Deranged Democrat

[Jerry Gallo]

11 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

No worries, I think Monsanto already took care of that.

It's Bayer now, isn't it? Technically, feels good to blame Germans rather than Americans, makes me feel patriotic. (Hope I score points for self-mockery here)

[RavenHawk]

15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Yeah, I guess we can quibble over how long, but it is out there a generation or two at the least.

My 200 yrs is just a rough estimate based on various subjects.  Turns out that my estimate, independently derived is in agreement with Michio Kaku.  I’ll take that 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration's latest International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017) projects that world energy consumption will grow by 28% between 2015 and 2040. Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  and especially in countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia. Non-OECD Asia (which includes China and India) accounts for more than 60% of the world's total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.

That is where the problem is.  Growing demand will outstrip the pace of alternative energy sources.  These sources are not mature.  What we are going to end up with are scenes like we saw at the turn of the last century with oil wells.  But it’ll be solar panels and wind towers dotting the landscape.

In time, old solar panels will no longer function and you will have toxic waste that will overwhelm.  And as technology advances, thousands and thousands of abandoned wind towers.  The environment will take a hit like it did during the turn of the 20^th Century.  Everyone is rushing to gut our current energy paradigm for technology that is not yet mature enough to handle the load.  We need small test markets where these technologies can develop then maybe we can avoid follies like spindletop.

I think that rate of growth or anything like it would be hard to sustain for the next century without heavier contributions from all current sectors plus fusion if it comes along soon enough.   Is something gonna give?

We need to realize that we are in a transitional period.  If you try to push it, you risk disaster.  Let’s harness the ability to change for the future and not commit suicide for the sake of change and instant gratification.

[Uncle Sam]

Like I been warning... Democrats are heading towards allowing illegal immigrants to vote in federal elections and it is alarming.
 

 

[Tatetopa]

5 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

The contrast that is the most inconsistent is that Walmart is assailed for their penchant for low-wage labor to keep costs down and profits high, yet we have people actively seeking to exploit non-citizens to take advantage of low-wage labor to keep costs down and profits high. Same principle applied, one is mean and one is divine. This occurs because we can use rhetoric to fire up non-thinkers by pointing to the Walton family wealth as evil, while we make Pa Kettle a victim. It's intellectually dishonest.

Nothing here about good and evil friend, just policy and results.  Being rich is not evil, being poor is not virtuous.

A corporation paying people little to maintain large profits and then encouraging those employees to go to emergency rooms if they are sick shifts burden onto the rest of us in a  tax paying society.

People putting non-citizens to work for low wages is against the law friend.  It is only divine on a conservative talk show.

A movie star or sports figure who makes $25 million is a commodity.  If you don't like what they are selling, don't buy it.  Same as a $300 Nike shoe, it is hype and you don't have to participate.  They escape some of the villainy not because they might be liberal but because  they do not have 3000 low paid people, legal or not working for them to generate that $25 million.

You make the policies, you live with the outcome.  If you don't value small enterprises, they will fade away.  If you favor large entities with special privileges and tax cuts, it will happen more quickly. If you are more interested in the welfare of large contributing corporations than their customers, you don't look too closely at how well a proposed merger really serves customers.

It is not one party or the other, it is both.  Liberals and conservatives both play this game.

A welfare state of poor that can never seem to get out of poverty is despised by the middle class.  They must deserve it some think.

As mergers continue and all fields of the economy see fewer but much larger players, one of the touted benefits is efficiency.  It is not usually workers on the factory floor that are targeted but the middle class clerks, accountants, managers, schedulers, purchasing agents etc. that are RIF'ed .  Middle class people with unnecessary skills.  The people on the shop floor are the ones bearing the brunt of automation although that moves up the corporate ladder too.

The welfare state grows. People depend on unemployment and welfare. Good or evil?  Just policy and results. Nothing personal, just business.

 

 

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How about giving them all the physical resources they can use, and putting them to work rebuilding the abandoned parts of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland... They get a place to live, a job, and are building up wealth in the area.

The left would probably say that is Cruel and Unusual though, like whatever they do here isn't going to be better then where they came from. US prison is probably better then what they had where they came from. That's why they came here after all.....

Very cool idea, metropolitan homesteading.  Since I don't speak for all lefties, my endorsement carries little weight.  Needs a bit more work though.

Location may be an issue. What are those abandoned and decayed parts of Midwestern and Eastern cities?  Aren't they remnants left by the evolution of industrial manufacturing?  I think they were housing first occupied by workers in the first mega factories of the  modern age when GE and Ford and US Steel needed 10,000 plus employees in a single plant.  Plants moved and diversified and the housing decayed as people moved away or remained and were jobless.  At least that is the gist of what I remember from a history of American Manufacturing course I took in an Industrial Engineering program.  When Eastern European immigrant numbers plummeted due to WWI, companies had to go south to find replacements for low skill labor jobs.

So, if you have the money, skill and time to rebuild a house, a neighborhood with some shops, a school and other amenities, don't you still need a source of income to keep people working in some meaningful way?  Employment has to come from somewhere. 

Or maybe like migrant workers, the builders get the place in shape sell the dwellings to high middle class workers in software or banking and move on to another city to do the same.  Maybe they get to keep a share of the profits and build as nest egg for themselves.

Truthfully, I think work is spiritually satisfying and can give purpose and meaning to life.  That is probably old school.  It is better than hand outs, but hand outs are better than seeing your kids starve.

[Jerry Gallo]

18 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Nothing here about good and evil friend, just policy and results.  Being rich is not evil, being poor is not virtuous.

A corporation paying people little to maintain large profits and then encouraging those employees to go to emergency rooms if they are sick shifts burden onto the rest of us in a  tax paying society.

People putting non-citizens to work for low wages is against the law friend.  It is only divine on a conservative talk show.

A movie star or sports figure who makes $25 million is a commodity.  If you don't like what they are selling, don't buy it.  Same as a $300 Nike shoe, it is hype and you don't have to participate.  They escape some of the villainy not because they might be liberal but because  they do not have 3000 low paid people, legal or not working for them to generate that $25 million.

You make the policies, you live with the outcome.  If you don't value small enterprises, they will fade away.  If you favor large entities with special privileges and tax cuts, it will happen more quickly. If you are more interested in the welfare of large contributing corporations than their customers, you don't look too closely at how well a proposed merger really serves customers.

It is not one party or the other, it is both.  Liberals and conservatives both play this game.

A welfare state of poor that can never seem to get out of poverty is despised by the middle class.  They must deserve it some think.

As mergers continue and all fields of the economy see fewer but much larger players, one of the touted benefits is efficiency.  It is not usually workers on the factory floor that are targeted but the middle class clerks, accountants, managers, schedulers, purchasing agents etc. that are RIF'ed .  Middle class people with unnecessary skills.  The people on the shop floor are the ones bearing the brunt of automation although that moves up the corporate ladder too.

The welfare state grows. People depend on unemployment and welfare. Good or evil?  Just policy and results. Nothing personal, just business.

 

 

The problem is, you have a couple folks here selling the idea of paying people little to do work and it's a heavenly idea. When a big corporation does it, it's evil. Either cheap labor is good or it's bad. Using a standard in two inverse and opposite ways is inconsistent, it's hypocrisy. 

Not sure about the crack about talk-radio, I know using illegal aliens is against the law. When farmers had the authorities crawling up their backside on this, it caused them to take a big hit. They tried to solve this with equipment to do the work the illegals were doing, but it wasn't enough. Now, farmers want to replace sub-scale illegal aliens with sub-scale "asylum seekers". Profits are not inherently bad and all businesses try to limit their labor costs. When we assign "large" to companies and profits, we can apply political stigma to it.  

Wait, what? Nike's shoes and Apple phones are manufactured overseas in sweat shops that make the US wage for an illegal alien look like mint.

Small enterprises often fade away because their model can't sustain itself in most cases. Take a local grocer. When you give your employees raises every year, the baggers, the stock boys, the cart chasers, the clerks, the clean-up crew, eventually those people become more expensive to the store owner than the job duties should reasonably pay. Most of those stores got by because most of the low-skill jobs were filled by high school kids for minimum or slightly higher wage. Now, liberalism comes along and says every job should sustain someone's life in full, asking small business owners to pay them $15/hr and give them health insurance for bagging groceries. When the small business owner can't make that work, when he is unable to balance profit and consumer prices, he finds his business unsustainable. So, liberalism caused some of the problems faced by small businesses. Again, the flaw of liberalism is that it is inconsistent in how it applies it's rules and it's disdain. We mock big corporations because we can exploit "large profits", but they are using the same principles that made small businesses thrive for decades.

No one despises the poor, they despise the exploiting and pandering of the poor by the left, with their penchant for offering handouts to able bodied people with no requirements or end of aide in sight. If someone is mentally or physically incapable of working, I have no issue with the gov't funding those folks in a "whatever it takes" fashion. But giving people incentive to stay poor if they can make that free monthly check work for themselves month after month, that is what many on the right oppose. Why no policies that focus on education, job skills, nuclear families, and personal responsibility. Why string them along, year after year, with promises and a check, neither of which help the problem, it only extends it. They get the vote, then it's status quo.

We agree on automation and efficiency. Should we stop with innovation? Should we discourage entrepreneurs? The auto industry is probably the biggest example of automation putting workers out work. What did the union do to forecast this, what did they do to prepare the work force that would be replaced with robotics? They took their dues, they lobbied government, and they got those folks as much salary and benefits as they could. Then when the day came, they blamed the evil-rich big auto company for callous disregard of the little guy. I don't want to pay $80K for a Chevy Cruze made by someone earning twice the salary and benefits I am, do you? I certainly don't want to do so knowing I have greater skills, education, and work ethic while they only have longevity and union rhetoric earning them their bounty. So, it's up to the individual to understand that our world is changing, in spite of their opposition. Now I don't glorify big auto, but the days of exploiting the workers in the 70's requiring unions have gone away. Now, practicality is the issue. Yet we still target big auto as the bad guy, because it's an easy sell.

I half agree with your last sentence. Unemployment and welfare will always be a part of any society. But one side glorifies it, makes it a permanent occupation. And just as there will always be the low end of the system, there will always be conglomerates and corporations. Those corporations are good and bad. They employ people in some capacity, many also contribute to our 401k, they contribute a lot to charity, and they provide us a decent product at a decent price. But they'll have "record profits" and pay their CEO $30M and someone will come along and exploit both the poor and the wealthy in their rhetoric to ask for a vote.

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

The problem is, you have a couple folks here selling the idea of paying people little to do work and it's a heavenly idea. When a big corporation does it, it's evil. Either cheap labor is good or it's bad. Using a standard in two inverse and opposite ways is inconsistent, it's hypocrisy. 

Not sure about the crack about talk-radio, I know using illegal aliens is against the law. When farmers had the authorities crawling up their backside on this, it caused them to take a big hit. They tried to solve this with equipment to do the work the illegals were doing, but it wasn't enough. Now, farmers want to replace sub-scale illegal aliens with sub-scale "asylum seekers". Profits are not inherently bad and all businesses try to limit their labor costs. When we assign "large" to companies and profits, we can apply political stigma to it.  

Wait, what? Nike's shoes and Apple phones are manufactured overseas in sweat shops that make the US wage for an illegal alien look like mint.

Small enterprises often fade away because their model can't sustain itself in most cases. Take a local grocer. When you give your employees raises every year, the baggers, the stock boys, the cart chasers, the clerks, the clean-up crew, eventually those people become more expensive to the store owner than the job duties should reasonably pay. Most of those stores got by because most of the low-skill jobs were filled by high school kids for minimum or slightly higher wage. Now, liberalism comes along and says every job should sustain someone's life in full, asking small business owners to pay them $15/hr and give them health insurance for bagging groceries. When the small business owner can't make that work, when he is unable to balance profit and consumer prices, he finds his business unsustainable. So, liberalism caused some of the problems faced by small businesses. Again, the flaw of liberalism is that it is inconsistent in how it applies it's rules and it's disdain. We mock big corporations because we can exploit "large profits", but they are using the same principles that made small businesses thrive for decades.

No one despises the poor, they despise the exploiting and pandering of the poor by the left, with their penchant for offering handouts to able bodied people with no requirements or end of aide in sight. If someone is mentally or physically incapable of working, I have no issue with the gov't funding those folks in a "whatever it takes" fashion. But giving people incentive to stay poor if they can make that free monthly check work for themselves month after month, that is what many on the right oppose. Why no policies that focus on education, job skills, nuclear families, and personal responsibility. Why string them along, year after year, with promises and a check, neither of which help the problem, it only extends it. They get the vote, then it's status quo.

We agree on automation and efficiency. Should we stop with innovation? Should we discourage entrepreneurs? The auto industry is probably the biggest example of automation putting workers out work. What did the union do to forecast this, what did they do to prepare the work force that would be replaced with robotics? They took their dues, they lobbied government, and they got those folks as much salary and benefits as they could. Then when the day came, they blamed the evil-rich big auto company for callous disregard of the little guy. I don't want to pay $80K for a Chevy Cruze made by someone earning twice the salary and benefits I am, do you? I certainly don't want to do so knowing I have greater skills, education, and work ethic while they only have longevity and union rhetoric earning them their bounty. So, it's up to the individual to understand that our world is changing, in spite of their opposition. Now I don't glorify big auto, but the days of exploiting the workers in the 70's requiring unions have gone away. Now, practicality is the issue. Yet we still target big auto as the bad guy, because it's an easy sell.

I half agree with your last sentence. Unemployment and welfare will always be a part of any society. But one side glorifies it, makes it a permanent occupation. And just as there will always be the low end of the system, there will always be conglomerates and corporations. Those corporations are good and bad. They employ people in some capacity, many also contribute to our 401k, they contribute a lot to charity, and they provide us a decent product at a decent price. But they'll have "record profits" and pay their CEO $30M and someone will come along and exploit both the poor and the wealthy in their rhetoric to ask for a vote.

Thanks John, a lot to think about here.

For a business selling a product, the price of the merchandise sold must cover the cost of production.   If all businesses have to meet the same requirements, then there is a certain fairness to it.  If a business hires illegal immigrants for a reduced wage, then it no longer competes while following the same requirements.  There are laws about that.  In no case is it divine.

Your example of the small grocery store is a good one, we all see it.  Automated check-out is replacing both baggers and checkers.  Those jobs are going away.

When a business pays a low wage to its employees but those employees are dependent on public health care and food stamps, then part of the fair burden cost of their employment is put off onto the taxpayers.  That amounts to a government subsidy.  I am not opposed to governments bailing out businesses that suffer catastrophes, but I am opposed to giving government subsidies to to corporations that they incorporate into their business and profit forecasts.  That is the issue I see with low wages

People often get upset about handouts and dependency among the poor, but  there seems less visibility of large handouts to the rich.

It is not about liberals exploiting the poor and glorifying unemployment. It is not about buying votes. Yet, it is propelled by liberals with no solution other than to keep people from being hungry and homeless. For conservatives it seems like the strategy is to bad mouth the other side and ignore the problem.  Or we can bring up the Boogie-man of socialism and cease all discussion.  If we ignore a growing unsupporting class ( those that don't  earn enough to survive with a full time job)  and denigrate anybody talking about it, we still can't make it go away.

What does society do about individuals that work full time, and even overtime but require permanent assistance?   Automation is moving up the skill and training ladder and obsoleting workers with higher levels of these all of the time.  White collar jobs are not exempt.  This is what is happening to our society right now. Liberals may be forcing a look at it by demanding a $15 mim wage, but the problem is not of their creation.  We need to deal with it.

Either we take care of people or we let them die.  Which is it?  Do we decide on the China-type one child per family program to reduce the future number of unnecessary humans?  We could move back into a lower tech society, get rid of the autocheckers and bring back cashiers and baggers.  Most people would not be enthusiastic about that either of those alternatives.   Neither one seems very good to me.

 

[Gromdor]

Eh, both farm workers and meat plant workers average $11/hr.  That is only a tiny bit lower than what our dear president pays his immigrant workers:https://www.newsweek.com/trump-mar-lago-pay-foreign-workers-less-1012360

If you feel that it traps the workers into the lower class with little or no hope of economic advancement, then perhaps you should think about jumping on board the $15/hr minimum wage train.  Hoping for automation to prevent the need for immigrant labor isn't going to happen any time soon.  I've done work at the local John Deere factory and they have posters that proudly show how much manpower each of their inventions have saved.  But it still hasn't gotten to the point where it is totally automated.

[+DieChecker]

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

.What does society do about individuals that work full time, and even overtime but require permanent assistance? 

 Automation is moving up the skill and training ladder and obsoleting workers with higher levels of these all of the time.  White collar jobs are not exempt.  This is what is happening to our society right now. Liberals may be forcing a look at it by demanding a $15 mim wage, but the problem is not of their creation.  We need to deal with it.

What have people historically done? They do one, or several, of several things.

- They get a second income. Wife goes to work.

- They live cheaper. Buy cheaper house. Rent cheaper apartment. Buy cheaper car.

- They move somewhere cheaper.

What is being said by demanding a $15 minimum is that people shouldn't need a second job. That they deserve the bigger house and car. They deserve a vacation every year.

The problem is cost of living (CoL) in way overtaxed urban/suburban areas. Houses are increasing in value over 10% per year in many places. A regular ranch house in Seattle, or San Francisco, costs a million dollars. 

I don't know what the fix is, but increasing wages is only going to up the CoL.

Edited April 7, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

Just now, DieChecker said:

What have people historically done?

Lived in a better economical situation. The median house price, adjusted for inflation, in 1950 was 44k, today its 230k. Those kind of examples exist across the board. The economy has changed, the economic factors are no longer the same, its time to stop drawing on the logic of the generations that created the mess in an attempt to justify not fixing it,.

 

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

What is being said by demanding a $15 minimum is that people shouldn't need a second job. That they deserve the bigger house and car. They deserve a vacation every year.

Nope what is being said is we deserve the same opportunities as previous generations.

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Lived in a better economical situation. The median house price, adjusted for inflation, in 1950 was 44k, today its 230k. Those kind of examples exist across the board. The economy has changed, the economic factors are no longer the same, its time to stop drawing on the logic of the generations that created the mess in an attempt to justify not fixing it,.

 

Nope what is being said is we deserve the same opportunities as previous generations.

The past.was driven by Supply and Demand, and the current pay rates are set the same way. IMHO. 

I suppose that's how everything got more expensive too. Regardless I make enough off a Bachelor degree to have a $30k truck, a $450k house and my wife doesn't work. I don't see how a family with two working adults can't make enough for half the house and half the car I have. There's got to be more to it then pay rates, or opportunities.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I don't see how a family with two working adults can't make enough for half the house and half the car I have.

Two adults working full time 40hrs a week at 15 an hour will be making a combined pre tax 57k.  Unfortunately in 21st century America outside of the major cities 15 bucks an hour is a decent wage, even for degreed folks.  That will give them half the house and half the car you have, if they have the credit to do so, and they will kill themselves working to hang onto it by their fingernails while not paying for things like healthcare and education. Or more likely they will kill themselves just to pay the rent on half the house you have.  The Real Reasons Millennials Aren't Buying Homes

I certainly dont want to take personal responsibility out of the equation but financial life for average Americans has been steadily becoming harder year by year , decade by decade, and it feels like we're reaching the point where its simply irresponsible to allow corporate interests to continue to dominate American interests.

19 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The past.was driven by Supply and Demand, and the current pay rates are set the same way. IMHO. 

IDK I think the de-powering of the employee has had a massive effect. The invention of "Right to work" states created a situation where there is zero job security and the employer knows he can simply recycle his staff every couple of years when those with experience begin demanding more pay. And of course the absolute dissolution of union presence has made it so there is zero recourse for the employees as a group.

Look at walmart. Their entire business model is dependent on government's ability to meet their employees' needs. How did we go so wrong as a nation that we have allowed that to happen and view it as normal or acceptable?

[Jerry Gallo]

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Thanks John, a lot to think about here.

For a business selling a product, the price of the merchandise sold must cover the cost of production.   If all businesses have to meet the same requirements, then there is a certain fairness to it.  If a business hires illegal immigrants for a reduced wage, then it no longer competes while following the same requirements.  There are laws about that.  In no case is it divine.

Your example of the small grocery store is a good one, we all see it.  Automated check-out is replacing both baggers and checkers.  Those jobs are going away.

When a business pays a low wage to its employees but those employees are dependent on public health care and food stamps, then part of the fair burden cost of their employment is put off onto the taxpayers.  That amounts to a government subsidy.  I am not opposed to governments bailing out businesses that suffer catastrophes, but I am opposed to giving government subsidies to to corporations that they incorporate into their business and profit forecasts.  That is the issue I see with low wages

People often get upset about handouts and dependency among the poor, but  there seems less visibility of large handouts to the rich.

It is not about liberals exploiting the poor and glorifying unemployment. It is not about buying votes. Yet, it is propelled by liberals with no solution other than to keep people from being hungry and homeless. For conservatives it seems like the strategy is to bad mouth the other side and ignore the problem.  Or we can bring up the Boogie-man of socialism and cease all discussion.  If we ignore a growing unsupporting class ( those that don't  earn enough to survive with a full time job)  and denigrate anybody talking about it, we still can't make it go away.

What does society do about individuals that work full time, and even overtime but require permanent assistance?   Automation is moving up the skill and training ladder and obsoleting workers with higher levels of these all of the time.  White collar jobs are not exempt.  This is what is happening to our society right now. Liberals may be forcing a look at it by demanding a $15 mim wage, but the problem is not of their creation.  We need to deal with it.

Either we take care of people or we let them die.  Which is it?  Do we decide on the China-type one child per family program to reduce the future number of unnecessary humans?  We could move back into a lower tech society, get rid of the autocheckers and bring back cashiers and baggers.  Most people would not be enthusiastic about that either of those alternatives.   Neither one seems very good to me.

 

Thanks Carl, appreciate your response.

I take exception to this fair burden cost principle. Since when it is the responsibility of an employer to ensure every worker is paid enough to keep them off public health care and food stamps? Two stock boys interviewing at Whole Foods, high school diplomas in hand...both are hired for need as there really are no skill requirements in stacking cans of tuna. One is sixteen, only getting a job to buy nice rims for his handed down 1987 IROC-Z. The other is 43 and paying child support to three ex-wives. To the feather haired teen, $10/hr for 30 hrs a week is mint. To the hard to live with guy, $10/hr for 30 hrs a week doesn't put a dent into his burden. The no skill and minimum education requirement is what sets the wage. In no way does someone's personal circumstances factor in. Thus, as DieChecker said, the responsibility to cover burdens the wage doesn't cover is on the earner, not the employer.

For the record, I don't oppose handouts to the poor from the jump. What I oppose is someone capable of working making handouts their permanent occupation. As well, unsure which handouts to the rich you are referring to, but I can see an intellectual case about giving the wealthy a tax break in anticipation of them reinvesting that break into the economy in the way of investment. I can also see a "fair play" case being made on giving Exxon a tax exemption for R&D if you are also giving one to Solyndra. There is no precedent in our Constitution for progressive tax law. We choose an arbitrary number and punish a certain amount of income or wealth because it makes us feel good to force those who are successful to pay the burden of those who aren't. Many of those folks used to VOLUNTARILY help with the burden of the poor through church and charity until the Democrats decided they could better utilize that money through taxation.

C'mon now...bad mouthing the other side and ignoring problems is just a conservative thing? You going to tell me the liberals never bad mouthed GWB, the obstructionist GOP under Obama, and Trump every minute of every day since he was elected? I won't say conservatives have the right answers or that they are doing enough to solve the problem. What I will say is that one component of earning enough to survive is defining what survival is. A person doesn't deserve a house he or she can't pay for. A person doesn't deserve a big screen television and an X-Box if they are on food stamps. When part of the burden is their smokes, their booze and credit card debt, that changes the conversation. I admit, my examples are one extreme, just as the left portrays the opposite extreme as the norm.

Can't say I have the answer about what society does when innovation forces people out of the workplace. But it's been happening for generations and somehow we survived without the trillions in permanent welfare handed out. An artificially high minimum wage is not the answer, as evidenced by the number of businesses who stuck to it who are now under staffed or out of business. Because most of the jobs are not worth $15 to the business owner or the consumer. The left's flaw is they are trying to address the financial obligation end of a worker's life via the income end. Why not $30/hr? Why not $50/hr? Let's really let them enjoy what others have enjoyed. Perhaps one answer is for the liberals to start sending the message to folks in need to start doing the jobs that Americans won't do. Not saying it's a magical elixer, but it's a method I haven't seen them use. Maybe the left can ask Apple to move their phone production to the US and pay the workers $25/hr to assemble their $1600 phones. Seems with their 23.68% profit margin, they could help. Perhaps Tom Steyer and Bill Gates could write an annual check that goes directly into the welfare kitty when filing their taxes each year. Unions can spend less on lobbying and more on payouts to workers on strike when it happens.

We agree this needs to be addressed. Where we disagree is this notion that he left is the only one who cares. The left will not address their side of things, won't acknowledge the flaws in their plans. Their gift of never compromising or relenting is as much of the problem as anything. The problem is always conservatives...Republicans...in fact anyone who doesn't march in lockstep. I don't have all the answers, not even sure I have part of an answer. What I do know is that there are many folks "in need" who have the opportunity to retrain and start a new career that might pay them a pretty decent wage in a couple years if they play their cards right. They refuse, shouldn't have to start over because innovation forced them out. If they shouldn't have to in order to pay their bills, why should a taxpayer have that burden forced upon them? There's always another side, when the left is willing to acknowledge that other side, perhaps we'll start dealing with it.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Jerry Gallo

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Lived in a better economical situation. The median house price, adjusted for inflation, in 1950 was 44k, today its 230k. Those kind of examples exist across the board. The economy has changed, the economic factors are no longer the same, its time to stop drawing on the logic of the generations that created the mess in an attempt to justify not fixing it,.

 

Nope what is being said is we deserve the same opportunities as previous generations.

The issue isn't solely that house prices have become artificially much more expensive. The issue is that previous generations bought homes based on their means, homes that often only covered true need. Today, homes are often filled with luxury wants. There were no en suites, chef's kitchens, walk-in closets and three car garages. Many people saw their parents retire into a lot of these amenities, after working 50 years. They then decided they should have these up front, before starting a family, before setting themselves up to pay for it. So, they used credit to have it now, worry about it later. $23T in public debt.

Most have the same opportunities as previous generations. Previous generations bought things when they saved enough to buy them, often a decades later. We have that opportunity, we've just conditioned ourselves into thinking we need things we don't, we deserve rewards we've yet to earn. If I saw the left portraying that part of the conversation as adamantly as they do when blaming the wealthy like they do in EVERY discussion, perhaps I'd be more open to their ideas.

[+DieChecker]

True... There's home constructuon going on right now several miles from my house, where they plan 20,000 homes. And they've openly said the average price is going to be 450k. That's going to feather everyone's pockets, except the people who buy them. 

[Farmer77]

 

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Most have the same opportunities as previous generations. Previous generations bought things when they saved enough to buy them, often a decades later. We have that opportunity, we've just conditioned ourselves into thinking we need things we don't, we deserve rewards we've yet to earn. 

No they dont as I clearly demonstrated in the post you quoted. Sure we have the opportunity to work hard but our hard work has been devalued by magnitude over the decades. Thats not being given the same opportunity

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What have people historically done? They do one, or several, of several things.

- They get a second income. Wife goes to work.

- They live cheaper. Buy cheaper house. Rent cheaper apartment. Buy cheaper car.

- They move somewhere cheaper.

What is being said by demanding a $15 minimum is that people shouldn't need a second job. That they deserve the bigger house and car. They deserve a vacation every year.

The problem is cost of living (CoL) in way overtaxed urban/suburban areas. Houses are increasing in value over 10% per year in many places. A regular ranch house in Seattle, or San Francisco, costs a million dollars. 

I don't know what the fix is, but increasing wages is only going to up the CoL.

Thanks and welcome to the present. 

21 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

What does society do about individuals that work full time, and even overtime but require permanent assistance?   Automation is moving up the skill and training ladder and obsoleting workers with higher levels of these all of the time.  White collar jobs are not exempt.  This is what is happening to our society right now. Liberals may be forcing a look at it by demanding a $15 mim wage, but the problem is not of their creation.  We need to deal with it

I don't think I implied that a higher wage would excuse extra effort.  I think my question was what to do about people who are already working overtime and whose spouses work?

You work in a much higher class manufacturing environment than I do.  I have spent over 30 years in titanium aerospace facilities.  It is pretty common here that both husband and wife work for this company.  In order to keep up with growth, 55 hour weeks has been mandatory for the last several years.  Every morning when I show up at 6:30, I hear women who came in at 4:30 AM on their first break calling their kids, making sure they are up and ready for school, helping younger siblings or spending 5 minutes to attend to a kids personal need over the phone.  Dad is already at work in a grinding booth, or reading X-rays or casting.

These are people with insurance, both working above entry level jobs, both working 10 hour days plus a Saturday shift.  I believe 55 hours is the limit allowable.  

What I am trying to tell you is that I am used to hard working honest dependable people.   Lots of beaters in this parking lot.  New ones are mostly single young guys who are cocky enough to take on a very large payment and expect nothing to go wrong.  Median price for housing in the small towns around here is more in the $170 k range, and they look it..

These folks are making $15 to $25 dollars and hour depending on their jobs and training.  When something comes up, a car dies, or a child becomes seriously ill or injured, it is a serious problem for these families.  When a mom uses here sick leave and vacation time to take care of  sick kids, it becomes an issue.  This is not our parent's era when many moms stayed home  There is no luxury of mom getting a job or getting a second job.

Mom is already working and it becomes tougher to take on a second job that is any more than a four hour shift at Taco Bell or McDonalds a few times a week. I am not talking about bums, lay-abouts and drug addicts  sapping our  welfare dollars.  I am talking about 2 worker families working overtime and still living on the edge.   If they are young and want to start a family, then its 4 weeks off for mom and back to work.  They better have a family member lined up to take care of the baby because child care is not always affordable for these folks.

Making $15 an hour is not the yellow brick road to OZ.  It does not eliminate the need for overtime or two worker families.  I believe I implied in my comments above that if the liberal position is only to give a higher minimum wage, it won't work

Economics and society are changing.  What worked for the last hundred years is already in place.  Now what?  And then tomorrow comes. I don't know what automation will do to your position, but others are in jeopardy. Maybe tomorrow will not see a robot die checker, some day it might.  More and more people will find themselves close to the edge.

Apart from keeping a stiff upper lip and carrying on, do conservatives have a plan to produce a strong vibrant, competitive society for the next generations?  

 

[Jerry Gallo]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 

No they dont as I clearly demonstrated in the post you quoted. Sure we have the opportunity to work hard but our hard work has been devalued by magnitude over the decades. Thats not being given the same opportunity

But you didn't, you assume that a small four room house with no garage is the same as a four BR ranch with a three car garage. You also act like the sole reason houses are more expensive is strictly inflation and blame that on those that have, not taking into account the cost of union labor and materials being more expensive in part due to your movement's regulations and agendas. 

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

But you didn't, you assume that a small four room house with no garage is the same as a four BR ranch with a three car garage. You also act like the sole reason houses are more expensive is strictly inflation and blame that on those that have, not taking into account the cost of union labor and materials being more expensive in part due to your movement's regulations and agendas. 

You got a laugh because of "my movements regulations" ,.......yeah you'll never get me to apologize for being smarter than you.  The vast majority of regulations are in place for a reason, even if you dont have the ability to comprehend why.

And yes I do understand the basic tenets of shopping, in fact, you are probably safe to just go ahead and assume everyone does. 

[Jerry Gallo]

12 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

You got a laugh because of "my movements regulations" ,.......yeah you'll never get me to apologize for being smarter than you.  The vast majority of regulations are in place for a reason, even if you dont have the ability to comprehend why.

And yes I do understand the basic tenets of shopping, in fact, you are probably safe to just go ahead and assume everyone does. 

If you have to tell someone you are smarter than them, you probably aren't. More arrogant for sure. Plus, you called someone a retard upstream or on another thread, no one with significant intellect does that. Lastly, one fundamental rule of the internet...never, under any circumstance, allow a typo on a post bragging about your superior intelligence. Karma will slap you almost every time.

 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Jerry Gallo said:

If you have to tell someone you are smarter than them, you probably aren't. More arrogant for sure. Plus, you called someone a retard upstream or on another thread, no one with significant intellect does that. Lastly, one fundamental rule of the internet...never, under any circumstance, allow a typo on a post bragging about your superior intelligence. Karma will slap you almost every time.

 

Yeah bro thats cute and all but your obsession with exposing your ignorance regarding regulations makes all the point I need. 

[+DieChecker]

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Thanks and welcome to the present. 

I don't think I implied that a higher wage would excuse extra effort.  I think my question was what to do about people who are already working overtime and whose spouses work?

You work in a much higher class manufacturing environment than I do.  I have spent over 30 years in titanium aerospace facilities.  It is pretty common here that both husband and wife work for this company.  In order to keep up with growth, 55 hour weeks has been mandatory for the last several years.  Every morning when I show up at 6:30, I hear women who came in at 4:30 AM on their first break calling their kids, making sure they are up and ready for school, helping younger siblings or spending 5 minutes to attend to a kids personal need over the phone.  Dad is already at work in a grinding booth, or reading X-rays or casting.

These are people with insurance, both working above entry level jobs, both working 10 hour days plus a Saturday shift.  I believe 55 hours is the limit allowable.  

What I am trying to tell you is that I am used to hard working honest dependable people.   Lots of beaters in this parking lot.  New ones are mostly single young guys who are cocky enough to take on a very large payment and expect nothing to go wrong.  Median price for housing in the small towns around here is more in the $170 k range, and they look it..

These folks are making $15 to $25 dollars and hour depending on their jobs and training.  When something comes up, a car dies, or a child becomes seriously ill or injured, it is a serious problem for these families.  When a mom uses here sick leave and vacation time to take care of  sick kids, it becomes an issue.  This is not our parent's era when many moms stayed home  There is no luxury of mom getting a job or getting a second job.

Mom is already working and it becomes tougher to take on a second job that is any more than a four hour shift at Taco Bell or McDonalds a few times a week. I am not talking about bums, lay-abouts and drug addicts  sapping our  welfare dollars.  I am talking about 2 worker families working overtime and still living on the edge.   If they are young and want to start a family, then its 4 weeks off for mom and back to work.  They better have a family member lined up to take care of the baby because child care is not always affordable for these folks.

Making $15 an hour is not the yellow brick road to OZ.  It does not eliminate the need for overtime or two worker families.  I believe I implied in my comments above that if the liberal position is only to give a higher minimum wage, it won't work

Economics and society are changing.  What worked for the last hundred years is already in place.  Now what?  And then tomorrow comes. I don't know what automation will do to your position, but others are in jeopardy. Maybe tomorrow will not see a robot die checker, some day it might.  More and more people will find themselves close to the edge.

Apart from keeping a stiff upper lip and carrying on, do conservatives have a plan to produce a strong vibrant, competitive society for the next generations?  

 

So, assume I make $50 an hour. How is it that two workers making $25 an hour each are living a way lower lifestyle, with 1/3 the housing price? The wife working part time should be easily possible. Either I'm super good at budgeting, so that I can afford a almost half million dollar house, and a $500 a month car payment, and have thousands in the bank, or you are overstating things.

I'm not disputing that there's going to be issues. Emergencies. But, if a person stashes, say $5000, away those emergencies, unless they come one after the other, which happens... Are not such a big deal.

Conservatives Plan? Got me there. I think the plan is simply to try to invigorate the economy and let the workers figure out what they can get when they are in higher demand. 

True, robots are kind of taking over. I read that in many places, like Seattle, where the minimum went (or is going?) up to $15 an hour, the McDonalds installed a lot more of the walk up automatic tellers. So they could cut out their front counter work force. There are some jobs which are safer then others, but wiith AI and automation, many data entry jobs are going to disappear.

[Jerry Gallo]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah bro thats cute and all but your obsession with exposing your ignorance regarding regulations makes all the point I need. 

The regulatory impact of Dodd-Frank alone has inflated home prices some 30%. You have affirmative fair housing regulations. The reason for these regulations is simple...gov't trying to force fairness by artificial means, manipulating the market and dictating what should be built where, putting people in homes they can't afford in neighborhoods that won't sustain home values. It's intellectually ignorant, but it makes a few people feel good up front. The second the buyer is foreclosed out of their home, the second a homeowner has negative equity, those people are forgotten as the home market goes south. 

 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

The regulatory impact of Dodd-Frank alone has inflated home prices some 30%. You have affirmative fair housing regulations. The reason for these regulations is simple...gov't trying to force fairness by artificial means, manipulating the market and dictating what should be built where, putting people in homes they can't afford in neighborhoods that won't sustain home values.

Man you are being fed some bad information.  Dodd Frank was implemented in response to the 2008 market crash that was a direct result of the actions you described above. Literally the law you are deriding was put in place to stop the actions you are describing. 

 

Dodd-Frank: Title XIV - Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act

 

Quote

Purpose:  

The 2008 economic depression was triggered in part by the real estate bubble bursting.  Mortgages became extremely easy to obtain, and many of those mortgages had predatory provisions that made it difficult for borrowers to pay off the mortgages in the event that their real estate value decreased.

 

Perhaps now is a good time to set emotions aside and look at who is giving you information and more importantly why ?

 

[Jerry Gallo]

24 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man you are being fed some bad information.  Dodd Frank was implemented in response to the 2008 market crash that was a direct result of the actions you described above. Literally the law you are deriding was put in place to stop the actions you are describing. 

 

Dodd-Frank: Title XIV - Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act

 

 

Perhaps now is a good time to set emotions aside and look at who is giving you information and more importantly why ?

 

I'm well aware of Dodd-Frank's stated purpose and it's lasting impact. The red tape and the requirements, no matter how noble you may find them, still increases home prices for those who can least afford it. What is really sick about it, is that it attempts to prevent the policy of providing loans to people who can't afford them, a policy pushed by the author of the law. Barney Frank literally crusaded for the government to lower underwriting standards to get more lower income people into houses, another feel good, but intellectually void liberal agenda. Then after the housing crash, he writes a law trying to prohibit what he crusaded for.

So let's do look at it. My information comes from Forbes and Investors Business Daily...you know, people with expertise in the financial world. Your answer comes from liberal academics. Why? Because you support them and they support you and you both feel pride. I go to the experts on money, sometime there's agreement, sometimes I have to change my way of thinking. It's the difference between liberal arrogance and conservatives finding facts.