Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read yours and now it is time for you to read mine. You know darned well that when someone is against a thing, tax or anything else, he can make it appear that the one he doesn't like is something that it well may not be. Read the link you have been afforded and then decide for yourself. I think that taking Libertarian only will never answer any questions for one. You may think you are one of those but I sure don't.
Please read that link and then let us discuss it. As I said, I read yours and now it is your turn.
I hope this is a lesson for all posters. If you don't know the subject matter, don't bother commenting or you'll look foolish.
Allow the entire country free reigns at the ballot box.
Add a daily dose of hormones into their water supply to promote population increases.
That'll be the quickest way possible to become viable again on a global scale.
You're out numbered right now.
Then you have the president make great speeches about freedoms and "freedom this" and "freedom that" all around the countries of the world (if that'll even be possible). And tearing down borders and walls. He would have to be likeable.
i hope that was sarcasm, because it is hard to tell on the internet when someone is being sarcastic. if you are saying amnesty in all seriousness, i would suggest that you are dead wrong. we have an oversupply of labor now.
we don't need more workers-we got plenty of workers!
we don't need hormones in the water supply-we got plenty of workers!
we don't need to tear down our borders-we got plenty of workers!
china had a boom because they got their population under control, not because they created more workers.
you only add labor to the workforce when you have a shortage of workers.
i hope that was sarcasm, because it is hard to tell on the internet when someone is being sarcastic. if you are saying amnesty in all seriousness, i would suggest that you are dead wrong. we have an oversupply of labor now.
No you haven't What you've seen is a work force unwilling to work for anything less than $35/hr and the rest of the world working for $.75/hr. You lose. Open up your borders, tax them (increasing your tax base) and drop the minimum wage. You'll see the fastest drop in unemployment in the history of recorded time. When I say open the borders I mean tell everyone with commercials, flyers and whatever other propaganda you can come up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
we don't need more workers-we got plenty of workers!
No you have plenty of people who think they're owed something and who are unwilling to work for $3/hr. You can solve that real quick by abolishing unemployment insurance and dropping the minimum wage to $0/hr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
we don't need hormones in the water supply-we got plenty of workers!
By the way your lazy owed-the-world public is getting older.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
we don't need to tear down our borders-we got plenty of workers!
No you don't you have lazy ass people who think they're learning by playing PlayStation. Stop subsidizing lifestyles and you'll see an increase in people who are willing to work so they don't starve to death. You have to drop the minimum wage to $0/hr though. You have to tax everyone too and it can remain progressive in nature. Even the poorest of people need to have some stake in the game. You can't tax them if you're not even willing to accept the fact that they're here and currently working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
china had a boom because they got their population under control, not because they created more workers.
No. They're having a boom because they're moving away from the oppressive communist theories that governed them for so long and more towards open markets. You see, you're way over here and they're way over there. If you're not going to come their way you're going to have to get them to come yours.
What the means is if you want to keep your standard of living you're going to have to convince them that their human rights are to have T.V.s, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Netflix, Food, UE insurance, Housing, etc.
Good luck with that occurring at a break-neck speed.
The best thing to do is move their way and promote all of those things so it happens as quickly as possible. It's going to happen whether you like it or not unless you have some big fat nasty nuclear war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
you only add labor to the workforce when you have a shortage of workers.
Or you drop the minimum wage to zero and stop subsidizing people's lifestyles. When they get hungry they'll work for $2/hr and then, and only then, will your workforce become more competitive in the market and the price for your goods become more competitive in the market.
Or you can sit around and whine about what you're owed while it's literally taken from your warm still-living hands.
BJ - If people actually worked for $3 per hour how would they pay the rent and how would the landlords pay their mortgages? How would doctors make 300 grand a year? Do you know what the stock market was worth when the minimum wage was $3 an hour? IIRC it was something under $4,000. It would return to this level without the minimum wage where it is. Or lower.
Would you please tell us what reality twisting substance you are using to create these absurd posts?
The answer the OP’s question is simple. They have no intention of creating jobs. The only thing they wanted in the beginning was to get the black guy out of the White House. Later they were taken over by the business elite living off government subsidies and all they wanted was decreased taxes and less competition.
BJ - If people actually worked for $3 per hour how would they pay the rent and how would the landlords pay their mortgages? How would doctors make 300 grand a year? Do you know what the stock market was worth when the minimum wage was $3 an hour? IIRC it was something under $4,000. It would return to this level without the minimum wage where it is. Or lower.
Would you please tell us what reality twisting substance you are using to create these absurd posts?
The answer the OP’s question is simple. They have no intention of creating jobs. The only thing they wanted in the beginning was to get the black guy out of the White House. Later they were taken over by the business elite living off government subsidies and all they wanted was decreased taxes and less competition.
Your stock market is going there anyways and what you're telling me is you're going to fight it the whole way.
The logic I'm using is science, see the laws of thermodynamics, nature and evolution all wrapped into one. You've been breaking all those rules and laws
for quite some time now and what you're seeing is the self-correction occurring in your face.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 08-05-2011 at 07:04 AM..
No you haven't What you've seen is a work force unwilling to work for anything less than $35/hr and the rest of the world working for $.75/hr. You lose. Open up your borders, tax them (increasing your tax base) and drop the minimum wage. You'll see the fastest drop in unemployment in the history of recorded time. When I say open the borders I mean tell everyone with commercials, flyers and whatever other propaganda you can come up with.
No you have plenty of people who think they're owed something and who are unwilling to work for $3/hr. You can solve that real quick by abolishing unemployment insurance and dropping the minimum wage to $0/hr.
By the way your lazy owed-the-world public is getting older.
No you don't you have lazy ass people who think they're learning by playing PlayStation. Stop subsidizing lifestyles and you'll see an increase in people who are willing to work so they don't starve to death. You have to drop the minimum wage to $0/hr though. You have to tax everyone too and it can remain progressive in nature. Even the poorest of people need to have some stake in the game. You can't tax them if you're not even willing to accept the fact that they're here and currently working.
No. They're having a boom because they're moving away from the oppressive communist theories that governed them for so long and more towards open markets. You see, you're way over here and they're way over there. If you're not going to come their way you're going to have to get them to come yours.
What the means is if you want to keep your standard of living you're going to have to convince them that their human rights are to have T.V.s, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Netflix, Food, UE insurance, Housing, etc.
Good luck with that occurring at a break-neck speed.
The best thing to do is move their way and promote all of those things so it happens as quickly as possible. It's going to happen whether you like it or not unless you have some big fat nasty nuclear war.
Or you drop the minimum wage to zero and stop subsidizing people's lifestyles. When they get hungry they'll work for $2/hr and then, and only then, will your workforce become more competitive in the market and the price for your goods become more competitive in the market.
Or you can sit around and whine about what you're owed while it's literally taken from your warm still-living hands.
i find your post somewhat disrespectful. there are plenty of solutions offered here, and that isn't "whining".
the "lazy assed workers owed the world " represents my father's generation-who never missed a day of work in his life and never missed a payment into the SS fund. (and sadly did not get to enjoy his retirement benefits -which were already stolen anyway by the government...)
before offshoring, americans could have jobs and work them their whole lives. ross perot was right about the sucking sound, and ron paul is right now.
a workforce unwilling to work for less than 35 dollars an hour? i think not.
maybe we should learn from what happened to ireland-- they started using birth control (there is a paper somewhere out there on the population and the celtic tiger) and they started to having a working age boom and enjoy prosperity, and became one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
they then had unchecked immigration with the rise of the EU and now have to deal with the consequences, and went from a surplus to being deeply in debt.. it certainly isn't the only thing, but you can't deny massive immigration hurt ireland. of course, now the immigrants are leaving ireland in droves because there is nothing left. i certainly see the parallels here, even if you do not.
michael lewis had a piece on "when irish eyes are crying", available on the internet.
i think the ONLY part of your post that i agree with is that we do have to stop subsidizing bad behavior now. there should be NO benefits unless people work for them somehow. (even if that means manning a soup kitcken or collecting goods to be distributed at a soup kitchen, working at a small business start-up, etc.)
if everybody has an investment in america, everybody will be working that much harder to save america.
Last edited by floridasandy; 08-05-2011 at 06:49 AM..
This might be a good thread to air my suggestions on countervailing tariffs, immigration controls on both legal and illegal immigrants, taxes on revenues derived from overseas investments, and taxing international oil companies for the cost of our military interventions for their benefit?
Nobody want to listen to these ideas so why bother?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
