It's pretty decent karma if he dies before he can watch the MJ documentary.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
It's pretty decent karma if he dies before he can watch the MJ documentary.
It would be interesting to see what happens to NK going forward if that happens. Could possibly be an opening to make some inroads with them.
You'd hope so but I'm not that optimistic. I'm sure he's got family members lining up to replace him if he dies and until the young people of NK can access internet to see how much living in NK sucks they'll just think this new Kim is another god.
P.S. Death of Stalin is funny if you haven't seen it. Thought of that when thinking of succession (which is another good show on HBO).
I don't think it's going to automatically turn into a democracy, but maybe it can turn into a dictatorship we can work with. Who would take over in his family though? His sister is the only one in his branch right? Given how he treated the people around him, they might want to be more open just to piss on his legacy. But you are right about change needing to come from the people, although I think the older population would be the problem. Young people are rebellious by nature.
what about the fact that news networks weren’t even in agreement with the story?
sure, let’s disagree in the media about cv19, but the health status of kju??????
sure, let’s disagree in the media about cv19, but the health status of kju??????
They're starving. They know it sucks, but it's like 1984 over there. Hard to revolt when you're afraid your own family members are going to turn you in.
Thats the issues with tying your evaluation of the economy to the stock market. Supply side economic theory has been eroding the middle class ever since the Reagan adminsration.
People being too dumb to save, has nothing to do with the health of the economy.
You’re out of touch. People need disposable income to be able to build savings. A massive number of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and you want to deride them for not saving enough to get through a pandemic, while we bail out banks and massive corporations that make billions in profit every quarter?
Let’s just thank saint Ronny that our corporate benefactors are generous enough to give us some of those amazing jobs that they “created.” Hopefully if we give them enough tax breaks and tax payer funded bailouts they’ll let us keep some of them.
Nothing in your post has anything to do with what I said.
How can people be too dumb to save money when they don’t have any disposable income to save even if they wanted to?
I’ve seen people retire well from being a garbage man. It’s all about personal choices and wants versus needs. I’d venture a guess that those that can’t survive 2 weeks without a paycheck prioritize their wants before their
needs. Spending disposable income on liquor, lottery tickets, cigarettes, prostitutes, drugs, gambling, mobile phones, and satellite tv won’t leave very much for these little hiccups.
Productivity, corporate profits, and the cost of living have steadily risen over the last 40 years while wage growth has been relatively stagnant. As a result, income and wealth inequality has ballooned out of control while the purchasing power of the dollar has simultaneously fallen.
There are a lot of people out there who bust their asses and can barely afford to keep food on the table for their kids. Your guess that they're all just spending their money on hookers and blow is condescending and frankly, naive. It's the same old welfare queen rhetoric that conservatives have been trotting out since the beginning of time. It doesn't even attempt to address any of the real macroeconomic issues.
It's always strange to hear working class people arguing against their own interests. I'm not anti-business. I just think workers deserve a larger piece of the pie. And that includes everyone on this board, regardless of their political views.
Last edited:
Productivity, corporate profits, and the cost of living have steadily risen over the last 40 years while wage growth has been relatively stagnant. As a result, income and wealth inequality has ballooned out of control while the purchasing power of the dollar has simultaneously fallen.
There are a lot of people out there who bust their asses and can barely afford to keep food on the table for their kids. Your guess that they're all just spending their money on hookers and blow is condescending and frankly, naive. It's the same old welfare queen rhetoric that conservatives have been trotting out since the beginning of time. It doesn't even attempt to address any of the real macroeconomic issues.
It's always strange to hear working class people arguing against their own interests. I'm not anti-business. I just think workers deserve a larger piece of the pie. And that includes everyone on this board, regardless of their political views.
Median MALE income???
Median MALE income???
Lol I was just waiting for it.
For anyone who doesn't know why that's used in economics, it's just less biased. Women have made significant gains in terms of workplace opportunities and pay equality across that time period so you'd have an extra set of variables to try to control for.
My guess is that a large portion of people that live paycheck to paycheck now, would still live paycheck to paycheck even if you doubled or tripled their income. Sure, there are some that legitimately aren't making enough to support themselves/family, but there are also some that just spend up to (and beyond) their income regardless of what it is. It's a lifestyle choice for them.
Even if it's in someone's best interest, they may not deem it fair or appropriate. I'm 32 years old, it would be in my best interest to have all taxpayers over 30 have their tax rates lowered and all taxpayers under 30 have their tax rates raised. But I would never argue for that because although in my best interest I don't think it's fair and appropriate.
Yep.
I put a lot of the blame on education for that. There's no reason that I know a squared + b squared = c squared graduating HS but I didn't know typical interest rate on CC's, how much income I should save, etc. etc. I only knew this from my parents being extremely conservative financially and teaching me about debt.
If the parents don't teach it, kids don't know it. Then they don't teach it to their kids..etc. etc. etc.
College was a tiny bit better at that but my econ classes still just covered commercial stuff, not personal econ.
I agree. Sometimes it not what you make it"s what you spend, but not always. The wealth gap has gotten larger and larger down through the years..
The fact that it’s in your interest isn’t the argument. I just commented that it’s odd. Again, it’s strange to see people go way out of their way to ignore the macroeconomics just to blame poor people for how they spend what little money they have. Productivity and corporate profits have soared while workers get a smaller piece of the pie. Not sure why working class people are so happy to accept that.
This is going to sound insensitive, but this is capitalism. People who work hard, go to school, make good decisions, etc. make more money. A simple look at average income by level of school completed shows that.
Giving a person who works at McDonalds $20/hr doesn't help anyone. It promotes striving for lower level jobs that should be reserved for HS/College kids and those not intelligent enough for anything else (like .001% of the population).
This is why education is so important. That should be the first place we start because that's how to stop poor people from being poor. Make trade schools, community colleges, and the like much (MUCH) more affordable. Teach kids how to save money and what happens to them if they get into debt.
Giving poor people more money for doing the same thing has literally never worked in history in the long term. It's like putting a bandaid on a broken leg.
The solution to the wealth gap is not giving poor people more money. That's an extremely short term and short-sided fix.
If you are talking about the working poor their pay should rise as the GDP per worker rises. That is not happening.
it's called principle, a word that has little meaning to those who are too shortsighted to understand the benefit of behaving according to some. A basic unearned income doled out by the government is wrong. Unless to the handicapped, etc., no unearned money should be taken from one segment of the population and handed over to another, regardless of how it's camouflaged as something other than wealth redistribution. Create jobs, even if doing so costs more than just giving it away.
Nobody has said anything about a basic unearned income. Go back to your goat fantasies ya creep
Bad take again. These problems didn’t start until the Reagan administration started shoving supply side economics down the American public’s throats and workers actually started to believe it. Union busting has eradicated the collective bargaining power of workers so they have very little negotiating power. If you won’t take the low wage, then someone else is probably desperate enough to do it. There are a limited number of buyers in the labor market, and they all have an interest in paying the lowest wage that they possibly can. Historically, unions are how the middle class ensured that they earned good wages and got solid benefits. It's how middle class American's ensured they could afford homes and cars in the 50's.
People just have overly simplistic notions of how the labor market works. Employers have way too much power because one worker can almost always be easily replaced for someone who will work for less. Of course people who make good decisions and have a good education make more money. Nobody is arguing that they shouldn't. That doesn't even address the issue of wages not rising along with inflation, the cost of living, and labor productivity.
The idea that everyone can just get an education and find a better job to make more money is not a solution. There are not enough high paying jobs for that to be the solution. There’s always more jobs at the bottom than the top.
Again, everyone is basically shitting on poor people while ignoring the economic reality that wages have not grown despite inflation and a rising cost of living.
The fact that productivity has risen while wages have not disproves the notion that you just need to provide more value and you’ll get paid more. Workers have become more productive year after year and the labor share of income falls or stays flat. Workers are getting screwed.
You know what isn’t capitalism? Union busting. People should have the right to organize and collectively bargain. Are you seriously going to argue that wages should not rise when productivity and inflation rises?
Last edited:
and yet you are the one who brought up goats and here you are doing it again. Hmmm. And otherwise, you don't comprehend much, but that's the given you have to deal with I guess..
I have a young man with a newborn that works for me. I started him out at 16 bucks an hour. Thats 5 dollars more than what he is actually worth since he knows very little. He has been with me for 8 months now. He still can't read a tape consistently and finally purchased his own tool bag with hand tools. He has recently complained that he really didn't think he would be doing carpentry work with me. He only wants to do work at the nuke plant. He has been complaining that he doesn't make enough money for what he does. The first day he came with his new tools, he told the other guys he should get a raise now. Naturally, he has no extra money. But he and his girl friend sure has the best phones and plans money can buy.Productivity, corporate profits, and the cost of living have steadily risen over the last 40 years while wage growth has been relatively stagnant. As a result, income and wealth inequality has ballooned out of control while the purchasing power of the dollar has simultaneously fallen.
There are a lot of people out there who bust their asses and can barely afford to keep food on the table for their kids. Your guess that they're all just spending their money on hookers and blow is condescending and frankly, naive. It's the same old welfare queen rhetoric that conservatives have been trotting out since the beginning of time. It doesn't even attempt to address any of the real macroeconomic issues.
It's always strange to hear working class people arguing against their own interests. I'm not anti-business. I just think workers deserve a larger piece of the pie. And that includes everyone on this board, regardless of their political views.
This is a story that is very familiar in my area. People have all the ability to advance in life, but they choose to lay around and wait till someone gives them more.
I do OK with my work, I have enough to live on for a while. But I choose to progress. I purchased my nephews pressure washing business last year. I have all his clients. I am spending around 10k to upgrade equipment and a box truck to house the equipment. I don't need the additional income, but it supplements my lifestyle and savings nicely. One of my guys works with me on this as well. He makes a decent lick working 1 or 2 days a week washing on the side. Ask me how many times the young guy has asked to help.
This is my point, most people can do better, if they want to. But just like this kid, he chooses to wait for someone to pony up for him.
I guess I don't understand economics very well. I started out my adult life making $7.35 at Burger King. Left that to make $9.00 roofing. Left that to make $12 framing houses. Started picking up small side jobs and would earn an additional $200 each week (new family at this point). Worked hard to learn the trade and made it to $15 per hour before I started out on my own. I have always started my new guys around $11 per hour. Raises come when they could. I struggled thru the recession with 1 or 2 guys and still managed not to loose everything i owned. Picked up contracts at the nuke plant 7 years ago. Paid all my bad debt first. Paid off everything that I own. Now I'm making money I can save or invest. I have fairly new vehicles, a new boat on order, and still working 50-60 hours a week. Still find time for my kids and grand kids. Still have time for being an associate pastor with my church. All this with no education beyond high school. But I guess I can give up the extras in my life to hand out to people who work under me. Those economics don't work for me. Every $100 I pay out cost me almost $20 in insurance and matching SS. Not counting the accounting, contract negotiations, and other things I have to do. I can only charge so much to do the work I do.
I am not taking less for my efforts and dedication to pay out to individuals who refuse to earn it. That would be ignorant. You can show all the grafts you want. A McDonald's with full staff would have $15 happy meals to compensate the additional cost to make everyone earn $20. Those in cooperate positions did another to earn that spot. Am I taking advantage of some of my guys? I guess in a way I am. I provide the work, they provide the service. I pay them accordingly. If I have to give up my livelihood, then its not worth it to me.
Duke energy is a prime example of this. Over the last 2 years, they have laid off over 60% of their work force. Everyone in the nuke industry makes stupid money. It doesn't matter if its the janitor or the plant manager. Its very inflated. Guess what, the work production has not changed at all. They got rid of the ones that were simply along for the ride. If coorperate America is forced to higher wage earnings without more risk/workload for the employee, they will do the same.
And people would still live check to check
I am not taking less for my efforts and dedication to pay out to individuals who refuse to earn it. That would be ignorant. You can show all the grafts you want. A McDonald's with full staff would have $15 happy meals to compensate the additional cost to make everyone earn $20. Those in cooperate positions did another to earn that spot. Am I taking advantage of some of my guys? I guess in a way I am. I provide the work, they provide the service. I pay them accordingly. If I have to give up my livelihood, then its not worth it to me.
Duke energy is a prime example of this. Over the last 2 years, they have laid off over 60% of their work force. Everyone in the nuke industry makes stupid money. It doesn't matter if its the janitor or the plant manager. Its very inflated. Guess what, the work production has not changed at all. They got rid of the ones that were simply along for the ride. If coorperate America is forced to higher wage earnings without more risk/workload for the employee, they will do the same.
And people would still live check to check
That anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with the macroeconomic facts I have cited. Again, productivity has increased along with corporate profits, while wages have stayed relatively flat. Calling people lazy or irresponsible does not address or explain those trends.
There has been no major discontinuity in the long term trend of Real GDP growth. There is a clear discontinuity around 1975 for median male income, which is a robust metric for evaluating median wages for the middle class. So whats your explanation for why median male income stopped growing?
Last edited:
Raising prices to compensate for increased nominal wages does not solve the problem. A lack of real wage growth is the issue, which means corporate profits will have to take a hit. They have become inflated by the lack of wage growth despite an increase in productivity. This leads to an imbalanced economy which explains the massive levels of income and wealth inequality that we see today.
Most of the massive, multi billion dollar corporations do not have to raise their prices to pay people more. Their profits are at record levels. They have plenty of room in their margins for higher wages. They just have to make less profit. Are they going to do that willingly? No. Will shareholders like it? No. Is it necessary to secure the long term existence of the middle class? Yes.
The economy will expand as a result. Middle class workers spend their money on goods and services which in turn stimulate economic growth. There will still be insanely wealthy people. There will still be massively profitable corporations. This is not socialism. It’s labor economics and if we don’t sort it out we’re going to have some serious problems on our hands. This pandemic has already highlighted the issue with having the majority of the country living by the skin of their teeth. Arguing that cell phone plans are the root cause is reductionist.
In the meantime, sure we should teach people more about financial responsibility. It’s important that people invest and spend wisely so that the increases in income actually lead to them building wealth.
Most of the massive, multi billion dollar corporations do not have to raise their prices to pay people more. Their profits are at record levels. They have plenty of room in their margins for higher wages. They just have to make less profit. Are they going to do that willingly? No. Will shareholders like it? No. Is it necessary to secure the long term existence of the middle class? Yes.
The economy will expand as a result. Middle class workers spend their money on goods and services which in turn stimulate economic growth. There will still be insanely wealthy people. There will still be massively profitable corporations. This is not socialism. It’s labor economics and if we don’t sort it out we’re going to have some serious problems on our hands. This pandemic has already highlighted the issue with having the majority of the country living by the skin of their teeth. Arguing that cell phone plans are the root cause is reductionist.
In the meantime, sure we should teach people more about financial responsibility. It’s important that people invest and spend wisely so that the increases in income actually lead to them building wealth.
But why do they "have" to make less profit? I don't desire to make "less" profit. They will cut jobs and add more work load to existing employees. See my Duke energy example. Owners, stock holders, peoe with 401k invested in their employers company, CEOs and such made their earnings and worked for that. Forcing change will disrupt the economy. I really could care less how much they make as long as noone screws with m y ability to make my part as well. And I don't want to pay more to do that. Max profit with minimal expenses is a good goal. The human condition is a major part of this. People are genuinely lazy and do no more than they have to. Why work harder when someone wants to give it to you.
You’re really determined to only see this through the lense of your own personal experience. Nobody is talking specifically about your business.
And you still can’t give me an explanation as to why wage growth flattened in 1975. You seriously want to argue that people suddenly got lazier in the 70’s?
Maximum profit with minimal expenses is not a good goal for workers. Maybe you’re okay with the working class getting screwed so you can make an extra buck but I’m not. Since you want minimal expenses maybe we should just outsource all of the jobs to China or Taiwan. It’s cheaper after all.
Aggregate demand will rise with median wages. That’s good for the economy. Maybe they don’t end up making less profit in the long run, but if real wages don’t grow then the middle class will be squeezed out of existence and poverty will reach a critical mass.
Yeah it’s human nature. Everyone that is less successful than you is just lazy. People suddenly got lazy in the 70’s so wages stopped growing. That makes total sense. /s
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Increasing real wages that have barely grown for forty years is not a handout. Accusing people of being lazy for wanting a raise when productivity is at an all time high is ridiculous.
Similar threads
