Race war

mycatisposter: CheekyMonkey: mycatisposter: The lazy folks that leach off of the producers are certainly not to blame. It's those damn rich people. They must have all inherited it from other people that simply inherited it from royalty or something.

Well there's your problem. You have no idea of who "the producers" actually are. Can a factory function without the overpaid CEO? Yes. Can a factory function without all the underpaid workers? No.

Now tell me who the producers are...

So how do you keep people from lining up to take the jobs of the underpaid workers that refuse to work?
You have no idea haw the labor market works. I employ people that stick around. If they don't, someone else always comes looking to replace them. Without me, those folks have one less option to put food on the table.

Hello HR Manager. You don't employ anyone. Without you, most of these workers would be able to call in sick without you feeling like you need to keep track of some bullshiat metric to justify your job. But you are important.

And also.... the only thing you "employ" is a hand in to which you massage your tiny dick. Please employ into a sock so that we don't have any more self-important dick rags like you.

SlothB77: high taxes

Where are these "high taxes" you speak of?

Here is what's even richer....

I just passed/received my PHR. Want to know some of the questions?

"What is the federal minimum wage?"

"Absent a contract/non-exempt relationship, how many hours must an employee work before receiving overtime pay?"

Wow! farking rocket science in HR.

Goddamit everyone, he said "80% at or below average".

Even if we do assume a normal distribution, all it takes is to understand "average" as "within one or two standard deviations of the arithmetic mean", rather than "exactly equal to the mean", and you can easily have a scenario where the original statement is true.

poot_rootbeer: Goddamit everyone, he said "80% at or below average".

Even if we do assume a normal distribution, all it takes is to understand "average" as "within one or two standard deviations of the arithmetic mean", rather than "exactly equal to the mean", and you can easily have a scenario where the original statement is true.

I don't think that's what the definition of "average" is. Only 2.5% of a normal distribution is more than two standard deviations from the mean.

The problem here is that the wealthy forgot their place in our system. You simply do not steal the productivity of the workers and then pretend that money is now a measure of worth. And everybody in the world is realizing that, and they are realizing how easily capitalism can be corrupted. And as we see, one of the most effective ways to do this is for the wealthy to play victim and pretend they are just like the common worker. The reality is that without the common worker, the rich are nothing. And people are starting to realize that capitalism as a whole is a very elaborate shell game designed to keep them from moving upward or gaining independence. And when that happens, you will have one of two things happening: people either giving up on the system and moving away from the consumerism that pushes capitalism as a whole, or killing off the rich en masse.

Right now, it seems everybody is going for the former situation: the systems of making money are falling apart. Instead of sharpening our swords in front of the castle, we are giving up on the idea of consumerism as a whole. A lot of American life is dependent on purchases to showcase major changes in our lives, and we are slowly moving away from that model. Suburbia is in decline as people realize that owning a car is too expensive when you don't make that much. People are renting because housing is an expense. Cable television? An expense that really doesn't hurt when you're away from it for a number of days. And so forth and so on. The greedier the rich get, the more the 99% realizes they don't need a lot of stuff that benefits those same 1%. There are rumblings about funding education and things that people can't do without, but at the moment it's a very interesting game of attrition: some of the Rich are immune to this. Some industries, however, are falling apart because the lack of money combined with the contempt held for their customers are driving them away.

I keep saying this: the greed of the 1% is changing American life to such an extent that it will eventually erase a lot of the Rich's gains. It's consumer training in reverse: instead of making people dependent on purchases as some kind of sick rite of passage, they are training consumers not to consume. This will affect Americans for generations to come. While advertisement pushes a sick ideal of Americana, how much of that will Americans really face when they have the power to skip commercials or simply not bother with watching? Austerity is lethal to capitalism because it shows how utterly unimportant most of our financial 'decisions' really are, and you can see the Rich don't seem to realize that. The contempt continues: "If I market something, then the sheep will follow." But they don't seem to get that the lack of money going into the 99% is teaching people a few harsh lessons about the futility of such a system. Any good capitalist would bend over backwards to keep consumers consuming. What does it say about today's rich--inherited from parents who might have had a chance to actually earn that money--that they simply don't give a shiat and are now cashing out?

The Greek rich seem to coming to this conclusion. No more pleading equal footing, they now are just in hiding because they know it's not that far to the point where their headless, sodomized bodies are being dragged around a public square on CNN, only to end up on the pyre fueled by unsold copies of Atlas Shrugged. History has taught us that you cannot control people forever. A very long time, yes. But eventually, something breaks. And the only real question is 'whose head is on the pike?'

BgJonson79: Splinshints: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think that there was rich and poor a thousand years ago? A million? You gotta be messing with me.

...

So how do we fix it, when about 80% of people are average intelligence or dumber? As society becomes more complex, "regular" people won't be able to keep up and more and more people will have to be provided for since they won't be able to provide for themselves.

Splinshints: I don't think you understand how averages work.

Moopy Mac: Please explain to us how averages work and why what BgJonson said can't be true.

sharpie_69: Are we about to witness the next Rotsky?

Parthenogenetic: *sigh* Somebody, please post an example and stop this --- oh, fine.

Person #1's IQ = 30
Person #2's IQ = 35
Person #3's IQ = 40
Person #4's IQ = 45
Person #5's IQ = 100

If "average" is the arithmetic mean, the average IQ of this sample population is (30+35+40+45+100)/5 = 50.
80% of the population's IQ is below average.

That's a lot of derp.

Nezorf: Uhhhhh. Want to try again with that one?

sharpie_69: Scroll up -- it has been covered. And yes, you can have 80% below average...

Nezorf: Damn that took forever to post. Stupid mobile fark.

It never was fully covered. The statement is kind of a misnomer, unless BgJonson79 is assuming a non-normal distribution, using binned or ordinal statements of intelligence. Oh well.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You can, but you don't. In a room containing eight teabaggers and two mentally challenged toddlers, yes, you'll have 80% of the group below the average intelligence of the group. But (provided you think IQ has any sort of authority at all here) measured intelligence has a Gaussian distribution, with the same mean, median, and mode. And in such a distribution you don't see 80% below the average.

qorkfiend: As your sample size gets bigger IQ scores approach a standard distribution. OP wasn't referring to a small group of deliberately chosen scores.

poot_rootbeer: Goddamit everyone, he said "80% at or below average".

Even if we do assume a normal distribution, all it takes is to understand "average" as "within one or two standard deviations of the arithmetic mean", rather than "exactly equal to the mean", and you can easily have a scenario where the original statement is true.

Nezorf: So average means the middle 95.45%?
upload.wikimedia.org

/tired of this argument.

qorkfiend: I don't think that's what the definition of "average" is. Only 2.5% of a normal distribution is more than two standard deviations from the mean.

Wow! Am I the only one here who has even glanced at the numeric keypad on his computer keyboard and noticed that the [8↑] key is immediately above the [5] key!? Did it never occur to anyone here that "80%" just might've been a typo for "50%" if the digits were typed on a numeric keypad as many people (especially those who work in accounting) do!?

/According to recent polls, three out of every four Americans collectively comprise a whopping 75% of the U.S. population!

COMALite J: BgJonson79: Splinshints: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think that there was rich and poor a thousand years ago? A million? You gotta be messing with me.

...

So how do we fix it, when about 80% of people are average intelligence or dumber? As society becomes more complex, "regular" people won't be able to keep up and more and more people will have to be provided for since they won't be able to provide for themselves.

Splinshints: I don't think you understand how averages work.

Moopy Mac: Please explain to us how averages work and why what BgJonson said can't be true.

sharpie_69: Are we about to witness the next Rotsky?

Parthenogenetic: *sigh* Somebody, please post an example and stop this --- oh, fine.

Person #1's IQ = 30
Person #2's IQ = 35
Person #3's IQ = 40
Person #4's IQ = 45
Person #5's IQ = 100

If "average" is the arithmetic mean, the average IQ of this sample population is (30+35+40+45+100)/5 = 50.
80% of the population's IQ is below average.

That's a lot of derp.

Nezorf: Uhhhhh. Want to try again with that one?

sharpie_69: Scroll up -- it has been covered. And yes, you can have 80% below average...

Nezorf: Damn that took forever to post. Stupid mobile fark.

It never was fully covered. The statement is kind of a misnomer, unless BgJonson79 is assuming a non-normal distribution, using binned or ordinal statements of intelligence. Oh well.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You can, but you don't. In a room containing eight teabaggers and two mentally challenged toddlers, yes, you'll have 80% of the group below the average intelligence of the group. But (provided you think IQ has any sort of authority at all here) measured intelligence has a Gaussian distribution, with the same mean, median, and mode. And in such a distribution you don't see 80% below the average.

qorkfiend: As your sample size gets bigger IQ scores approach a standard distribution. OP wasn't referring to a small group of deliberately chosen scores.

poot_rootbeer: Goddamit everyone, he sai ...

I will grant this possibility, but then the thread would be much less interesting.

Also, who uses the keypad?

derpy troll subtard.
of course the country's spending and unsustainable social welfare programs are not at all at the heart of their current financial state....

/made a sh*t load of money by shorting Greek bonds
//making more by shorting Spanish bonds
///saving every penny for the coming apocolypse in the US

People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.

cman: I'm sorry, but the Greek people lost my respect in this last election.

Electing Neo-Nazi's is a very, very scary thing

That election was an "anybody but the incumbents" deal. Now that they've got the splenetic tantrum out of their system, they're in, "I voted for WHO?" mode. I suspect that they'll be coming back to Earth now.

The worst part of the Greek situation is the knock-on effect it's having on everyone else. The entire country shows the financial responsibility of a unversity kid with his first credit card, and now the grown-ups are suffering.

If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, (nothing rhyme with worthless),
If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)

* humming along*

If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, and taxation rules are toothless,
the situation is quite fruitless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)

Say, this is fun... anyone else?

SlothB77: so let's get this straight.

Rich businessman in the country say current debt levels are not sustainable and to curtail government spending on the welfare state.
Government continues to spend exhorbitant amounts maintaining welfare state, while the economy sputters and job growth flattens.
Debt levels cannot be sustained, government runs out of money and cannot afford its welfare state.
People demand rich businessman sustain welfare state with the money they earned through hard work.

and here is the US version

Rich businessman in the country say current debt levels are not sustainable and to curtail government spending on the welfare state.
Government continues to spend exhorbitant amounts maintaining welfare state. Government raises taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for it causing the economy to sputter and job growth to flatten.
Even with high taxes (or because of them undermining the economy) debt levels cannot be sustained, government runs out of money and cannot afford its welfare state.
People demand rich businessman sustain welfare state with the money they earned through hard work *in addition* to the taxes they already paid.
Rich Businessman say FU and leave. With their money.



in other words, a sneak preview if Romney is elected for his economic plans.

If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, then your populace is mirthless
If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)

Turns out something does rhyme with worthless.

Nicely done.

If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)
If your currency is worthless, then you may as well go purseless
If your currency is worthless, punch a Greek (clap, clap)

CEO pay seems to be a big problem for people in this discussion. The CEOs are probably not worth nearly the compensation packages that they command. However, the corporate boards (representing shares) are the ones who decide that. You might want to consider that if having a large corporation is easy, why aren't more people doing it?

Also, suppose you buy a home to fix and sell, and you contract a guy to paint it. He does it and you pay him. Transaction done. When you sell the house for a profit, how much additional money do you owe the painter? Nothing. He's been paid as agreed for the work he has done. When you are an employee, you work for what and the employer agree to. If the company makes more than you deem fair, what business is it of yours? it's their house, it was before you hired on.

As for the macroeconomic woes the US is enduring, the free market isn't at fault. This market isn't even close to free. The market is manipulated by wealthy people in collusion with the government. Remember this at the polls when your vote hinges upon some wedge issue formulated by the political class and disseminated by ads paid for by campaign contributions from corporate interests. If you feel like the game is rigged against you, it's because it is.

The bipartisan super-committee met for months last year and couldn't agree on 1.3 trillion dollars in cuts over 10 years. During those 10 years, the US government will spend about 40 trillion bucks. That's about 3.5 percent. Could you cut your own budget by 3.5 percent over 10 years? Have you done it already? The system is broken and corrupt, folks. Time to quit thinking as Republicans and Democrats and start thinking like Americans.

FARK in FL: I'VE GOT THE SOLUTION FOR GREECE..................


[www.canyoncountryzephyr.com image 300x362]

Really all they need is this guy and all their problems will be solved because he's so awesome. I'm mean look what he's done for our economy. Plus Greece already has a large welfare population and public unions that are out of control.

A message from the 1%:

alphalemming: Also, suppose you buy a home to fix and sell, and you contract a guy to paint it. He does it and you pay him. Transaction done. When you sell the house for a profit, how much additional money do you owe the painter? Nothing. He's been paid as agreed for the work he has done. When you are an employee, you work for what and the employer agree to. If the company makes more than you deem fair, what business is it of yours? it's their house, it was before you hired on.

If you don't think home restorers - and painters - know the local housing market and can accurately gauge how much the painting job is worth to you to pitch you their rate, you're awfully mistaken.

An employee in a career is not a contractor and does not have the same freedom of movement. While in theory the employee could offer their services to another company - if not barred by a noncompete contract clause - the market demand for a particular employee is not as free and frequent as that to paint or restore houses. This gives the employer - the house owner in your analogy - the ability to dictate the pay given for the services provided, instead of the employee - or painter.

To address the questions of entitlement and "fair" in your paragraph is again, another place where your metaphor falls down. A properly run company has an obligation for the future and social obligations for the community around it. A company needs to be run as a long-term enterprise. (See: Henry Ford) Instead, increasingly, as Wall Street shareholders buy more and more publically traded companies, emphasis is given to the year's performance - to the quarter's performance. Managers are told that their responsibility is to make money for the shareholders - not to build a sustaining, financially secure enterprise. A year of declining profit, for any reason, is a black mark on a CEO and the shareholders impatiently want to force change - or dump their stock. Ergo, from the top down, a company is run at a furious pace, all so that profits to the owners can be maximized as fast and as often as possible, completely abandoning the social and long-term responsibilities of the business as a whole - which allows them to shiat on their employees.
Your metaphor, of course, addresses none of this as it completely ignores the long term, perhaps hinting that you share this Raider mentality that has infected proper, sustainable capitalism.

2wolves: Cythraul: How do you say, "you can't tax the job creators" in Greek?

Herpus derpi moranus.

WIN

starsrift, I don't dispute that there is an overemphasis on earnings and stock price pressure rampant in the system today. This being the case, I blame the exchanges, brokerage firms, and investors for that. Of the three, the investors are the biggest drivers short term thinking. Let's face it, businesses respond to all types of pressures some of them fair, many not. But then any financial advisor worth listening to will tell you to buy long and ride it up slow.

In the pinch, some companies take bad quarters and others cook their books. I got hammered in the tech wreck when earnings pressure from Worldcom's falsified earnings reports killed jobs at all the other telcos. That's what the SEC is supposed to be for, and that's where my government / business collusion point comes in. The cops are crooked because city hall is crooked.

I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from drawing conclusions from what I don't say. Just because I don't explicitly make a point, it doesn't mean I believe the opposite. If I were to put everything in a post, even I'd get bored reading it. Besides, all analogies fall apart at some point, hence the term analogies.

BTW, I strap on tool bags and do construction work when the telecomm field is in the dumper, and I know what my hammer and my hands are worth, even if I'm a little hungry and need to settle for a little less than that. But if I charge a guy a customer x dollars to improve a house, I don't care if the owner makes a mint or loses his ass. It's not my business either way.

That mercenary point being made, I loathe the raider mentality. I differentiate between raiders and companies like Bain Capital, who make tough choices as to what businesses and parts of business survive. I liken it to the market's internal housekeeping. Not pretty, but ultimately necessary at times.

Poorly performing companies (chronically underperforming similar business units) need to fall by the wayside. Poorly run ones might just need tweaks (like focus, as with Cisco trying to get into the consumer electronics market) or need a change of management, like what might be happening to Mike Dell.

Companies that are misconfigured, outdated, part of a dying market, or getting outcompeted by price or customer preference need to meet with the bloody end of natural selection. When these corporations meet their demise, it sucks when people are collateral damage. But it is expected, that's what I told my cousin when his auto plant closed and he lived on my couch for almost a year.

My point here is that the market is always in flux, companies starting, growing, surviving, some dying. Investors too often place short term gains over long. Some CEOs are megalomaniacs and sociopaths. Face it, power and money has attracted the alpha-scumbags of the US to both Washington DC and Wall Street. So, invest carefully, don't turn Wall Street into Vegas, and when a friend or relative gets hammered, don't be a dick and help them out.

See? this is what happens when I'm not making a concerted effort to be brief, TL:DR

This will end the same way it always has, in blood. Your average person will be fine with whatever bullshiat you pull on them, right up until you make it so they have to watch their children go hungry. that's when people get beheaded. The plutocrat will learn this lesson again I fear.

I see the "free market" worm farmers busy flogging their theories. That work so well on paper, and fail so hard in reality.
Thirty years of ruination to our counrty, and you motherf**king assholes STILL won't admit that you are wrong.
Fortunately, so-called "conservatism" is a philosophy of old people and weak young white men who will never breed. It's got about ten years of life left.

Diogenes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So, basically the problem is that people don't pay enough in taxes?

No the problem is that people can't (or wont) afford to pay enough taxes to support a welfare state.

Can't it be both?

Seems to me that's a large part of the problem. Everyone saying "It's your problem." No one wants to share in the solution. And that's not class warfare. What we're seeing in Greece is.

Let someone else make the sacrifices and leave me alone.

You are right, when people blame others with slogans of "I am the 99%" then they can marginalize anyone they want, and we end up having nobody supporting a welfare state.

poot_rootbeer: Goddamit everyone, he said "80% at or below average".

Even if we do assume a normal distribution, all it takes is to understand "average" as "within one or two standard deviations of the arithmetic mean", rather than "exactly equal to the mean", and you can easily have a scenario where the original statement is true.

That's what I was going with, and I assumed most Farkers would be smart enough to know what I meant.

alphalemming: Fair enough, & concur with some things.

But Dell is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. 14 billion dollars revenue? Not good enough! Fire the CEO! Change the management. Why does he still have a job? The quarter is 0.5 billion under what the analysts forecasted!

... That's just retarded, it's a prime example of exactly my point. We have this massive problem of uninvested investors - people who are investing money into companies, but they're not investing into the company's ideas, products, and services. They don't care that Dell's doing well. They don't care that Dell's raking in billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of millions in profits. They don't care that Dell has once again become a brand that's pretty well-respected by consultants and geeks - the guys who advise the buyers. A brand name that was pretty much in the trash before they put Michael Dell back at the helm. It's not enough - Dell is at $0.43 a share in profit instead of $0.46. And that's all they care about. They're uninvested investors, and they get antsy because Dell isn't making them enough money. And the consensus of analysts? Dell should have entered the clusterfark that is the mobile market.
Which would have been a disaster for Dell, but the shareholders and stock analysts don't actually care about the how's, they just see mobile device sellers doing well and wonder why Dell isn't in on that.

Magnates...how do they work?

Diogenes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: vpb: So, basically the problem is that people don't pay enough in taxes?

No the problem is that people can't (or wont) afford to pay enough taxes to support a welfare state.

Can't it be both?

Seems to me that's a large part of the problem. Everyone saying "It's your problem." No one wants to share in the solution. And that's not class warfare. What we're seeing in Greece is.

Let someone else make the sacrifices and leave me alone.

It kind of is both.

Greece has a messed up situation. Everyone there knows they cannot afford the government programs they have with their tax structure, but if you propose either raising (or enforcing collection of) taxes, people riot. And if you propose cutting programs at all, people riot. And, amazingly, a lot of the same people riot if you try to do either.

This is what happens when you have a combination of an upper class that is detached from society, and other classes that are too dependent on the government with no understanding of government's true function or limitations.

jso2897: I see the "free market" worm farmers busy flogging their theories. That work so well on paper, and fail so hard in reality.
Thirty years of ruination to our counrty, and you motherf**king assholes STILL won't admit that you are wrong.
Fortunately, so-called "conservatism" is a philosophy of old people and weak young white men who will never breed. It's got about ten years of life left.

1/10, but I like your dedication.

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation
of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his
natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all
Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the
Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore
by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick
shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society
on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can
have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his
Club towards the Support of it."

--Ben Franklin

Our founding fathers dared elites to go gault 150 years before ayn rand existed

If you want a preview of what rich Americans will do while their country burns, look no further than Greece

By giving to charities and buying sovern debt and then writing off the losses?.... I am OK with that.

Starsrift, Dell's failure to get into the mobile market is precisely the thing I speak of when I say that some companies get outcompeted on price or customer preference. Dell failed to get in on the significant market trend toward mobile technology early enough to have a decent chance of success to snag and build market share, even in the long term. If that's the reason they want his head, then the reason is not short term earnings, it's long term viability. But then, what if Dell had put out a product that went the way of the Blackberry or worse yet, purchased RIM to access the market sector? I suspect that they would similarly want blood over losses in market share if the RIM flameout had occurred under the Dell banner.

Perhaps the board is being pressured by investors because the net numbers aren't as good as say, Apple or HP. If so, it seems fair because Apple is diversified in mobile technology and consumer electronics and HP is diversified enough into networks to go to war with Cisco, particularly in the data center. Either way, Dell has painted themselves into a corner in a decreasing market. I also read something recently about a union petitioning the board at Dell to oust Mike Dell. I hope that the board ignores the union because I think it's unhealthy for unions to affect who they're negotiating with, as is the case with public sector unions, but that is a separate argument altogether.

Whichever is the case, Dell might have competitive earnings right now, but the outlook for Dell is a piece of a smaller pie, core business wise. I can't say new leadership is the answer, nor can I say that the R&D required to compete with Apple and Samsung is "too little, too late".

Either way, it appears to me that the Dellpocalypse is over future earnings, not the current numbers. That is long term thinking, not short term earnings pressure.

Cubicle Jockey: Gunpowder's impact on fudalism was less about the knights being shot, and more about the end of the fort/castle system due to cannon. Local lords had nowhere to hide if they wanted to stubbornly resist against centralized control.

Way late to the thread, but just wanted to mention you made my morning by using "cannon" properly.

I feel like I'm the only person on Earth who does. Now I know there's one other.

starsrift: An employee in a career is not a contractor and does not have the same freedom of movement. While in theory the employee could offer their services to another company - if not barred by a noncompete contract clause - the market demand for a particular employee is not as free and frequent as that to paint or restore houses. This gives the employer - the house owner in your analogy - the ability to dictate the pay given for the services provided, instead of the employee - or painter.

The more reason to disincentivize less-than-secure employment. All it really does these days is act like a union in reverse, where everything is used to insulate against the worker towards the benefit of the employer.


To address the questions of entitlement and "fair" in your paragraph is again, another place where your metaphor falls down. A properly run company has an obligation for the future and social obligations for the community around it. A company needs to be run as a long-term enterprise. (See: Henry Ford) Instead, increasingly, as Wall Street shareholders buy more and more publically traded companies, emphasis is given to the year's performance - to the quarter's performance. Managers are told that their responsibility is to make money for the shareholders - not to build a sustaining, financially secure enterprise. A year of declining profit, for any reason, is a black mark on a CEO and the shareholders impatiently want to force change - or dump their stock. Ergo, from the top down, a company is run at a furious pace, all so that profits to the owners can be maximized as fast and as often as possible, completely abandoning the social and long-term responsibilities of the business as a whole - which allows them to shiat on their employees.

Start by making corporate sociopathy come with a huge cost. Worst case, kill the practices that enable it (such as offshoring and contract labor).

sethstorm: What mechanisms would you propose to induce huge costs for offshoring or contract labor?

To be intellectually honest, what mechanisms would you propose to inhibit consumer sociopathy like purchasing goods that are produced overseas with labor costs far below our own?

Ishkur: The rich ARE the lazy folk who leach off the producers.

Someone sure pulled out the extra-super wide paintbrush today.

HeadLever: Someone sure pulled out the extra-super wide paintbrush today.


Well it's true. You are sitting around while others are doing the work for you while you demand 100% of the profits and no taxes.