Minimum Wage Increase Eliminates Minimum Wage Jobs By Forcing Businesses Out of The Market by JEWELSTAITEFAN

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Women went to work BECAUSE wages dropped. One led the other in time - which makes lower wages a better candidate as a cause of women in the workforce than the other way around.

France had a problem - and it's the exact same problem as in the US now. It's high unemployment, coupled with the fact that the fewer people who ARE working are being overworked.

YOUR solution would lead too 77% unemployment (the 27% who are already not participating, though they can,

plus the 50% you want to leave work).
Is that what you're going for?

AND it would double the workload of those who are left employed.
Is that what you're going for?

That's how your simple math works out.
Is that what you're going for?

Care to try addressing the facts, again?

Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2017 7:20 PM

lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2017 7:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

No answer to simple questions about the simple math in your own post.

I got that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2017 7:38 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Do you get the point of the following, 6ixstringJoker? As you wrote: "My question was, if half of the workers in America quit working tomorrow, regardless of sex, what would happen?" The right answer is the economy crashes. Your answer is wrong. Your common sense & simple math is misleading you. Ask Janet Yellen how the economy works. She would be delighted to explain it to you. Me, I'm not going to because I'm not paid to:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/08/fed-chair-janet-yellen-
has-a-cure-for-the-lackluster-economy-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-interest-rates/?utm_term=.aae45cffcb01

Federal Reserve Chair Janet L. Yellen has prescribed an unusual remedy for the United States' aging, low-growth economy: harness the under-tapped pool of female talent.

Yellen, the first woman to run the country’s central bank, said the lack of family-friendly work policies stifles women’s participation in the labor force and ultimately stalls growth.

"A number of factors appear to be holding women back,” she said last week at a conference celebrating the admission of women to Brown University more than a century ago, "including the difficulty women currently have in trying to combine their careers with other aspects of their lives, including caregiving.”

Yellen said the need for change is increasingly urgent as U.S. workers age — nearly one-fifth will reach retirement age by 2029 — and productivity continues to crawl.

The U.S. gross domestic product grew at a rate of more than 3 percent for the bulk of the 1980s and 1990s, but it has slowed since the recession. The GDP growth rate was just 0.7 percent for the first three months of this year.

Yellen argued that the United States was missing a growth opportunity by failing to adequately address the needs of female workers. As of today, 57 percent of women work outside the home, compared with 69.2 percent of men.

“One recent study estimates that increasing the female participation rate to that of men,” Yellen said, “would raise our gross domestic product by 5 percent.”

Research shows that women today still shoulder the majority of domestic responsibilities (cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids), even when they financially support their households. But the United States furnishes little support to these working parents compared with the rest of the developed world.

The United States remains the only industrialized nation not to guarantee new moms and dads a single day of paid time off. And child care continues to be an expense that competes in many places with the mortgage payment, surpassing the cost of public college tuition in two-thirds of states.

Economist Heidi Hartmann, founder of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, said that’s one reason U.S. women have fallen behind their counterparts across the world. European and Asian nations generally offer more paid leave and subsidized child care.

“The extent to which we don't talk about gender is the extent to which we don’t have a complete picture of how the economy works,” Hartmann said, adding that Yellen’s comments make sense for her position.

"When you consider the job of the Fed is economic growth, then it’s perfectly logical to be speaking about unemployed people,” she said. “Women’s employment is low, compared to similar women in other countries.”

In 1990, she noted, the United States boasted the sixth-highest female labor participation rate among 22 OECD member countries, trailing only Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Canada. By 2010, the country slid to 17th. Britain, Spain and Germany, for example, jumped ahead after expanding support for new parents, including subsidized child care and paid family leave.

American women, meanwhile, still earn 79 cents for every dollar paid to men, Yellen pointed out.

"The gap in earnings between men and women has narrowed substantially, but progress has slowed lately," she said. "Even when we compare men and women in the same or similar occupations who appear nearly identical in background and experience, a gap of about 10 percent typically remains."

If these disparities persist, she said, “we will squander the potential of many of our citizens and incur a substantial loss to the productive capacity of our economy.”

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
What facts? You're taking a very simple idea and making it unnecessarily complicated. Then you're throwing in unrelated graphs and unrelated ideas like Second always does.

My question was, if half of the workers in America quit working tomorrow, regardless of sex, what would happen?

The answer is that there would be an immediate MASSIVE spike in the need for employees. Assuming that the 50% split was straight down the middle of all classes and types of jobs, that would mean that the demand for workers of all backgrounds and skill sets would go up. That would mean that the price paid for working those jobs would also go up.

These are facts. These are common sense. I don't need to find a graph from France to prove them, and you can't find a graph from France to dis-prove them.

It's not that women joining the workforce did this because they are women.. that's just an unrelated fact that they are. But women joining the work force essentially cut the demand for labor in half.

Simple math.

Again, I'm not saying that women should stay at home and make babies. If they weren't collectively any good at doing the work than they wouldn't have had this impact on the job market. It's because they are completely capable of doing their jobs that it happened.

I'm also not saying that this is the only factor, and I'm not even putting a proportionate value on the effect they've had. There are other variables.

What I am saying is this does have a large impact though, and nobody ever talks about it because it would come off as a misogynist viewpoint. That's the problem with the SJW mentality. Common sense is thrown out the window.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 12:04 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

6

I'm just going to go on a bit about why the US worker is getting so royally screwed - and why getting rid of half of them isn't going to create nirvana for the rest.

But let me go back a bit - waaaaaaaay back. If I remember correctly, you had a great animus against fiat money. BTW, I completely agree with it. It's a scam of the highest order, especially when banks are allowed to create money out of nothing, and then charge us in interest to access it.

Your answer was gold. You felt gold, somehow, had an intrinsic value that had nothing to do with people's relative needs. And no real world examples of people leaving gold behind (as too heavy to carry) while they walked out of drought and famine devastation could convince you otherwise. I wonder if you still believe gold is all that.

But I thought I'd look to see, how has gold fared since 2008? The world economy was on the verge of collapse. And in many ways, most economies have yet to recover. Gold should have soared in value if it had intrinsic, rather than human, value.

January 1, 2008, gold was $833.50 per ounce. ( http://www.usagold.com/reference/goldprices/2008.html Jan 1 2008, 833.50)

Due to US inflation gold increased to $962.71 per ounce (inflation adjusted https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm 962.71)

Just today, gold was priced at $1,227.23 per ounce. ( http://www.usagold.com/)

That means over 9 years gold accrued $264.52 above and beyond US inflation. Given everything, I wouldn't call that a rousing figure that indicates gold has 'intrinsic' value. Also, I have to add, the gold market is highly manipulated.

So, I think you definitely hit the nail on the head with fiat money. But I think you went off track with gold as the answer.

On to today's worker woes. It's true, the US worker (for those who have jobs) has gotten progressively impoverished over time. The economy has grown, but workers' slice of the pie is getting smaller and smaller.

Workers now are expected to produce 2.5x as much as in 1970.

And fewer and fewer people can find jobs. (There are a lot of graphs out there re labor force participation rate, I didn't want to get into any particular one. Suffice to say it peaked in 2000, and has since dropped to levels not seen since 1978.)

So, fewer people have jobs, the ones who are working are producing 2.5x as much, the economy is expanding, but wages have stayed flat.

What's the answer?

Here, I think you're stuck on something which makes intuitive sense to you - just have fewer people work (the same way you were stuck on gold as the answer to fiat money).

But if fewer people work, then the ones left behind will have to work that much harder. Do you think that's even possible? And fewer people will be able to buy the necessities of life. Do you thinks that's reasonable?

Sometimes government is the answer. In this case, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE, to create laws that distribute the growing economy back to the workers.

As for your parents, yanno, there are a lot of things the government does that are really, truly, backwards.

Like why do they make people pay income taxes if they're below the poverty line? And how do they get such a ridiculous number in the first place? http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/18/why-is-the-federal-poverty-line-so-lo
w/ Why didn't the government index its alt min income tax to inflation? Why did it define exempt v non-exempt employees by income rather than job description? Why is the federal cash minimum wages for restaurant workers $2.13 per hour?

Getting back to your parents, it would make sense to me to exempt small business a certain amount of tax to cover the increased minimum wage.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 8:28 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Sometimes government is the answer. In this case, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE, to create laws that distribute the growing economy back to the workers.

As for your parents, yanno, there are a lot of things the government does that are really, truly, backwards.

Like why do they make people pay income taxes if they're below the poverty line? And how do they get such a ridiculous number in the first place? http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/18/why-is-the-federal-poverty-line-so-lo
w/ Why didn't the government index its alt min income tax to inflation? Why did it define exempt v non-exempt employees by income rather than job description? Why is the federal cash minimum wages for restaurant workers $2.13 per hour?

Getting back to your parents, it would make sense to me to exempt small business a certain amount of tax to cover the increased minimum wage.

Why is the government not wholehearted on the side of minimum wage workers and unemployed? Straight forward answer is that the majority of voters are not on that side. If it cost them nothing to raise minimum wage, all Democrat voters would be all for it, but it does cost so many of them are not for raising the wage. Republicans are against it, except for the ones making minimum wage, on principle:

Quote:
You do not deserve a living wage. What you do deserve is to be paid based on the amount of wealth you create for an employer, if they agree to hire you for that.
Not one penny more.
Not even if that amount is less than a "living wage".
A job is an employer buying your work, not a handout you're entitled to because you "need" it.
If you think there should be more welfare, more free handouts, then advocate for that honestly.
Don't pretend that demanding to be given more than you give to an employer because you "need" it would be earning an honest living.

What about the people making close to minimum? Why won’t they fight for a higher minimum wage? You could read “Nickel and Dimed” to find out the psychology of why they humbly wait for either God, the Lottery, or Trump to save them because there is no salvation coming from the voters in the top 50% of incomes. Those richer voters will not be pressuring their federal, state, or local government to spend money to fix the problems of the bottom 50%. That would cost money and they don’t want to pay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
https://thepiratebay.org/search/Nickel%20and%20Dimed/0/99/0

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:12 AM

You can't put the shit back in the horse.

Of course I'm not advocating for 50% more unemployment. I was just using that as an example of how the demand for labor of all flavors would go up if 50% of the workforce were to drop out overnight.

Maybe a better analogy for it would be Agenda 2030 or whatever they're calling it these days? I've already said in other threads that although it is an evil plan, it is pretty much a necessary plan at this point. I say that knowing full well that if it actually goes down there is virtually no reason to keep me alive, so I'd be of the 50% or more that would not be invited to the party.

There are simply too many people now. I actually took Second's advice and watched The Expanse, and it delves into this topic and does a pretty good job of spelling out the only alternative to agenda 2030. Conquering space exploration. It also shows that unless we do something to curb population that this also would only be a temporary stop-gap and the problems would begin again on 2 planets and even more.

As for women joining the workforce initially to augment household income, that may or may not be true. You know I don't believe what they teach in school or what they say on the news, so I give it 50/50 even though history says otherwise. A majority of women in the workforce was started during WWII when a lot of the working age males were dead and dying overseas and they had to do it to survive and to help the war machine. After WWII, feminism had a lot more to do with it.

Anything you can do, I can do better.... right?

I've talked with quite a few women over the years at my wildly different job types and a lot of them said that women are idiots for fighting for the right to work and be miserable like the men were. Somewhere along the line modern feminism took a very negative look on motherhood and tending the house and the children as if anybody doing those extremely important jobs were less than people.

Recent stats bear this out. We are far from our peak of the ratio of women to men that work in America. Women have been voluntarily leaving the workforce since its peak in the 90's.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Anything you can do, I can do better.... right?

Nope - It's not a competition, it's not about "better than." It's about Equal to. Equal individual, personal rights, equal freedom of choice, and just treating women with equal Dignity & Respect. I'm not religious but The Golden Rule is pretty damn golden.

Your youtube clip... you know she's a comedian, right? She's playing a role?

fa·ce·tious
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous, provacative

The joke of it's right there in that getting to do your humor on stage takes a lot of work and drive, so that would be a give away.

==============================

What is your point here?

Let the adults talk. Don't you have another thread or three that you're helping destroy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SIX, you've gotten two things conflated: population and job demand.

If you get rid of half the population, you'll also get rid of half of the jobs, because it's HUMAN DEMAND that creates jobs.

This deserves a far longer discussion that I have time for, but the lack of jobs is DIRECTLY related to the fact that eighty people own half of the world, and it's those eighty people who make jobs scarce. Getting rid of those eighty people... plus a few thousand of their hangers-on ... would solve that problem, at least for a while. Population control requires an entirely different solution.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX, you've gotten two things conflated: population and job demand.

If you get rid of half the population, you'll also get rid of half of the jobs, because it's HUMAN DEMAND that creates jobs.

This deserves a far longer discussion that I have time for, but the lack of jobs is DIRECTLY related to the fact that eighty people own half of the world, and it's those eighty people who make jobs scarce. Getting rid of those eighty people... plus a few thousand of their hangers-on ... would solve that problem, at least for a while. Population control requires an entirely different solution.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

There's truth in that, but if Agenda 2030 actually happens it's going to be a lot more than 50% less population.

Also, if overnight half the people were gone, I believe a vast majority of the jobs that would disappear would be low wage jobs that probably only exist because of the excess population. A lot of Wal Mart and McDonalds type jobs.

There would be much more resources to go around, quality of life would improve drastically and the jobs that remain are essential jobs and the higher quality positions.

I do agree that the small handful of people that ultimately control a majority of the wealth of the world is a problem. How do you go about solving that one though? I don't think there's ever been a civilization on the planet where this didn't happen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:31 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

There's truth in that, but if Agenda 2030 actually happens it's going to be a lot more than 50% less population.

Also, if overnight half the people were gone, I believe a vast majority of the jobs that would disappear would be low wage jobs that probably only exist because of the excess population. A lot of Wal Mart and McDonalds type jobs.

There would be much more resources to go around, quality of life would improve drastically and the jobs that remain are essential jobs and the higher quality positions.

I do agree that the small handful of people that ultimately control a majority of the wealth of the world is a problem. How do you go about solving that one though? I don't think there's ever been a civilization on the planet where this didn't happen.

Fewer people over a greater area won’t mean better lives. Have you ever seen The Walking Dead, either TV or comic? The USA’s population is down to the thousands, yet the Americans are fighting each other for scraps left behind by the wealthy. Stupidity rules in that fictional USA.
https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity/

This other kind of stupidity may become reality: Trump has a plan to cut taxes by about $5.5 trillion over 10 years. I’m 100% for this plan because I’ll benefit, which is not stupid for me. But how much you get determines how stupid it is for you.

That’s a gargantuan sum of money — much larger than the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus program and bigger than George W. Bush’s tax cuts. It’s such a big sum of money that it’s hard to get your mind around it.

But one useful way to put the $5.5 trillion tax cut into perspective is to observe that it’s equal to the combined cost of a whole bunch of separate pie-in-the-sky proposals.

You could buy a lot for $5.5 trillion: www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/9/15558410/trump-tax-comparison

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Fewer people over a greater area won’t mean better lives. Have you ever seen The Walking Dead, either TV or comic? The USA’s population is down to the thousands, yet the Americans are fighting each other for scraps left behind by the wealthy. Stupidity rules in that fictional USA.

Stupidity rules in the real USA and has for all of my life.

I reject your comparison to anything I was saying.

Reducing the population to about 1% without a plan and scattered to the winds like in The Walking Dead of course would lead to a disaster. Any discussion here has been about a 50% reduction, although I think ideally if it were to happen with a plan and the end result was about a 70% reduction over a few generations that things would be much better for those left overall.

Again, I've already stated I think this is a good thing although I'm sure there is no reason why I would make the cut-off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:47 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Straight forward answer is that the majority of voters are not on that side."

How many times does Signy have to post the study that the US is an oligarchy before you understand it? It doesn't matter WHAT people want, if what they want crosses the rich and powerful.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/artic
le/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

Oh drat! There's those pesky facts again!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Yup, I knew it would be a waste of my time - right again!

If Feminists wanted Equality, they would be Egalitarians, bozo. I am an Egalitarian.

That's not what this conversation is about at all. If you want to discuss it in another thread, feel free to make one. Keep your poison and idiocy out of this one, and I'll stay out of your circuses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 1:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SIX, I'm unfortunately going to have to save this discussion for next weekend (or so), but here's a thought: WHAT (or WHO) is preventing us from having from having a sustainable economy where everyone who can work has a meaningful job at decent wages?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:14 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

How many times does Signy have to post the study that the US is an oligarchy before you understand it? It doesn't matter WHAT people want, if what they want crosses the rich and powerful.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/artic
le/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

I saw this about how an oligarchy holds together. After you read it, it might be obvious how to take apart the oligarchy. But the demolition requires careful thinking and diligent effort, something that voters everywhere in the world won’t do because they won’t get rewards as big as the oligarchs receive for holding things together.
www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/03/yanis-varoufakis-greece-greatest
-political-memoir

Quote:
Varoufakis gives one of the most accurate and detailed descriptions of modern power ever written. He explains, with a weariness born of nights in soulless hotels and harsh-lit briefing rooms, how the modern power network is built. Aris gets a loan from Zorba’s bank; Zorba writes off the loan but Zorba’s construction company gets a contract from Aris’s ministry. Aris’s son gets a job at Zorba’s TV station, which for some reason is always bankrupt and so can never pay tax – and so on.

“The key to such power networks is exclusion and opacity,” Varoufakis writes. As sensitive information is bartered, “two-person alliances forge links with other such alliances … involving conspirators who conspire de facto without being conscious conspirators”.

The same dynamic is found on minimum wage. The employee will only get $1 more per hour while the employer preventing the increase will get $1 more times the number of employees. The employer with a thousand employees will plot and plan a thousand times more diligently than any one of the employees. Who will win this game if the employees won’t stick together and the boss can pick them off one by one?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

If Feminists wanted Equality, they would be Egalitarians, bozo. I am an Egalitarian.

What do you mean "if?"

"If" you want an answer, ask in another forum topic. I will not respond again to you here and allow you to derail and destroy another topic.

Carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 10, 2017 9:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX, I'm unfortunately going to have to save this discussion for next weekend (or so), but here's a thought: WHAT (or WHO) is preventing us from having from having a sustainable economy where everyone who can work has a meaningful job at decent wages?

That's a good question. How do you answer that?

I think there are many "whats" and many "whos". There wouldn't possibly be only one person or entity or situation to blame for where we are now.

I'll have to think about it for a while.

I guess my short answer would be that there has never in the history of mankind been a true Capitalist or true Communist society. The people at the top always rig the game.

If we had pure Communism with benevolent and intelligent leadership (and we worked on curbing population at the same time), there would be enough to go around for everyone.

If we had pure Capitalism where everything was equal as far as opportunity and it was an actual merit based system where those who worked the hardest and/or the smartest actually were able to make something of themselves, and those who didn't do anything were not provided for by the government then Darwinism would take root and only the smartest and toughest would make it and population control would happen under natural selection. A very tough pill for a lot of people to swallow, this option, but a few generations from now would see a Human Race of the highest caliber and most driven united people ever known.

What we have now is some weird hy-brid of Capitalism and Communism where the game is rigged 100% of the time to serve the people at the top and the rest of us are dependent on the Government and/or left fighting for the scraps.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 1:55 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
The same dynamic is found on minimum wage. The employee will only get $1 more per hour while the employer preventing the increase will get $1 more times the number of employees. The employer with a thousand employees will plot and plan a thousand times more diligently than any one of the employees. Who will win this game if the employees won’t stick together and the boss can pick them off one by one?

Which is a far cry from saying all employees somehow secretly 'want' to be screwed by employers.

The problem is that people are taught that they're powerless. And so, they fail to exercise the power they DO have - which is the vote.

Can you imagine what would happen if people in democracies suddenly woke up and realized what the power of numbers means?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 3:57 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Which is a far cry from saying all employees somehow secretly 'want' to be screwed by employers.

The problem is that people are taught that they're powerless. And so, they fail to exercise the power they DO have - which is the vote.

If you are depending on your vote, if you wait years for the next election, in hopes that a faraway politician in the downtown of your city or your state capital or DC will correct the behavior of a boorish supervisor or a cheapskate business owner, as an employee you will be in the kind of trouble that is extremely common place in the USA for workers in the bottom 50% of pay.

I’ve seen numerous movies where the boss calls security and has a fired employee thrown out of the building. (Seen it in real life, too) I’ve never seen the reverse – the employees call their alt-security men to throw the boss out of the building. American employees are completely passive and think it is justice and proper that the boss can rough them up and lower their income to zero, but the employees think it totally violates the natural order of things to rough up the boss and lower his super-sized income.

Quote:
Can you imagine what would happen if people in democracies suddenly woke up and realized what the power of numbers means?

No matter how large your number, if you can't bring yourself to cooperate with your equals, your numbers count for nothing. You become a zero to your boss. American workers have decided that unions are evil. They decided to be zeroes. That leaves them as isolated individuals versus the world. For some reason it surprises them when the world kicks their ass and pays them poorly.

The workers start dreaming of enormously complicated schemes engineered in Washington DC to force Chinese manufacturing jobs to be moved to America as a cure for Americans' poor pay. (There is also complicated schemes from Washington DC about building the Texas/Mexico wall and deporting Mexicans and Canadians. Sorry, Jewel Staite and Nathan Fillion.) That won't work as well as they imagine if the boss can fall back to the old-fashion and simple scheme where he can still send armed security men to kick the workers out of the building and replace them with cheaper help or, better yet, automation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 1:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The workers start dreaming of enormously complicated schemes engineered in Washington DC to force Chinese manufacturing jobs to be moved to America as a cure for Americans' poor pay. (There is also complicated schemes from Washington DC about building the Texas/Mexico wall and deporting Mexicans and Canadians. Sorry, Jewel Staite and Nathan Fillion.) That won't work as well as they imagine if the boss can fall back to the old-fashion and simple scheme where he can still send armed security men to kick the workers out of the building and replace them with cheaper help or, better yet, automation.

Ach. SECOND, tell me, WHY won't tariffs and border walls work?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 2:50 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Ach. SECOND, tell me, WHY won't tariffs and border walls work?

Because those are stalling tactics to get employees to wait for walls to be completed and the tariff to get adjusted and the next President to be elected because this one and the last one didn't do enough.

Are you a big believer in macroeconomics? That the Invisible Hand will create good jobs for everyone if only tariffs are set correctly and also 11 million illegals are kicked out of the USA and the minimum wage is abolished so that the market can wisely decide hourly wages? You might be unaware, but the bosses want their workers to be big believers in the Invisible Hand, too. The bosses know that it is really the bosses’ very visible hands that control the economy. The bosses truthfully don’t want employees to think about that. They want the employees to keep believing it is impersonal economic forces that only a good President can change. Just convince the employees that the right President will fix it so they can have a good paying job and the employed and unemployed can passively prosper without them every aggressively confronting their bosses. That is the way the bosses want it, too. Employees anxiously waiting for Washington DC to create the right conditions. The bosses certainly don’t want employees to apply pressure to their bosses. That would be as outrageous to naturally passive Americans as Army corporals giving orders to their officers.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 3:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If you are depending on your vote

not my vote alone, Second. You seem to think an individual vote is meaningful. It's not. The vote is only powerful when it expresses the mass of the people.Perhaps that's your fatal mental flaw. You keep framing things in the wrong context.

And speaking of the wrong context ...

Quote:
I’ve seen numerous movies where the boss calls security and has a fired employee thrown out of the building. (Seen it in real life, too)

And do you imagine the rest of the employees were standing around cheering?

Quote:
... but the employees think it totally violates the natural order of things to rough up the boss and lower his super-sized income.

It's an act of intimidation, and everyone understands it as such.

Quote:
No matter how large your number, if you can't bring yourself to cooperate with your equals, your numbers count for nothing.

And you've completely bought the fundamental lie - that society is a group of individuals whose only option is individual action.

Quote:
American workers have decided that unions are evil. They decided to be zeroes.

They've been propagandized - they didn't just 'decide'.

You know, the British thought they'd figured out how to rule India forever.* Then Gandhi came along and forever* came to an end.

You keep forgetting that Trump had to pass TWO hurdles along the path of becoming the legitimate president of the US. The first was clearing the field of republican rivals. And he was voted presidential candidate over all those other republicans hopefuls because primary voters WERE DONE WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL. And the Trump prevailed in the general election BY APPEALING TO VOTERS WHO REJECTED CLINTON AND BUSINESS AS USUAL.

People are desperate for change. And we're one Gandhi - or Hitler - away from open revolt.

What would you rather see? Someone trying to wake people up to the power of political reform? Revolt? Or more of the same?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

What would you rather see? Someone trying to wake people up to the power of political reform? Revolt? Or more of the same?

That's a question worthy of a thread all in itself.

My answer would be that there is no power in political reform, and what we're seeing now with Trump becoming just another business as usual president everywhere it matters is just more proof ot that.

The only options are revolt or more of the same.

I think the powers that be have gotten so good at keeping us complacent that revolt is a long way off. I sure as hell have no reason to throw my little castle away on somebody else's fight. Things would have to get a hell of a lot worse before I even entertained the idea of any serious actions.

Strap in, cause it's gong to be a LONG time before anything ever changes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 4:56 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And he was voted presidential candidate over all those other republicans hopefuls because primary voters WERE DONE WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL. And the Trump prevailed in the general election BY APPEALING TO VOTERS WHO REJECTED CLINTON AND BUSINESS AS USUAL.

People are desperate for change. And we're one Gandhi - or Hitler - away from open revolt.

What would you rather see? Someone trying to wake people up to the power of political reform? Revolt? Or more of the same?

You're a believer in changing the person at the very tip top of the hierarchy -- the next Trump, Gandhi, or Hitler. All of them would be completely unaware of people like you. I'm a believer in changing the people two or three levels above me in the hierarchy -- the boss or his boss or find another company. I think my belief is a more powerful way to change my life than your unrealistic belief in a Great/Good/Wise Man, a Bernie Sanders, taking charge in DC or Berlin or New Delhi and ending business as usual to go on a new path.

My belief requires me to be brave and plan because I'm confronting real people in the same room with me and my allies. Your belief requires no bravery whatsoever and no planning because the rules of politics require you to do it all alone and completely anonymously in the voting booth, even if you voted for Hitler in 1932.

And it leaves you frustrated because you can't punch the President in face when he lies to you or is incompetent, while I can punch my boss.

Yes, I vote, but only a ninny expects the President of the USA or Germany or France to fix the economy. Even Lincoln or FDR or LBJ or Hitler couldn't. They needed wars (which proceeded without voter approval) and mountains of dead to really improve their country's economy. I don't have the patience to wait for the next war to sweep over the USA and I have no certainty that a foolish, yet overly powerful, President won't accidentally kill me, all while he is completely unaware I exist beyond the voting booth.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 5:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The same dynamic is found on minimum wage. The employee will only get $1 more per hour while the employer preventing the increase will get $1 more times the number of employees. The employer with a thousand employees will plot and plan a thousand times more diligently than any one of the employees. Who will win this game if the employees won’t stick together and the boss can pick them off one by one?

Your math, assuming this is math from you, is a little off.

The employee will only get $1 more per hour. Or 60-75 cents per hour after taxes.
The employer preventing the increase will save $2 more per hour times the number of employees.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 5:48 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
You're a believer in changing the person at the very tip top of the hierarchy -- the next Trump, Gandhi, or Hitler. All of them would be completely unaware of people like you.

First of all - I don't think Trump is either Gandhi or Hitler. He's a symptom of a population whose dissatisfaction has grown beyond normal political processes.

And - you fundamentally fail to understand that Gandhi was the seed crystal around which a mass movement formed. Let me repeat those words with emphasis: MASS MOVEMENT. Gandhi himself couldn't have moved the British Empire one iota. But the hundreds of thousands of Indians who joined him were convincing.

Similarly, Hitler couldn't have waged war, or tried to exterminate Jews and others, without the German society behind him.

Quote:
My belief ... Your belief ... leaves you frustrated .... I can punch my boss.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

But I have PERSONALLY experienced - at a small scale - the power of a transformative statement. At the time, the place where I work was doing a classification study of our group. (Also, I was a union steward and contract negotiator, so I had an avenue of action.) At the time, management wanted every individual to submit an individual accounting of their work over the previous 3 years. There was a lot wrong with that - not the least of which was that people didn't give themselves their own assignments and so their project history was not a reflection of either their abilities or their motivation. And it was a pretty obvious scheme to pit one against the other to the detriment of all.

So I proposed we submit a group job description; an idea that was nixed by management. But with one exception, the entire group was on board. So people volunteered their individuals histories, and others edited them into a group boilerplate description - which we then each submitted - except stapled together into one package and group-signed on the front.

Once someone can clearly articulate a pathway to addressing the dissatisfactions of a group, the group will come together.

It's not the individual who by themselves achieves change, it's the power of the group they represent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 7:12 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Let's cut it down to something even you can follow. Bernie and Trump had the same idea, one that never occurred to Obama:

Bernie and Trump promised tens of millions of new jobs. Since they were talking about lifetime employment, they were talking about trillions of dollars of new income. How were they going to do it? Tear up old trade treaties and negotiate new terms. What would that cost? Nothing! because Bernie and Trump had knowledge not available to anyone but them. With their powerful minds, good looks, and charisma they could persuade anyone to go along with this scheme that never occurred to Obama!

What does America get? Trillions of dollars of new income for the cost of nothing but sweat by either Trump or Bernie. That makes those two men lying sacks of shit. And you want one or the other in charge of the White House? Trump and Bernie are completely deluded.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 7:20 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Let's cut it down to something even you can follow.

How about you just discuss YOUR OWN IDEAS instead of trying to address mine?

Yanno, after fundamentally strawmanning my post

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If you are depending on your vote

referring to MOVIES to try and make a point about real life

Quote:
I’ve seen numerous movies where the boss calls security and has a fired employee thrown out of the building.

ducking my reply

Quote:
And do you imagine the rest of the employees were standing around cheering?

... misrepresenting my post AGAIN!

Quote:
You're a believer in changing the person at the very tip top of the hierarchy

and posting nonsense about how punching lower level management in the face is going to change anything ... at all ... ... it's clear you're utterly incapable of mutual discussion with another person. So ...

... why don't you try something simple? How about you just discuss YOUR OWN IDEAS??

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 7:42 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What would you rather see? Someone trying to wake people up to the power of political reform? Revolt? Or more of the same?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
That's a question worthy of a thread all in itself.
My answer would be that there is no power in political reform, and what we're seeing now with Trump becoming just another business as usual president everywhere it matters is just more proof of that.
The only options are revolt or more of the same.
I think the powers that be have gotten so good at keeping us complacent that revolt is a long way off. I sure as hell have no reason to throw my little castle away on somebody else's fight. Things would have to get a hell of a lot worse before I even entertained the idea of any serious actions.
Strap in, cause it's gong to be a LONG time before anything ever changes.

Yanno, it's probably true. BUT - the indication (Trump) is that there's a lot of diffuse, unarticulated anger.
Sometimes one person can be pivotal. Like Gandhi.
I'm sure the British thought they had the whole Empire thing all worked out. By all rights, India should have been the crown jewel for decades, maybe even a century, to come.
And then Gandhi came along. He brought a narrative that resonated, that got hundreds of thousands of people to come together over long periods of time, to achieve India's independence.
Without him, I'm not sure what would have happened. But with him the people grew into a massive force aimed at one goal.
He didn't give them their desire to be rid of England. He just took what was already there, and turned it into a mass movement.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2017 8:23 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 12:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Ach. SECOND, tell me, WHY won't tariffs and border walls work?- SIGNY

Because those are stalling tactics -SECOND

For what? What are these stalling techniques supposed to delay?

Quote:
Are you a big believer in macroeconomics?- SECOND

No. I suppose that ends that discussion!

Quote:
... They want the employees to keep believing it is impersonal economic forces that only a good President can change. - SECOND

And what is the other option, if NOT changing the President/ laws/ Congress?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2017 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Quote:
Ach. SECOND, tell me, WHY won't tariffs and border walls work?- SIGNY

Because those are stalling tactics -SECOND
For what? What are these stalling techniques supposed to delay?

Quote:
Are you a big believer in macroeconomics?- SECOND
No. I suppose that ends that discussion!

Quote:
... They want the employees to keep believing it is impersonal economic forces that only a good President can change. - SECOND
And what is the other option, if NOT changing the President/ laws/ Congress?

Okay, since my questions didn't seem to elicit answers from you, let me be a little more pointed about your post.

You seem to be saying that this desire for the Federal government to "do something" about foreign competition is just a diversion, a stall tactic designed to keep American workers from banding together, rising up, and giving "the boss" what-for!

That the American worker will ...oh, I dunno ... Demand higher wages? String up the bosses and take over the factories? Turn everything into worker-owned cooperatives? I'm not sure what you're envisioning, but in any case the workers will "do something".

If, on the other hand, the Federal government "does something", business will take their marbles and go elsewhere.

Tell me, SECOND, in the event of a labor takeover in the USA - as you suggest- what would prevent businesses from going elsewhere too? Indeed, since wages in the USA are still relatively high- thanks to past activism - what do you think has been happening for the past 30 years already? In the event that labor "rises up", business will simply continue to go elsewhere, or resort to automation. So far, I'm not seeing anything in your suggestion that would stop the flight of business capital.

And even in the extreme result that everything was turned into worker-owned cooperatives and the worker-owners kept their businesses operating in absence of the former business owners .... they would still have to compete for customers with cheap-labor/ automatically-produced goods anyway, right? Because, as you've pointed out more than once, it would be more expensive to have things produced in the USA and you don't want to pay more money to buy stuff. They might be able to weather a price drop of 10-15% because "profits" wouldn't be skimmed off the top, but it's not direction that they can head in indefinitely without dropping wages or resorting to automation themselves.

I conclude that the only entity than can REALLY implement a complete economic policy is the Federal government, because it is the entity that controls the border, negotiates with other nations, and writes national business/tax law etc. I really don't know how to interpret your suggestion other than what I posted, but unless there's a lot more to it, it won't work.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, SECOND, am I right to assume that since you didn't respond to my post, that you saw the logic fail in your own argument?

To recap: YOU said that if the government "did something" with trade and tariffs, businesses would take their marbles and go elsewhere. In your view, it's "the workers" who need to "do something".

My point was that whether it was our government or workers "doing something", business would CONTINUE to take their marbles and play elsewhere, and that in reality only the Federal government can create a real economic policy because only the Federal government can do things like negotiate with other nations, control the borders, and set tax policy.

Capisce?

It's funny, you're all for the Federal government taking over health care, but not for the Federal government doing its originally-mandated job (protect the borders).

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
... why don't you try something simple? How about you just discuss YOUR OWN IDEAS??

Second is completely incapable of formulating a thought of her own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:30 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

The last time the US government took over the control of the economy was WWII. It worked very well. The top 1% hated it, but FDR overruled them. It was run by a bureaucracy of only a few thousand setting prices and wages. It could be done again if the federal government got serious about creating jobs for everyone. But I think every Republican and some Democrats in Congress are allergic to that. There has never been another President like FDR who would try everything. All other Presidents, including Trump, lack the imagination. They would prefer that the top 1%, that 3.33 million, continue to make the decisions for everybody, rather than let a few thousand Federal bureaucrats make the decisions.

Personally, I would not object to expelling 11,000,000 illegal aliens this month. It would be a great experiment to prove that reducing the number of workers will increase the incomes of the rest. Same with trade: tear up every treaty to experimentally learn if that increases income. But most of the top 1% would object to running two big experiments on the US economy. They would prefer gradual change because this is not WWII.

And Trump does not have the same mental capacity or winning personality or persuasion skills of FDR.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, SECOND, am I right to assume that since you didn't respond to my post, that you saw the logic fail in your own argument?

To recap: YOU said that if the government "did something" with trade and tariffs, businesses would take their marbles and go elsewhere. In your view, it's "the workers" who need to "do something".

My point was that whether it was our government or workers "doing something", business would CONTINUE to take their marbles and play elsewhere, and that in reality only the Federal government can create a real economic policy because only the Federal government can do things like negotiate with other nations, control the borders, and set tax policy.

Capisce?

It's funny, you're all for the Federal government taking over health care, but not for the Federal government doing its originally-mandated job (protect the borders).

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First of all SECOND, FDR was not the second coming of Christ. He threatened to send troops in to break a coal minders strike- did you know that? (And the "free" and "independent" press, BTW, did the bidding of the coal mine owners.) http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6929/692913.html FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court by adding up to six more justices, because the Supreme Court had thwarted him at every turn. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-
with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/ He also faced considerable backlash from Congressional Republicans in 1932 because of the deficit; they scaled back his public works and other programs and precipitated a mini-re-depression the following year.

This was all BEFORE the war. I find it troubling that you would focus on "the war effort" as the only catalyst that would bring the nation together. A lot happened between 1929 and 1943, you know.

Secondly, this is not about Trump. I realize that Trump is your current obsession, but we're talking POLICY, not people: Which entity [not person] has the capability to to institute economic reform?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:48 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
First of all SECOND, FDR was not the second coming of Christ. He threatened to send troops in to break a coal minders strike- did you know that? (And the "free" and "independent" press, BTW, did the bidding of the coal mine owners.) http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6929/692913.html FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court by adding up to six more justices, because the Supreme Court had thwarted him at every turn. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-
with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/ He also faced considerable backlash from Congressional Republicans in 1932 because of the deficit; they scaled back his public works and other programs and precipitated a mini-re-depression the following year.

This was all BEFORE the war. I find it troubling that you would focus on "the war effort" as the only catalyst that would bring the nation together. A lot happened between 1929 and 1943, you know.

Secondly, this is not about Trump. I realize that Trump is your current obsession, but we're talking POLICY, not people: Which entity [not person] has the capability to to institute economic reform?

And FDR put 120,000 Japanese-American citizens in jail because he didn't trust them and they were weak and nearly undefended by lawyers. If a President could do that, he can anything, even "institute economic reform". But all Presidents since FDR had no intention of any such reform. They would have had to use force to make reform happen, the kind of force that was used on Japanese-Americans, but the Presidents would have to apply the force to strong people, the top 1%, who have powerful political connections, powerful lawyers, and lots of money. Too much trouble for the President. Easier to go after the Japanese or Muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 29, 2017 7:23 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts
-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.ec388241b469

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-w
age-is-costing-jobs/

Edit: today on July 10 I am editing this because I failed to complete this post. These were a couple of the news links about the new study with the same results - this one by University of Washington regarding the minimum wage hikes in Seattle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:29 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts
-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.ec388241b469

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-w
age-is-costing-jobs/

So are $15 per hour employees leaving Seattle for cities that pay $7.50 because they prefer the lower wage and working more hours? And if they did leave Seattle that would be good because there would be less competition among the people left behind for low cost housing around Seattle. Looks like a win-win for everybody except employers. You know employers hate the idea of paying too much wages when they could get help so much cheaper if there weren't laws.

There really is no hard lower limit on wages other than employees starving to death or freezing to death on their days off.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 30, 2017 1:28 AM

The problem between minimum wage as it is now and $15/hr is that you end up losing a lot of that extra money right out of the gates in all of the government benefits that you lose.

Somebody who is single with no kids making minimum wage gets around $200/mo in food stamps as well as energy assistance, $10/mo internet, a free cell phone and essentially free healthcare. A single mother with 3 kids gets around $500-600 a month in foodstamps, free healthcare for her and the kids, the energy assistance, $10/mo internet, a free cell phone and doesn't pay any federal income tax and gets around $9000.00 from the government in EIC credits.

Double the single person with no kids pay and they lose all of those benefits, which eats a huge chunk out of that extra pay.

Double the single mother's pay and she loses most of the benefits, although she gets to keep the EIC, minus whatever federal taxes she now must pay because she's in the payable brackets.

If benefit limits do not go up with the minimum wage increase, you're essentially putting the welfare burden off of the State and onto the businesses. I don't mind that so much when you're talking about McDonalds or WalMart, but that's not fair to small businesses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 1, 2017 5:27 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
and only the smartest and toughest would make it and population control would happen under natural selection. A very tough pill for a lot of people to swallow, this option, but a few generations from now would see a Human Race of the highest caliber and most driven united people ever known.

There is nothing right about this, and so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start.

What did Darwin mean by 'survival of the fittest'? He certainly didn't mean a species where every member of that species is in deadly competition with every other member of that species for individual supremacy! He was talking about survival OF A SPECIES as a whole.

Being the 'fittest' means maximizing the survival of your offspring to the point where they have offspring of their own. That's how a species survives. Sometimes - especially for physically weak, social animals with extraordinarily dependent offspring, like us - it means cooperation and cleverness. Sometimes it means having so many offspring that nature can't eliminate them all. Sometimes it means having really good DNA repair mechanisms so that your species can survive environments other species can't. Sometimes it means being able to digest things other species can't.

That whole notion that somehow the species or some portion of it will improve by eliminating its 'weakest' members means that all the children die first, then the females. And oops - there goes the species. It's just stupid.

And how does making every individual compete with every other individual select for better individuals? Isn't it likely you'll select for the most heartless, most self-protective, and conniving, rather than the smartest, most courageous, and strongest?

And it REALLY doesn't make for the most united group either, as you claim! Not when someone else can only gain at your expense - and the other way around!

I truly have no idea how you've come to accept this notion. It makes no sense when you think about it.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 1, 2017 9:26 PM

Like it or not Kiki, that is the future of the Human Race.

I don't have any kids and with my health issues I don't really plan on living another 20 or so years anyhow so I don't drive myself crazy with conspiracy theories anymore. I do believe in Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030 or whatever they're calling it these days. It doesn't make sense to me that the 1% of the 1% aren't coming up with a plan of population control as we speak.

Since most of us don't voluntarily curb our reproduction, and since our governments fail to incentivize it, overpopulation has become the biggest danger to the survival of the human race in the future.

What we are living under now is generations of government subsidized Dysgenics, where often the stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves are the ones that are rewarded for having children. What did you think would happen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 1, 2017 9:46 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
It doesn't make sense to me that the 1% of the 1% aren't coming up with a plan of population control as we speak.

Why would they do that? People are like natural resources, to be strip-mined of work and market-potential. The more people ... the more better for the .001%

Quote:
Since most of us don't voluntarily curb our reproduction ...

Then why are westernized countries worried about low birth-rates?

Quote:
government subsidized Dysgenics, where often the stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves are the ones that are rewarded for having children ...

You seem to be under a serious delusion that we live in a meritocracy - that somehow, individual ability determines where you end up in life.
Jack, I'm sure you think you're pretty smart, and blessed (in the past at least) with a winning smile, and charming ways. So, with all that going for you, why are you where you are? Did the meritocracy get you what you deserve?

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 2, 2017 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Why would they do that? People are like natural resources, to be strip-mined of work and market-potential. The more people ... the more better for the .001%

Why wouldn't they do that? Do you honestly think on a small scale at least they haven't already been doing it, mostly in places like Africa who nobody seems to care about much except for Bono.

We're not at critical mass yet. But it will happen. I'm sure they're at least getting their ducks in a row. I don't expect that I'll be one of the saved ones, but maybe I already have been just by the virtue of living in the US?

Quote:
Then why are westernized countries worried about low birth-rates?

Because it makes a good news story.

White people in Westernized society have low birth rates. There is not low birth rates in any other demographic in Westernized societies.

The people at the top you referenced certainly aren't concerned about it. They don't care what color people are doing their slave labor for them, and usually the darker their skin the cheaper the labor is, so yanno...

Quote:
You seem to be under a serious delusion that we live in a meritocracy - that somehow, individual ability determines where you end up in life.
Jack, I'm sure you think you're pretty smart. blessed in the past at least with a winning smile, and charming ways. So, with all that going for you, why are you where you are. Did the meritocracy get you what you deserve?

What gives you the idea I believe we live in a meritocracy? Everything I said including the mention of Dysgenics, which is the polar opposite of Eugenics, should have led you to the opposite conclusion.

The fact that we in no way live in a meritocracy has a lot to do with the fact I'm in my current employment status. I'd be disingenuous at best if I didn't shoulder at least an equal amount of that burden myself however. I have had opportunites to learn new things in my life that I have passed up or not fully taken advantage of.

And if I didn't shoulder my own responsibility for the things I've done wrong, I could also not take credit for the things I have done right, such as put myself in a position where I virtually have no bills or debts. If I have no responsibility for the bad things that have happened to me than the good things that have happened to me would not be things I could take credit for and I would be forced to concede that they were because of White or Male privilege instead of sacrificing and just being really smart with my money while I was making it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 2, 2017 1:29 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Why would they do that? People are like natural resources, to be strip-mined of work and market-potential. The more people ... the more better for the .001%

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Why wouldn't they do that?

Fewer desperate workers and captive markets would be one reason to NOT kill people off. But I digress. You were saying? ...

Quote:
Do you honestly think on a small scale at least they haven't already been doing it, mostly in places like Africa who nobody seems to care about much except for Bono.

wn? i t honestly think that Africa is not an example of a master plan to kill people off en masse. The natural outcome of colonialism, Balkanized country boundaries, brutal capitalism in conjunction with corrupt dictators supported by the west (the US), desertification, and HIV I and II - yes, that's killing off a lot of people.

Quote:
We're not at critical mass yet.

Who's 'we'? People in the US? People across the globe?

Quote:
But it will happen.

What 'it' are you talking about?

Quote:
I'm sure they're at least getting their ducks in a row.

Who's 'they'? And what are 'their' ducks?

Quote:
I don't expect that I'll be one of the saved ones

Saved from what, by whom?

Quote:
but maybe I already have been just by the virtue of living in the US?

You need to get out more.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Then why are westernized countries worried about low birth-rates?

Quote:

Because it makes a good news story.
White people in Westernized society have low birth rates. There is not low birth rates in any other demographic in Westernized societies.

The overall average has certainly gone down, and every group has gone down, though some more than others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States 1935 birth rate = 18.7 per 1,000; 2016 = 12.2.

Quote:
The people at the top you referenced certainly aren't concerned about it.

Don't care about ... the birth rates going down? I thought you claim that they're actively promoting it.

Quote:
They don't care what color people are doing their slave labor for them, and usually the darker their skin the cheaper the labor is, so yanno...

Except according to you, they're really trying to depopulate Africa? You're contradicting yourself at every opportunity.

Quote:
You seem to be under a serious delusion that we live in a meritocracy - that somehow, individual ability determines where you end up in life.
Jack, I'm sure you think you're pretty smart. blessed in the past at least with a winning smile, and charming ways. So, with all that going for you, why are you where you are. Did the meritocracy get you what you deserve?

Quote:
What gives you the idea I believe we live in a meritocracy?

This, Jack " generations of government subsidized Dysgenics, where often the stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves are the ones that are rewarded for having children (because they're too poor to manage by themselves)' You obviously think they're poor and live marginal lives because genetically, they're the "stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves". They're at the bottom, where you seem to think they deserve to be - which is a meritocracy. And if it wasn't for the government helping out the genetically inferior, they would just die, already, like they're supposed to.

Quote:
Everything I said including the mention of Dysgenics, which is the polar opposite of Eugenics, should have led you to the opposite conclusion.

No, jack, you're just really confused about what you're saying. You're saying stupid, weak people are poor and at the bottom social rungs, because our system of merit puts stupid, weak people there. That's what you're saying.

Quote:
The fact that we in no way live in a meritocracy has a lot to do with the fact I'm in my current employment status.

So we DON'T live in a meritocracy? Then what about those stupid weak people who are poor?

Quote:
I'd be disingenuous at best if I didn't shoulder at least an equal amount of that burden myself however. I have had opportunities to learn new things in my life that I have passed up or not fully taken advantage of. And if I didn't shoulder my own responsibility for the things I've done wrong, I could also not take credit for the things I have done right, such as put myself in a position where I virtually have no bills or debts. If I have no responsibility for the bad things that have happened to me than the good things that have happened to me would not be things I could take credit for and I would be forced to concede that they were because of White or Male privilege instead of sacrificing and just being really smart with my money while I was making it.

What if those OPPORTUNITIES were unearned - for example, as a result of being a white male? What if being a white male automatically gave you advantages that you aren't even aware of?
Not to take away from your work Jack - which seems to have consisted of being in the right place at the right time to get in good with a group of money-men when the money was flowing - but there are people who work a lot harder, a lot more skillfully, for a lot less.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 2, 2017 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Fewer desperate workers and captive markets would be one reason to NOT kill people off. But I digress. You were saying? ...

As I say below and I've said before. We have an overabundance of labor now. Half of the people in the world could disappear tomorrow and it would not change anything for the people at the top. We just wouldn't have need for a fully staffed McDonalds at every other corner.

Quote:
wn? i t honestly think that Africa is not an example of a master plan to kill people off en masse. The natural outcome of colonialism, Balkanized country boundaries, brutal capitalism in conjunction with corrupt dictators supported by the west (the US), desertification, and HIV I and II - yes, that's killing off a lot of people.

I'm just theorizing here. We don't have any idea what's really going on, and I could never prove that among all of that chaos that there are actually tests being done. We don't have to discuss that possibility if you don't want to even entertain the idea.

Quote:
Who's 'we'? People in the US? People across the globe?

Both.

Quote:
What 'it' are you talking about?

Critical Mass.

Quote:
Who's 'they'? And what are 'their' ducks?

The people at the top who have all the real money and power.

Their "ducks" being the ability to solve this problem when it arises.

Quote:
Saved from what, by whom?

Whatever the "solution" is. By those in power executing it.

Quote:
You need to get out more.

You're probably right, although I don't see how your saying that or my doing it actually adds to this particular conversation.

Quote:
The overall average has certainly gone down, and every group has gone down, though some more than others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States 1935 birth rate = 18.7 per 1,000; 2016 = 12.2.

And yet the population rate on the planet still rises. Fuzzy math?

Quote:
Don't care about ... the birth rates going down? I thought you claim that they're actively promoting it.

No I don't. I said with Dysgenics, giving rewards to those who have children of all income levels whether it's poor people getting freebies or the more well off getting tax breaks for having children, there currently is no active promotion for not having children.

I'm saying that it needs to happen. If it doesn't happen voluntarily and/or isn't actively promoted in the near future than it will happen by more nefarious means when it becomes an unavoidable problem.

Quote:
Except according to you, they're really trying to depopulate Africa? You're contradicting yourself at every opportunity.

I didn't say that. I'm not contradicting myself. What you are inferring is contradictory, not what I'm saying.

I am suggesting that some minor testing of things are likely being done in what they at least believe is a relatively contained environment. There is no actual massive extermination efforts going on now. Just smaller tests being done as a proof of concept for a larger "solution" should the need arise in the future.

Quote:
This, Jack " generations of government subsidized Dysgenics, where often the stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves are the ones that are rewarded for having children (because they're too poor to manage by themselves)'

You obviously think they're poor and live marginal lives because genetically, they're the "stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves". They're at the bottom, where you seem to think they deserve to be - which is a meritocracy. And if it wasn't for the government helping out the genetically inferior, they would just die, already, like they're supposed to.

That's an oversimplification, but yes, in many ways the most poor anywhere are the ones least equipped to survive on their own. There are always exceptions to the rule, but let's not start going all SJW and pretending that this isn't generally the truth.

Quote:
No, jack, you're just really confused about what you're saying.

No I'm not. It seems to me like you're the one confused about what I'm saying.

Quote:
You're saying stupid, weak people are poor, because our system of merit put them there. That's what you're saying.

Yes and no. Stupid and weak people are poor because they are weak and stupid. This would happen regardless of the existence of a meritocracy or not.

Quote:
So we DON'T live in a meritocracy? Then what about those stupid weak people who are poor?

That's just called survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom where there is no welfare these people would not procreate because they would have already been eaten.

Quote:
What if those OPPORTUNITIES were unearned - for example, as a result of being a white male? What if being a white male automatically gave you advantages that you aren't even aware of?

I'm not going to say that this never happens, but I worked hard for what I had gotten, and although it's pointless to "brag" about intelligence when you can't prove it, I am extremely intelligent and always tested in the top 1% in tests as a child. This was among my mainly white classmates back when there was no pooling of the resources that has been happening the last few decades.

When I did make money I didn't buy a bunch of shit I didn't need, and I didn't go out partying all the time and wasting my money. I rarely buy new clothes unless I absolutely need to. I always buy a used car with cash for around 2,000 bucks and make it last for 5-10 years.

I own my home because I was a master of my money, I never paid anybody interest for anything, I made good decisions when I was in the market and I bought a rehab project house at the absolute best possible time right after the housing market took its historic hit.

You're free to have whatever opinion you want, but I reject the notion that I don't deserve what I have today.

Or that I only have what I own today simply because of some systemic oppression of non-whites or women. If that were the case, than how come so many white males I know that have great jobs such as high paying union jobs are helplessly in debt? I never came near the salary they have taken home most of their adult life and I haven't paid a time of interest to anybody in over 15 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 2, 2017 3:26 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Don't care about ... the birth rates going down? I thought you claim that they're actively promoting it.

Quote:
No I don't.

That's not what you said.

Quote:
I said with Dysgenics, giving rewards to those who have children of all income levels whether it's poor people getting freebies or the more well off getting tax breaks for having children, there currently is no active promotion for not having children.

That's not what you said.

Quote:
I'm saying that it needs to happen. If it doesn't happen voluntarily and/or isn't actively promoted in the near future than it will happen by more nefarious means when it becomes an unavoidable problem.

Quote:
Except according to you, they're really trying to depopulate Africa? You're contradicting yourself at every opportunity.

Quote:
I didn't say that. I'm not contradicting myself. What you are inferring is contradictory, not what I'm saying.

That's not what you said.

Quote:
I am suggesting that some minor testing of things are likely being done in what they at least believe is a relatively contained environment. There is no actual massive extermination efforts going on now. Just smaller tests being done as a proof of concept for a larger "solution" should the need arise in the future.

Quote:
This, Jack " generations of government subsidized Dysgenics, where often the stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves are the ones that are rewarded for having children (because they're too poor to manage by themselves)'
You obviously think they're poor and live marginal lives because genetically, they're the "stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves". They're at the bottom, where you seem to think they deserve to be - which is a meritocracy. And if it wasn't for the government helping out the genetically inferior, they would just die, already, like they're supposed to.

Quote:

That's an oversimplification, but yes, in many ways the most poor anywhere are the ones least equipped to survive on their own. There are always exceptions to the rule, but let's not start going all SJW and pretending that this isn't generally the truth.

But it's not true. There's very little upward mobility in the US. People end up pretty much at the level they were born into. That's not genetics - it's a social caste system that keeps rich people rich and poor people poor, no matter what their individual abilities. And some of the stupidest people I've known were born rich.

Quote:
No, jack, you're just really confused about what you're saying. ...You're saying stupid, weak people are poor, because our system of merit put them there. That's what you're saying.

Quote:
Yes and no. Stupid and weak people are poor because they are weak and stupid. This would happen regardless of the existence of a meritocracy or not.

Then you don't know what a meritocracy is: "a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement"

Quote:
That's just called survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom where there is no welfare these people would not procreate because they would have already been eaten.

Reading not your 'thing'? I've already provided real-life examples showing that your suppositions are pure falsehood.

Quote:
What if those OPPORTUNITIES were unearned - for example, as a result of being a white male? What if being a white male automatically gave you advantages that you aren't even aware of?

Quote:
I'm not going to say that this never happens, but I worked hard for what I had gotten, and although it's pointless to "brag" about intelligence when you can't prove it, I am extremely intelligent and always tested in the top 1% in tests as a child.

And yet there are people who are far smarter and work far harder but will never aspire to your level of poverty because they were born the wrong sex, or with the wrong skin color, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Quote:
This was among my mainly white classmates back when there was no pooling of the resources that has been happening the last few decades.

Quote:
You're free to have whatever opinion you want, but I reject the notion that I don't deserve what I have today.

You don't. Not in a system that rewards things like sex, skin color, and height.

Quote:
Or that I only have what I own today simply because of some systemic oppression of non-whites or women.

You do.

You're a raving egomaniac that has soured into Social Darwinism, racism and sexism. I'm just waiting for you to officially become a Nazi and promote the cause of eliminating undesirables. You already agree with it, you just don't want to make the effort - at the moment.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 2, 2017 3:54 AM