pocket the savings as profit now instead of paying employees a fair wage.

Bottom line: Companies/Boards/Shareholders need to get their heads out of the clouds and realize that any profit is a good thing and that expecting double digit returns is NOT sustainable!

 

[jsk1983]

So how many of you who are against corporate greed and want to see an increase in minimum wage spend money at places that pay staff minimum wage?

Really think about it for a moment. Are you contributing to this condition and complaining about it at the same time.

I'm pretty sure its unavoidable. Although for the people that actively avoid Wal-Mart I wonder if the alternative stores they shop at are any better? Awhile back I worked at a grocery store and paid union dues and at times got minimum wage, I wanted to work full-time but that wasn't possible since they would have had to pay me more and probably give me more benefits.

 

[michaelskis]

I'm pretty sure its unavoidable. Although for the people that actively avoid Wal-Mart I wonder if the alternative stores they shop at are any better? Awhile back I worked at a grocery store and paid union dues and at times got minimum wage, I wanted to work full-time but that wasn't possible since they would have had to pay me more and probably give me more benefits.

It is not easy or convenient, but it is possible. For example, I shop at local business that I know pay more then minimum wage, but if they don't have something that I need, Costco is likely to have it.

Here are 7 companies that pay more than minimum wage.

So yes, I challenge people in here to learn more about where they shop.

 

[michaelskis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz0Ut3v1wOo

Do you agree with Paul Krugman's opinion of Obama? Personally, I don't, but I am sure you knew that already.

 

[Doohickie]

So how many of you who are against corporate greed and want to see an increase in minimum wage spend money at places that pay staff minimum wage?

Really think about it for a moment. Are you contributing to this condition and complaining about it at the same time.

I just read that QT is the most profitable gas station chain and they also pay their cashiers the most of any gas station chain. I usually fill up at Costco (union shop), but if I need to fill up when there isn't a Costco around, I guess QT is my choice.

I've heard about this paying more for mundane labor being cheaper over the long haul - apparently the efficiency comes from employee retention. If you can keep employees and they work their job well, you spend less time training them (which isn't productive time) and also they do their jobs better than new hires which means you can have fewer workers than if you have a lot of turnover.

Blame the people who are at fault for the situation, not the businesses / wealthy / etc. who are just benefiting from it.

But the businesses / wealthy / etc. aren't "just benefiting from it", they are actively lobbying for the tax breaks and incentives that is redistributing wealth upward even more than it already is.

 

[The One]

WHOA THERE

I just read that QT is the most profitable gas station chain and they also pay their cashiers the most of any gas station chain. I usually fill up at Costco (union shop), but if I need to fill up when there isn't a Costco around, I guess QT is my choice.

I've heard about this paying more for mundane labor being cheaper over the long haul - apparently the efficiency comes from employee retention. If you can keep employees and they work their job well, you spend less time training them (which isn't productive time) and also they do their jobs better than new hires which means you can have fewer workers than if you have a lot of turnover.

Whoa there Doohickie.....you are getting dangerously close to science in those rambling sentences Don't be pulling out good business practices and expect anyone to listen to you. Employees are just meat with eyes and a disposable, yet renewable commodity....

[enter the twilight zone]
So.....while attending a conference yesterday I hear my congressman (#3 Republican nationwide) PUSH HARD to gut the endangered species act!!! Apparently little things like the Clean Air Act (with coal), Clean Water Act (not letting rivers catch on fire) and the Endangered Species Act (not letting huge pumping stations grind up important fish) are inconvenient to making even GREATER profits.....who woulda thunk it???

Apparently he has been trying to start a dialogue with the President and Senate to "fix" the endangered species act......WOW. But hey, guess what, not one word on any specific provision he wants to change, or even a hint at any specifics at all....
[exit the twilight zone]

 

[ColoGI]

Whoa there Doohickie.....you are getting dangerously close to science in those rambling sentences Don't be pulling out good business practices and expect anyone to listen to you. Employees are just meat with eyes and a disposable, yet renewable commodity....

[enter the twilight zone]
So.....while attending a conference yesterday I hear my congressman (#3 Republican nationwide) PUSH HARD to gut the endangered species act!!! Apparently little things like the Clean Air Act (with coal), Clean Water Act (not letting rivers catch on fire) and the Endangered Species Act (not letting huge pumping stations grind up important fish) are inconvenient to making even GREATER profits.....who woulda thunk it???

Apparently he has been trying to start a dialogue with the President and Senate to "fix" the endangered species act......WOW. But hey, guess what, not one word on any specific provision he wants to change, or even a hint at any specifics at all....
[exit the twilight zone]

Out here in the West there are quite a few nutters who are actually running on taking back public lands from the feds and [STRIKEOUT]raping[/STRIKEOUT]...erm...putting them to good use at the state level. Cuckoo bananas, sure, but as our society divides the denizens in that box think it is a good idea.

 

[wahday]

So how many of you who are against corporate greed and want to see an increase in minimum wage spend money at places that pay staff minimum wage?

Really think about it for a moment. Are you contributing to this condition and complaining about it at the same time.

I work in affordable housing and the way I see it is that you pay for this cost of underpaying workers one way or another. Referencing the chart The One posted about who is actually served by an increase in the minimum wage, it is clear that these are adults trying to make a living and still provide for their families (or even just themselves). These are people who pay for housing (among other things).

Households that fall below certain thresholds (namely those who cannot afford the housing in their community without paying more than 30% of their gross income – what we call “cost burdened”) often end up either living in housing that is subsidized or utilizing HUD vouchers. Sometimes both.

Subsidized rental housing is largely financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which forgoes tax income by giving private investors (primarily large corporations) write-offs for purchasing tax credits that help finance the deal (they write off their investment from the bottom line before filing). They get this tax break every year for the affordability period – usually 15 years for the tax investor.

On top of the tax credit program, most municipalities kick in some percentage of “gap” funding (because the tax credits themselves do not leverage enough to build these projects). These are largely tax dollars being used.

Then there are HUD vouchers which fill the gap between a household’s rent and what is deemed “affordable” based on their income. There are way fewer vouchers being used than there is demand. Our City has waiting lists of years to qualify.

In my view, underpaying workers just means they cannot meet their daily needs effectively (housing, food, etc.). Either you have employers pay a wage that allows them to do that, or you leverage taxes and create incentives elsewhere. However you slice it, we are ultimately just trying to make up the difference.

When people wax on about self-made people who started out poor and pulled themselves up, they are largely talking about a different time in our nation. The burden of housing costs alone is much greater than it was in the past. In 1950, the average home value was $7,354 whereas the average annual income was…wait for it…$3300 (remember, a lot more of our nation lived and worked on farms and in rural areas). In 2014, the average income is $51,017 and the average home price is $188,900. So, in this timeframe, housing increased from 2.2 times the average income to 3.7 times. Most households also need a car today (which costs an average of $31,252).

One of the key factors in the above figures is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with cost of living increases and has not even stayed level with itself as adjusted for inflation. In 1968, minimum wage was $1.60 which today is equivalent to $10.70. The minimum wage is currently $7.25.

 

[michaelskis]

I work in affordable housing and the way I see it is that you pay for this cost of underpaying workers one way or another. Referencing the chart The One posted about who is actually served by an increase in the minimum wage, it is clear that these are adults trying to make a living and still provide for their families (or even just themselves). These are people who pay for housing (among other things).

Households that fall below certain thresholds (namely those who cannot afford the housing in their community without paying more than 30% of their gross income – what we call "cost burdened") often end up either living in housing that is subsidized or utilizing HUD vouchers. Sometimes both.

Subsidized rental housing is largely financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which forgoes tax income by giving private investors (primarily large corporations) write-offs for purchasing tax credits that help finance the deal (they write off their investment from the bottom line before filing). They get this tax break every year for the affordability period – usually 15 years for the tax investor.

On top of the tax credit program, most municipalities kick in some percentage of "gap" funding (because the tax credits themselves do not leverage enough to build these projects). These are largely tax dollars being used.

Then there are HUD vouchers which fill the gap between a household's rent and what is deemed "affordable" based on their income. There are way fewer vouchers being used than there is demand. Our City has waiting lists of years to qualify.

In my view, underpaying workers just means they cannot meet their daily needs effectively (housing, food, etc.). Either you have employers pay a wage that allows them to do that, or you leverage taxes and create incentives elsewhere. However you slice it, we are ultimately just trying to make up the difference.

When people wax on about self-made people who started out poor and pulled themselves up, they are largely talking about a different time in our nation. The burden of housing costs alone is much greater than it was in the past. In 1950, the average home value was $7,354 whereas the average annual income was…wait for it…$3300 (remember, a lot more of our nation lived and worked on farms and in rural areas). In 2014, the average income is $51,017 and the average home price is $188,900. So, in this timeframe, housing increased from 2.2 times the average income to 3.7 times. Most households also need a car today (which costs an average of $31,252).

One of the key factors in the above figures is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with cost of living increases and has not even stayed level with itself as adjusted for inflation. In 1968, minimum wage was $1.60 which today is equivalent to $10.70. The minimum wage is currently $7.25.

I think you bring up some very good points. We are not in the same place as many of the people who came from nothing and made it big. We are not in the same economic era as we were just a decade ago. There is one economist that said that we are in the Entrepreneurial Community Era. Look all the crowd sourcing that happens and as Jim Collins said in his book Built To Last, it is no longer about having the right idea, at the right time. It is about having the right people talking to each other at the right time. I still believe that people can make it big with nothing. I can't say if it is harder or easier that it once was, because in some ways the global community has leveled the playing field for those who understand it, but government regulations that protect the mega corporations actually hinder progress for the little guy.

The problem that we face today is so much bigger than just a government set minimum wage, people owning homes or renting them. Until 1940 most people didn't own their own home and it was at the absolute highest in the 2004. But predatory lending programs created a bubble and it caused the economy to crash.

The other component, which I don't have a good answer for, is where is this money for increasing the minimum wage going to come from. For example, do you seriously believe that Wal-Mart or McDonald is going to take it out of their corporate profits? Where do people who make minimum wage shop? More so (and I don't have the statistics for this), what is the debt load for lower income people and how much money are they paying on interest for that debt. Not consumer debt, but college loans for degrees that don't help them find quality employment.

We need to change to change the culture to help people find quality employment that isn't going to pay minimum wage and leave those jobs to the HS student who wants extra spending money. But in many cases, this is going to require better education programs, better technical training programs, and for Americans to by less disposable plastic crap using money they don't have, to impress people they don't like.

Personally, I will continue to shop where I know the money is staying local and going to people who get paid more than minimum wadge. It often means more coming out of my pocket, but more often than not it means that I am better getting quality service and sometimes better quality products.

 

[The One]

Hmm....

Being willing to pay more out of pocket (a personally imposed private tax) while at the same time subsidizing mega corporation profits with your own public tax money = double taxation

The BEST argument for shopping at Wally World in my opinion = My tax money subsidizes the low prices at wally world by allowing them to slash/cut employee benefits and pay to the bone, so why shouldn't I at least get something back for it......a $199 32 inch flat screen tv.....or $20 coffee machine.......

8-!

 

[michaelskis]

Being willing to pay more out of pocket (a personally imposed private tax) while at the same time subsidizing mega corporation profits with your own public tax money = double taxation

The BEST argument for shopping at Wally World in my opinion = My tax money subsidizes the low prices at wally world by allowing them to slash/cut employee benefits and pay to the bone, so why shouldn't I at least get something back for it......a $199 32 inch flat screen tv.....or $20 coffee machine.......

8-!

No! I am opposed to corporate subsidies, even farms that don't grow direct food products! I apologize for the confusion as I thought I had made that clear the last 10 times that I said it.

 

[The One]

Yeah....

No! I am opposed to corporate subsidies, even farms that don't grow direct food products! I apologize for the confusion as I thought I had made that clear the last 10 times that I said it.

Yes, I was pointing out there are a lot of people (me included) willing to pay a higher price = private self imposed tax to combat some subsidy that we disagree with out there. Wally world is just one example.

Here is a question: Do you think the private sector would provide better service than the CDC?

 

[Hink]

Here is a question: Do you think the private sector would provide better service than the CDC?

Do you really want to ask that question today? Because honestly I doubt anyone could do a poorer job than the CDC at this point. Ebola and the "outbreak" are overstated in the United States, but still, the CDC could (and should) have done better dealing with the disease in the United States.

If it were up to the private sector, those people would probably not be able to afford the treatments they need and the market would let them die.

 

[Hink]

http://news.yahoo.com/rick-scott-refuses-appear-debate-stage-because-charlie-004813759.html


Well this is one way to not have to debate issues... I like the effort though.

 

[otterpop]

Out here in the West there are quite a few nutters who are actually running on taking back public lands from the feds and [STRIKEOUT]raping[/STRIKEOUT]...erm...putting them to good use at the state level. Cuckoo bananas, sure, but as our society divides the denizens in that box think it is a good idea.

I am all for the states taking over the federal land....Just so long as they are wiling to pay the market price for every acre they want....There is no "taking back" Those lands never belong to the states. The U.S. government acquired those lands the good old fashioned way - we killed the inhabitants, took or stole the land fair and square and broke every treaty we wanted to.

It's the American Way.

 

[michaelskis]

Yes, I was pointing out there are a lot of people (me included) willing to pay a higher price = private self imposed tax to combat some subsidy that we disagree with out there. Wally world is just one example.

Here is a question: Do you think the private sector would provide better service than the CDC?

You mean the same CDC that told the woman that it was ok to fly, only to diagnose her with Ebola on the way home? Or the same CDC that will not let some medications in to the US even though they have been proven to work in other countries to cure problems, because the CDC leaders are in bed with american pharmaceutical companies? Or the CDC that spends all this attention of curing symptoms without fixing the cause of many illnesses?

I trust the nonprofit sectors like Red Cross more than the CDC or any for-profit pharmaceutical.

 

[wahday]

...The problem that we face today is so much bigger than just a government set minimum wage, people owning homes or renting them. Until 1940 most people didn't own their own home and it was at the absolute highest in the 2004. But predatory lending programs created a bubble and it caused the economy to crash.

This is a really interesting chart showing homeownership rates by state and nationally from 1900 to 2000. I was surprised by some of the numbers. A place like Idaho had a homeownership rate of 71.6% in 1900. And even in the lead up to 1940, which was the national tipping point beyond which more than half of households owned their homes, a surprising number of states had rates higher than 50%. It would be interesting to learn more about why ownership rates were low nationally prior to WWII. More of the population was rural and potentially indebted to banks for their farm's survival and the post-war era also ushered in a new wave of industry and wage labor that employed a lot more people. And lending pratices changed too:

In the post-depression period the government opted to intervene and regulate housing finance. The result was a change in the maturity structure of mortgage loans, lower interest rates and downpayment requirements. In addition, the economy underwent important changes in the demographic structure, the income distribution, the progressivity of taxable income.

The other component, which I don't have a good answer for, is where is this money for increasing the minimum wage going to come from. For example, do you seriously believe that Wal-Mart or McDonald is going to take it out of their corporate profits? Where do people who make minimum wage shop?

I figure these companies can do one of two things: raise prices or decrease salaries (and it probably won't be the CEOs). I suppose they could move their operations yet again to the country that will allow them to pay the least for production, but in this race to the bottom, there are not a lot of additional options. If they raise prices, they will lose some customers, but seriously, both of those companies' products are criminally cheap as it is and consumers are not paying the true, fair cost of production.

We need to change to change the culture to help people find quality employment that isn't going to pay minimum wage and leave those jobs to the HS student who wants extra spending money.

This does not seem realistic to me. A HS student cannot spend the day washing dishes in a restaurant or cleaning rooms in a hotel and go to school at the same time. Plenty of minimum wage jobs (36% of min. wage jobs according to 2013 data) out there are full-time and many others take place during the regular work day when these kids should be in school.

 

[The One]

Yeah....

You mean the same CDC that told the woman that it was ok to fly, only to diagnose her with Ebola on the way home? Or the same CDC that will not let some medications in to the US even though they have been proven to work in other countries to cure problems, because the CDC leaders are in bed with american pharmaceutical companies? Or the CDC that spends all this attention of curing symptoms without fixing the cause of many illnesses?

I trust the nonprofit sectors like Red Cross more than the CDC or any for-profit pharmaceutical.

That dead guy trusted that PRIVATE HOSPITAL and PRIVATE STAFF to treat his EBOLA and now he is dead and two nurses have to be delivered to a fancy pants hospital in Georgia for treatment......:-c

So do you really want to replace the CDC with that? Right now neither of them are looking good

Check out this update on inequality:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...e-wealth-report_n_5982748.html#es_share_ended

"Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent in the world own 48 percent of all the world's wealth, according to Credit Suisse"

 

[michaelskis]

That dead guy trusted that PRIVATE HOSPITAL and PRIVATE STAFF to treat his EBOLA and now he is dead and two nurses have to be delivered to a fancy pants hospital in Georgia for treatment......:-c

So do you really want to replace the CDC with that? Right now neither of them are looking good

I agree 100%. A few weeks ago the CDC was saying that there are less the 10 hospitals in the US qualified to deal with something like Ebola... Texas Presbyterian wasn't one of them, nor is the Hospital that my wife works at.




In terms of wealth... I am surprised that it is only 48% is controlled by the wealthiest 1%. I thought it would have been worse. Robert Kiyosaki in his book Cash Flow Quadrant said that in the US, 95% of the wealth in the US is controlled by 5% of the people.

 

[michaelskis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNPJ0UJroIQ

Wow... 8-! FL is serious about it's fans!

 

[michaelskis]

Hey Canada!

What are your thoughts on this 12 year old's explanation of the Canadian Financial System?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHQOX8EVNmE

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I work in affordable housing and the way I see it is that you pay for this cost of underpaying workers one way or another. Referencing the chart The One posted about who is actually served by an increase in the minimum wage, it is clear that these are adults trying to make a living and still provide for their families (or even just themselves). These are people who pay for housing (among other things).

Households that fall below certain thresholds (namely those who cannot afford the housing in their community without paying more than 30% of their gross income – what we call “cost burdened”) often end up either living in housing that is subsidized or utilizing HUD vouchers. Sometimes both.

Subsidized rental housing is largely financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which forgoes tax income by giving private investors (primarily large corporations) write-offs for purchasing tax credits that help finance the deal (they write off their investment from the bottom line before filing). They get this tax break every year for the affordability period – usually 15 years for the tax investor.

On top of the tax credit program, most municipalities kick in some percentage of “gap” funding (because the tax credits themselves do not leverage enough to build these projects). These are largely tax dollars being used.

Then there are HUD vouchers which fill the gap between a household’s rent and what is deemed “affordable” based on their income. There are way fewer vouchers being used than there is demand. Our City has waiting lists of years to qualify.

In my view, underpaying workers just means they cannot meet their daily needs effectively (housing, food, etc.). Either you have employers pay a wage that allows them to do that, or you leverage taxes and create incentives elsewhere. However you slice it, we are ultimately just trying to make up the difference.

When people wax on about self-made people who started out poor and pulled themselves up, they are largely talking about a different time in our nation. The burden of housing costs alone is much greater than it was in the past. In 1950, the average home value was $7,354 whereas the average annual income was…wait for it…$3300 (remember, a lot more of our nation lived and worked on farms and in rural areas). In 2014, the average income is $51,017 and the average home price is $188,900. So, in this timeframe, housing increased from 2.2 times the average income to 3.7 times. Most households also need a car today (which costs an average of $31,252).

One of the key factors in the above figures is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with cost of living increases and has not even stayed level with itself as adjusted for inflation. In 1968, minimum wage was $1.60 which today is equivalent to $10.70. The minimum wage is currently $7.25.

I just want to compliment you on clearly demonstrating the link between wages and housing programs in a way that shows that we're paying one way or the other.