Lupine Chemist: I sound fat: Deathfrogg: I sound fat:

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.... sounds like a job just opened up in America for someone who wants to be here.

Why would anyone want to live in a Country where a tonsillectomy or an appendectomy can cost a years gross wages, and a Police officer can shoot your dog or you on a whim? Why would anyone want to live in a Country where the wealthiest citizens are allowed to gather so much wealth that they could never spend it in a million lifetimes, while the people that work for them are being told to starve and like it?

You can't throw people out of work and then accuse them of being lazy when they can't find a job. You can't price education so high where only the wealthy can afford it, and then sneer at people who aren't educated. Thats the exact reason why we kicked the British out. Twice.

I get what you are saying. Just dont let the door hit you on your way out.

See, everyone in the thread knows you are blowing smoke. We all know you arent leaving. We all know you are full of crap

I did take my taxpayer funded engineering degree abroad. Have fun tightening immigration law to help at the very least slow down brain gain if not cause brain drain.

You remember we still have nukes, right? And aircraft carriers?

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Or "extortion".

Yes, that perfectly describes what the financial industry did in 2008 when they gambled away everybody's money.

Maybe instead of wasting bullets, we should just start bombing the housing projects of people like you. Handle the whole thing remotely with predator drones, not get anyone's hands dirty. That way we don't have to worry about as many low-income "grunt" soldiers, and can just leave them at home to get bombed with the rest of the plebs.

Lupine Chemist: I did take my taxpayer funded engineering degree abroad. Have fun tightening immigration law to help at the very least slow down brain gain if not cause brain drain.

If Obama is re-elected he'll just give them amnesty instead and the next day we'll have 16 million mexicans to add to the welfare rolls.

Kali-Yuga: Lupine Chemist: I did take my taxpayer funded engineering degree abroad. Have fun tightening immigration law to help at the very least slow down brain gain if not cause brain drain.

If Obama is re-elected he'll just give them amnesty instead and the next day we'll have 16 million mexicans to add to the welfare rolls.

Not if we roll through Mexico killing and raping and burning the whole way. Throw it on national TV so the Americans can masturbate to five year old mexican girls being dismembered and raped to death. It'd be hot.

That sick tag is getting thrown around so much that it's getting sea sick.

cretinbob: wages have been flat over the past 20 years. taxes has nothing to do with it

We could use tanks; it'd be hilarious to just roll over people, real slowly, while they scream and their bones and tendons shatter under the weight of a 60-ton MBT. Leave bloody smears across the front lawns of all those underachieving scum that can't be assed to get off their butts and work for a living.

zzrhardy: PS - the Dark Ages were not just caused by religion, it was caused by the death of the Roman era middle class and the birth of the massive feudal era serf class. Religion just made it easier to control the serfs.

Actually they were caused by the collapse of the western Roman Empire. When it fell apart it was no longer possible to quickly and safely get goods from, say, Lyon to Turin. To say nothing of getting goods from Rome to London or vice versa. Over in the eastern part of the empire, it held together and such things weren't a problem and there were no dark ages. As for what caused the collapse of the western part of the empire, part of it had to do with it splitting itself into two and the resulting imbalances in trade that happened. Which left the western part in a poor place to properly defend itself once it had a hard time keeping things going. That part of the empire fell was not something inevitable from the time it was founded, it was the result of a few decisions made over the years, some made with the best possible intentions given the understanding of things like commerce and government of the time, and some made with less than the best possible motives.

Interestingly what started turning the dark ages around just had the 1219th anniversary of it's beginning four days ago. It was on June 8, 793 that the Vikings raided Lindesfarne, a tiny little bit of land just off the coast of Northumbria in England.

Kali-Yuga: Lupine Chemist: I did take my taxpayer funded engineering degree abroad. Have fun tightening immigration law to help at the very least slow down brain gain if not cause brain drain.

If Obama is re-elected he'll just give them amnesty instead and the next day we'll have 16 million mexicans to add to the welfare rolls.

Yeah yeah Obama is the negro devil. The harbinger of death and economic ruin, the dark leader that is the sign of the end times, the consummate source of all evil blah blah blah

Kali-Yuga: he'll just give them amnesty instead

you mean like Reagan did? And why would Obama whose administration has quite markedly increased the number of deportations of illegals go and give them amnesty?

MayoSlather: Kali-Yuga: Lupine Chemist: I did take my taxpayer funded engineering degree abroad. Have fun tightening immigration law to help at the very least slow down brain gain if not cause brain drain.

If Obama is re-elected he'll just give them amnesty instead and the next day we'll have 16 million mexicans to add to the welfare rolls.

Yeah yeah Obama is the negro devil. The harbinger of death and economic ruin, the dark leader that is the sign of the end times, the consummate source of all evil blah blah blah

Nah, he's just helping Mr. Manson realize his dream of Helter-Skelter.

WhyteRaven74: Kali-Yuga: he'll just give them amnesty instead

you mean like Reagan did? And why would Obama whose administration has quite markedly increased the number of deportations of illegals go and give them amnesty?

Hopefully to lure them into a false sense of security before rounding them all up, and skinning them alive slooooowly in front of a live studio audience, broadcast to the world as a message that You. Do. Not. fark. With. US.

WhyteRaven74: Kali-Yuga: he'll just give them amnesty instead

you mean like Reagan did? And why would Obama whose administration has quite markedly increased the number of deportations of illegals go and give them amnesty?

People who disparage Reagan and claim he did stuff that's anything like a filthy liberal would do should be doused in gasoline and lit on fire, then raped to death by rabid bears while the rest of us watch.

Kali-Yuga: by education and job training of the poor,

Great, so you support at least quadrupling expenditures on teachers and school buildings?

Nothing at all, as long as it's voluntary.

BTW we tried that, and it was an utter disaster. Also in order to get the Earned Income Tax Credit you have to actually have a job, so you know you have income towards which a tax credit can be applied. What's more places like WalMart have tons of employees who receive food assistance and other assistance because they aren't paid enough to live without them. Would be nice if WalMart actually did their part to take care of that. Failing that, they should be billed for it, plus 10% interest, compounded monthly.

It is government policies that are destroying the middle class.

Historically, the middle class in America rose up when wage earners could earn enough to acquire and maintain a little wealth, hopefully to pass that on their heirs. It is government policy that takes away that ability, not any 1%ers. Where folks get confused is that the government is a 1%er.

Consider Social Security. The worker has 15% of his wages taken away. The employer match is an illusion because the worker must be productive enough that the employer can charge the customer enough to cover the employer's "contribution." So 15% of a workers productivity is taken by the government, ostensibly to be used for the worker's benefit down the road. For low wage earners, that 15% can make the difference between being able to save a little bit and being forced to live hand-to-mouth. Higher income workers, of course, can still save a bit for the future. Fast forward to retirement. The government decides how much will be doled out to the worker. Should he die young, which poor workers do much more frequently than rich, everything he has put into SS that he hasn't gotten in benefits is forfeit, nothing to pass on to his heirs. The rich, of course, still do have something to pass on. Suppose, instead, that the government took that 15% and actually put it into a private account for this worker and invested it in something like a Dow-Jones index fund. For most workers, after working for 40 years. they could withdraw their average wages for the rest of their lives and never touch the principle. That amount could, of course, be passed on the the heirs and wealth creation could begin for them. That was the American Dream. So, rather than help the middle class or the poor, Social Security penalizes them. The rich are immune to the deleterious effects.

Home ownership is another pillar of the American Dream. If one owns real property, then in one's dotage, that property is a way to live without a rent payment - making your life savings extend even further. The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain. That, of course, increased the demand for homes. Increased demand leads to increased prices, which is the precise cause of the big housing bubble. Then, when there was a precipitous rise in energy prices, the poor, living on the edge already, couldn't afford their mortgage payment and the collapse began. It only takes a small percentage of folks in a neighborhood to default and the home values start to plummet. When those mortgages become toxic the whole banking system was in crisis. Of course, because bankers are a politician's best friend, the banks got bailed out (too big to fail means that they put enough money in a politician's re-election coffers that the political class won't let them fail) while the poor were inordinately affected. Upper middle class struggled but can hang on. Rich are affected only peripherally.

Employer paid health insurance (the government mandate) will have the same effect. A huge chunk of a worker's productivity will be confiscated by the employer and spent, supposedly, on the worker's behalf. The problem is that no matter how healthy the worker may keep himself, he will never see a dividend on that insurance premium unless he used medical services. Which, of course, will lead to increased demand and rising prices for medical services.

Note that I have not attacked or defended either party. Government has gotten intrusive and has taken control with the complicity of both parties. Government has been the big beneficiary. We hear a lot about private gain but public risk, meaning that banks have their risk covered by the government but gains they get to keep themselves. That's true. But consider the position of the government. They dictate a policy that makes them look good but when the policy doesn't work, they blame greed of the wealthy. The Affordable Health Care Act has already done that. Government mandates policies to those with pre-existing conditions, allows children to stay on their parents' policy until they're 26, mandate contraception coverage, etc. Those items all make the government look like a savior to those covered by insurance. But every one of those items will cost the insurance company money, thus rates must rise to cover those costs. And politicians, as predictably as the sun coming up in the East, blame the corporate greed of insurance companies. Once again, the low wage workers will suffer from lack of coverage or inadequate coverage and it will be because of government policy. Companies cannot operate at a loss for too long. The government wont allow it. It's why they wrote bankruptcy laws.

If the voters want the government to take care of them with programs like Social Security, Health Care, every kind of welfare, housing subsidies, agriculture subsidies, etc., that is certainly the right of voters to elect the kind of politicians that will enable those programs. But understand that the transfer of wealth will not be from the wealthy to the poor. It will be from the poor to the government. The rich will have to pay also, but the amount is so small as to have no effect on their acquisition and maintenance of wealth. The amount the poor and lower class workers pay is what will keep them from ever being able to acquire wealth. But at least they'll have free health care and housing and . . .

Every right has an associated responsibility. If you abrogate the responsibility, whoever assumes it will, sooner than you think, also assume the right. If the government is going to assume the responsibility of paying for your health care, they will soon be dictating what your health care looks like. At that point, you are not free. Slaves had the same deal - they never had to pay the doctor. Of course, whether or not they saw the doctor was dependent on the good graces of their master. As you want the government to do more and more for you, think about that. But do not wonder why the poor are getting poorer. Warren Buffet and whether he pays more or less in taxes than his secretary does not affect my pocket book. An increase in SS taxes with no increase in benefits will affect my pocketbook.

WhyteRaven74: Kali-Yuga: by education and job training of the poor,

Great, so you support at least quadrupling expenditures on teachers and school buildings?

Nothing at all, as long as it's voluntary.

BTW we tried that, and it was an utter disaster. Also in order to get the Earned Income Tax Credit you have to actually have a job, so you know you have income towards which a tax credit can be applied. What's more places like WalMart have tons of employees who receive food assistance and other assistance because they aren't paid enough to live without them. Would be nice if WalMart actually did their part to take care of that. Failing that, they should be billed for it, plus 10% interest, compounded monthly.

Wallmart can easily do their part to take care of that by locking the doors with all the plebs inside, then torching the building. We can just write the building off as an insurance award; we can take the
money out of all the plebs' "pensions".

Mr. Right: But every one of those items will cost the insurance company money,

Support this and all other assertions you make.

Mr. Right: . The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain.

Oh and I really really want to see what you have to support this claim.

Ishkur: ialdabaoth: Maybe instead of wasting bullets, we should just start bombing the housing projects of people like you. Handle the whole thing remotely with predator drones, not get anyone's hands dirty. That way we don't have to worry about as many low-income "grunt" soldiers, and can just leave them at home to get bombed with the rest of the plebs.

Actually, there's already a worthy historical precedent for what must be done.

I believe the Romans called it Proscription.

Continuing with the Roman model, gladiatorial games as "reality telivision" would be pretty damn hilarious.

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: . The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain.

Oh and I really really want to see what you have to support this claim.

Why? You wouldn't believe him even if he provided it, and he wouldn't care that you didn't believe him.

NEWSFLASH: No one cares about facts. We're past that. We're so far past the "debate the issues" phase that it's not even funny. NO ONE CARES. We just want our side to win in a way that causes as much grief and misery and horror to the other side as possible. Get with the program.

Kali-Yuga: Lupine Chemist: I did take my taxpayer funded engineering degree abroad. Have fun tightening immigration law to help at the very least slow down brain gain if not cause brain drain.

If Obama is re-elected he'll just give them amnesty instead and the next day we'll have 16 million mexicans to add to the welfare rolls.

And he's gonna totally take your guns too, and make al-Qaeda the fourth branch of government, and rebuild the Statue of Liberty to look like Karl Marx in a turban.

ialdabaoth: We just want our side to win in a way that causes as much grief and misery and horror to the other side as possible. Get with the program.

I wish no grief or misery on anyone. I don't care about winning or losing, because those are terms for sports, not government and society. I only wish to see those people who have received little if any benefit over the last many years get the benefit of things as they did in the past.

LordJiro: rebuild the Statue of Liberty to look like Karl Marx in a turban.

I actually would be contribute money to that, you know, for the lulz.

WhyteRaven74: ialdabaoth: We just want our side to win in a way that causes as much grief and misery and horror to the other side as possible. Get with the program.

I wish no grief or misery on anyone. I don't care about winning or losing, because those are terms for sports, not government and society. I only wish to see those people who have received little if any benefit over the last many years get the benefit of things as they did in the past.

Then have fun when your daughters are being skinned alive and raped in front of you, while you're nailed to the floor by your testicles and can do nothing but watch and weep. I bet your tears taste delicious.

Ishkur: Mr. Right: It is government policies that are destroying the middle class.

That is demonstrably false. I bet you're going to continue with a bunch of debunked libertarian talking poin--

Mr. Right: Consider Social Security

The Social Security Act was instituted in 1935. Before then, the vast majority of the working populace lived very decrepit lives. Standard of living improved IMMENSELY in the age of Social Security.

Mr. Right: The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain. That, of course, increased the demand for homes. Increased demand leads to increased prices, which is the precise cause of the big housing bubble.

The Community Reinvestment Act of which you are undoubtedly referring to was enacted in 1977. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the financial crisis or the housing bubble.

Mr. Right: Employer paid health insurance

Was a stupid idea to begin with, but that's a separate argument. It's probably best to get rid of all health insurance altogether, and levy the costs of medical care the way fire, police and ambulance/rescue are.

Mr. Right: If the voters want the government to take care of them

Well, they kind of have to, because as has been clearly demonstrated, the rich aren't going to do it.

Mr. Right: If the government is going to assume the responsibility of paying for your health care, they will soon be dictating what your health care looks like. At that point, you are not free.

That's not how universal health care works.

Here's how universal health care works: we use poor people as organ farms, and harvest them to keep the rich living as long and healthily as possible, no matter how they treat their bodies.

Thanks Bush, Congress (Patriot Acts I, II, etc) and voters. Instead of admitting they overlooked intelligence, and maybe quietly spending $10B-20B to nab Al Queda top tier, they trumped it up to make it look appear a domestic surveillance system for US citizens and 2 wars were needed, and all on credit. How's that working out for our economy?

krackpipe: Thanks Bush, Congress (Patriot Acts I, II, etc) and voters. Instead of admitting they overlooked intelligence, and maybe quietly spending $10B-20B to nab Al Queda top tier, they trumped it up to make it look appear a domestic surveillance system for US citizens and 2 wars were needed, and all on credit. How's that working out for our economy?

Pretty well, considering how many brown people we killed and how many bombs we sold ourselves to do it with.

The economy is working GREAT. The plebs are farked.

super_grass: zzrhardy: it was caused by the death of the Roman era middle class

Most historians think that it's a response to the power vacuum formed the collapse of the Roman empire due to its overstretched, incompetent, corrupt, and wasteful government.

so that'll be the 0.1% again

GAT_00: Wangiss: Double the taxes! Triple the taxes! Squeeze every drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.

Don't forget, more tax cuts on the rich will fix everything! Never mind how, they totally will!

don't forget, if you let the Democrats continue to add a couple million more foreign workers per year who are willing to work for less than you everything will be alright!



I want capital gains for the wealthy to be raised significantly, but don't even attempt to pretend that low taxes on wealthy is a reason why the middle and working classes are earning less than ever.


it is your chosen policy of stuffing this country with as many third world workers as possible because they tend to vote Democrat that has gutted the middle and working classes.

Paul Krugman: "open immigration can't exist with a strong social safety net; if you're going to assure healthcare and a decent income to everyone, you can't make that offer global."

"The idea that there are jobs that Americans won't do is economic gibberish," Mr. Camarota said. "All the big occupations that immigrants are in - construction, janitorial, even agriculture - are overwhelmingly done by native Americans."

But where they compete for jobs, he said, the immigrants have driven up the jobless rate for some Americans. According to his study, published in March, unemployment among the native born with less than a high school education was 14.3 percent in 2005; the figure for the immigrant population was 7.4 percent.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/weekinreview/02broder.html?_r=2&or ef =slogin

Zenith: super_grass: zzrhardy: it was caused by the death of the Roman era middle class

Most historians think that it's a response to the power vacuum formed the collapse of the Roman empire due to its overstretched, incompetent, corrupt, and wasteful government.

so that'll be the 0.1% again

They're the ones that matter, after all.

Mr. Right: Employer paid health insurance (the government mandate) will have the same effect. A huge chunk of a worker's productivity will be confiscated by the employer and spent, supposedly, on the worker's behalf. The problem is that no matter how healthy the worker may keep himself, he will never see a dividend on that insurance premium unless he used medical services. Which, of course, will lead to increased demand and rising prices for medical services.

mr right,

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite post. Your Randian libertarian roots are showing but that's ok. :)

I would like to point out this is incorrect, however. If more people had insurance, ie, it was mandated by the govt for everyone to buy a policy, this would put more money into the insurance pots, and lower the risks to the insurance company of any single individual taking out too much for illness and costing the insurer too much money. Having more people in the insurance pool lowers premiums. This means that the premiums go down since the risk is spread across more people. So I don't think you have your supply and demand causality worked out correctly here.

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: . The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain.

Oh and I really really want to see what you have to support this claim.

The Community Reinvestment Act. The goal was to make home loans available to lower income families. Fannie Mae would underwrite the loans that banks made. The goal was noble but there were a lot of unintended consequences, one of them being that home prices rose more rapidly than inflation, making the housing market much more attractive to speculators. When there are television shows called "Flip This House," that will be a sign to you that not everyone who is buying a house is trying to save up to buy a little bungalow in which they may comfortably spend their golden years. Also, given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would underwrite anything and then the financial institutions created all the residuals and other Mortgage Backed Securities (all with the full approval and regulation of Congress, we must add). and what started out as a means of improving the rate of home ownership helped lead to near total economic collapse.

Father_Jack: Mr. Right: Employer paid health insurance (the government mandate) will have the same effect. A huge chunk of a worker's productivity will be confiscated by the employer and spent, supposedly, on the worker's behalf. The problem is that no matter how healthy the worker may keep himself, he will never see a dividend on that insurance premium unless he used medical services. Which, of course, will lead to increased demand and rising prices for medical services.

mr right,

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite post. Your Randian libertarian roots are showing but that's ok. :)

I would like to point out this is incorrect, however. If more people had insurance, ie, it was mandated by the govt for everyone to buy a policy, this would put more money into the insurance pots, and lower the risks to the insurance company of any single individual taking out too much for illness and costing the insurer too much money. Having more people in the insurance pool lowers premiums. This means that the premiums go down since the risk is spread across more people. So I don't think you have your supply and demand causality worked out correctly here.

But that would mean more people having full productive lives.

I mean this in all seriousness: why the fark would we want that?

relcec: it is your chosen policy of stuffing this country with as many third world workers as possible because they tend to vote Democrat that has gutted the middle and working classes.

That would be oh so nice if it weren't so entirely wrong. It would work if the numbers of jobs created were far outstripped by the number of people in the US, which would be indicated by a steadily rising unemployment. But that never happened. The blame goes not to the workers, they can be nothing more than scapegoats. It goes instead to those who actually write the paychecks.

WhyteRaven74: relcec: it is your chosen policy of stuffing this country with as many third world workers as possible because they tend to vote Democrat that has gutted the middle and working classes.

That would be oh so nice if it weren't so entirely wrong.

CHRIST! NO ONE CARES!

It would work if the numbers of jobs created were far outstripped by the number of people in the US, which would be indicated by a steadily rising unemployment. But that never happened.

YES IT DID! NO IT DIDN'T! YES IT DID! NO IT DIDN'T!

NO. ONE. CARES.

The blame goes not to the workers, they can be nothing more than scapegoats.

Of course they're scapegoats. So what?

It goes instead to those who actually write the paychecks.

So what? Just because you're right doesn't make you right.

Mr. Right: The Community Reinvestment Act.

Home prices didn't take off until the late 90s, by which point the CRA was 20 years old. Also the CRA does nothing to lower standards for getting a mortgage. A person with a low income can be just as credit worthy as a person with a high income. What the CRA did was to attempt to get rid of redlining, wherein if you lived in a certain area no matter how good of a credit risk you were you just weren't getting a mortgage. Also in some places banks would turn away simply because of income not because of actual credit worthiness. Also Fannie Mae wouldn't back just anything nor would Freddie Mac. Indeed the fact the wouldn't back anything, but only a certain specific subset of mortgages is why private mortgage backed securities emerged. Rather interestingly the man who helped created them, Larry Fink, got way the hell away from them well before they became a big problem. That's one reason why his company Blackrock didn't get, uh, rocked when the financial markets went topsy turvy. Also there's no real regulation for private mortgage backed securities, anyone would assemble mortgages into a bundle and use them as the backing for a bond issue. Which was part of the problem, various institutions proved completely uninterested in examining just what was in the bonds and the ratings agencies seemed more than willing to slap on whatever rating would best sell them. It was a fundamental failure of due diligence by both the ratings agencies and various financial institutions. Of course buying up mortgage backed securities meant more cash for those mortgages that couldn't otherwise be dealt with, particularly all the various forms of subprime mortgages. Standard mortgages, provided they met a handful of conditions, could be dealt with by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At least they could until Freddie Mac basically got forced into mortgages it should've never had a part of. And had it not been a publicly traded enterprise, there's a good shot it never would've been pushed into them. But at any rate, the CRA had nothing to do with subprime mortgages. And indeed mortgages obtained under the auspices of the CRA have over the last few years had a rate of default no worse than the default rate for standard mortgages obtained otherwise. In some places they've even had a lower rate of default.

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...

a steep decline in the last 3 years? who wants 4 more years of that?

Nope...we should definitely go back to starting wars and pretending they don't cost anything.

...so vote Republican!!

Well spending an extra trillion a year hasn't been the silver bullet either.

Maybe there is something else...

ialdabaoth: Of course they're scapegoats. So what?

Scapegoating people is wrong.

jaybeezey: Well spending an extra trillion a year hasn't been the silver bullet either.

You could always try to convince the private sector to spend that. And as a whole the private sector could spend an extra trillion no problem.

archichris:

Why cant you just explain to your kids the economics of owning a home?

It just goes in one ear and out the other... what with their student loan debts being as much as a first mortgage, and them unable to find work that pays more than $15 / hour. They're becoming versed in the economics of "Buy a house? What are you freaking kidding me?!"

WhyteRaven74: relcec: it is your chosen policy of stuffing this country with as many third world workers as possible because they tend to vote Democrat that has gutted the middle and working classes.

That would be oh so nice if it weren't so entirely wrong. It would work if the numbers of jobs created were far outstripped by the number of people in the US, which would be indicated by a steadily rising unemployment. But that never happened. The blame goes not to the workers, they can be nothing more than scapegoats. It goes instead to those who actually write the paychecks.


I'm not blaming the foreign workers for coming to where they can undercut American workers and still earn 5 times what they can in their native country. they are just getting what they can.

I'm blaming assholes like you who vote for neo liberal assholes whose support immigration policies that have gutted the working and middle classes and then complain that the rich guy getting the tax break is actually the guy controlling wages somehow.

the rich guy can't unilaterally decide to pay his workers less. he needs stupid assholes like you to keep supporting massive immigration after 40 disastrous years so the labor pool is saturated enough (oversupply) that workers are willing to work for less pay.

the american business owner and the guy from Guatemala aren't really to blame. they are just acting according to the dictates of supply and demand in a supersaturated labor force create by you.

you're to blame for cheering on these suicidal policies.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/weekinreview/02broder.html?_r=2&or ef =slogin

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ambivalence: The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...

I was going to say stripping but then I realized....no one really wants to see most of us naked.

Hell... I don't want to see myself naked

/I can't help but cry

Aw, don't put yourself down. This is the internet. There will always be someone online who wants to see you naked. And maybe even pay for it. The question is, would you want them to see you naked. *shudder*


*wheeze*

Mr. Right: Consider Social Security. The worker has 15% of his wages taken away. The employer match is an illusion...

If Social Security were abolished tomorrow, all of a sudden employers would increase your paycheck by the 6.2% they're currently paying to Social Security.

/You can't see me, so what you don't know is that I couldn't type that with a straight face.

WhyteRaven74: ialdabaoth: Of course they're scapegoats. So what?

Scapegoating people is wrong.

People who use words like "right" and "wrong" should be raped to death as a warning to others.

BOOT ON HUMAN FACE FOREVER.

ialdabaoth: cretinbob: wages have been flat over the past 20 years. taxes has nothing to do with it

We could use tanks; it'd be hilarious to just roll over people, real slowly, while they scream and their bones and tendons shatter under the weight of a 60-ton MBT. Leave bloody smears across the front lawns of all those underachieving scum that can't be assed to get off their butts and work for a living.

Decent plan but keep in mind that most of them don't have lawns. We could run them over in front of their housing projects but the bloody mess would unfortunately be washed away almost immediately by the water gushing from all the open fire hydrants.

Father_Jack: Mr. Right: Employer paid health insurance (the government mandate) will have the same effect. A huge chunk of a worker's productivity will be confiscated by the employer and spent, supposedly, on the worker's behalf. The problem is that no matter how healthy the worker may keep himself, he will never see a dividend on that insurance premium unless he used medical services. Which, of course, will lead to increased demand and rising prices for medical services.

mr right,

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite post. Your Randian libertarian roots are showing but that's ok. :)

I would like to point out this is incorrect, however. If more people had insurance, ie, it was mandated by the govt for everyone to buy a policy, this would put more money into the insurance pots, and lower the risks to the insurance company of any single individual taking out too much for illness and costing the insurer too much money. Having more people in the insurance pool lowers premiums. This means that the premiums go down since the risk is spread across more people. So I don't think you have your supply and demand causality worked out correctly here.

History has already proven me correct. For several years, insurance would not cover office visits but it would cover emergency room visits. Immediately, everything became an emergency room visit. About 40 years ago, I was working on a construction job, jumped off a ladder and on to a nail, right through my foot. My insurance only covered major medical - pretty common in the day. I called my doctor's office, told him what had happened, I wasn't bleeding to death or anything so his office made room for me pretty quickly, I went in, was treated, had a quick X-ray to make sure no bones were broken, got a tetanus shot, wrote a check for $25.00, which paid for everything, and went back to work, just a little bit more careful about going down ladders instead of jumping off to save a few seconds. Fast forward to about 2 years ago when one of my neighbors was working on a construction job, got a nail through the fleshy part of his thumb shortly after noon and spent the rest of the day at the emergency room getting no more or better care than I had 40 years earlier but costing his insurance company nearly $2000. None of which, of course, he paid so he didn't care what it cost. One substantive reason for the very high medical expenditures in this country relative to other countries is that every doctor's office or hospital has to have (and pay for) an army of clerical staff that spends their days tracking every minute procedure and expense and figuring out which insurance company to bill. Every insurance company has their mirror image of folks reviewing every bill. All of those middle men add enormous cost to our system with no real health care benefit.

Just a quick aside - I've never read Rand. Heard plenty about her but have never taken the time to read her. Hayek, Milton, Smith, the Federalist Papers, and even the Constitution, yes. Rand, no.

relcec: the american business owner and the guy from Guatemala aren't really to blame. they are just acting according to the dictates of supply and demand in a supersaturated labor force create by you.

The labor force is hardly supersaturated. And often times, look at the farms in various places, it's the employers who want the cheap labor because they just can't be bothered to actually pay well though it wouldn't exactly burden them at all. Indeed one of the strongest voices for better pay for farm workers has been the very people you're trying to blame. Of course all that does nothing to explain why jobs in various industries where cheap labor isn't exactly a factor, think large white collar corporations, saw their incomes flat line even as they created more jobs and saw increasing revenues and profits.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: /You can't see me, so what you don't know is that I couldn't type that with a straight face.

I'm amazed you didn't get a hernia from holding in the laughter ;)