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.
No employer in this world pays out of "need". I don't get paid anymore this month because my five year old got surgery or my wife loses her job.
People are paid based on ability and value. If you don't have the skills to earn what you need to support your family it isn't the fault of the employer you qualify for.
it is partly your fault and partly your societies fault. When Wal-Mart and McDonald hire people 30 years ago the jobs were designed for teenagers and moms who wanted part time work while dad built cars.
Wal-Mart did not change the economy. It is not wal-mart's fault that some people who apply for their jobs are heads of households and need food stamps.
Lets say you change things. You tell Wal-mart they must pay a premium to hire people who qualify for food stamps. What would you think they would do if those employees weren't worth the premium?
- I know what I would do--> not hire them. They would just hire people who were secondary earners or teens or whatever.
Your hypothesis below is false though. There are jobs going unfilled. . jobs that pay enough. The issue is we are not providing ways to get to those jobs. We need kindergarten starting at 3 years old. We need no more summer breaks for schools; we need a negative income tax (or similar) that doesn't punish people for making more money. We need to make post high school education standard.
if we dont, we will continue to grow a group of people too poor to support their households.
Quote:
Originally Posted by good_topics
In the year 2015 maybe about 25% of all jobs pay at a rate that allows full time workers to get government benefits. Even if the current people who are working in these jobs get training and move out of the low wage workplace someone else will take their place. So the argument that low wage workers just need to get more skills and education to move up does not really help the situation. Face it, no matter who is working in these jobs at any time, a large number of jobs in America pay under $10 an hour. And these are the jobs that are growing in today's economy. If you want a job, these are the jobs the typical American can get. And they are not jobs for kids and senior citizens anymore. Lots of the folks working at McDonalds are bring up a family on that job's income.
So, who should pay for the government benefits for the 25% of households whose primary bread winner is making $8 an hour or less than $20K a year?
Is it the responsibility of the employers of low wage labor? Or every taxpayer? Or should we just eliminate things like Food Stamps, reduced lunches at school, Medicaid, government paid housing, etc. for people who work?
Remember, someone is going to be doing these low wage jobs regardless of the hopes and dreams of people in them today.
So if one person invents a machine to consume all the Earth's resources and provide everything he needs, he deserves to live in extreme wealth while the entire planet starves to death. It's the law of supply and demand, and the guy who hoovered up all the money decided he doesn't need other humans! Sorry, human race!
You're literally proposing an extreme authoritarian dictatorship and you won't even admit it. Bill Gates invented an operating system that mostly borrowed from other better OSs, and then mercilessly crushed all competition using monopolistic tactics. Obviously he deserves to dictate the rules of society and everyone worth less than a billion should just shut up and accept his divine leadership. The Koch brothers inherited a fortune from their daddy who made millions off the Soviets, clearly we should declare them part of the God-King caste and do whatever they want. Democracy? Just a tool for the lazy poors who do all the work to usurp wealth from the people who stole it fair and square.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 01-20-2015 at 11:50 AM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
So if one person invents a machine to consume all the Earth's resources and provide everything he needs, he deserves to live in extreme wealth while the entire planet starves to death. It's the law of supply and demand, and the guy who hoovered up all the money decided he doesn't need other humans! Sorry, human race!
You're literally proposing an extreme authoritarian dictatorship and you won't even admit it. Bill Gates invented an operating system that mostly borrowed from other better OSs, and then mercilessly crushed all competition using monopolistic tactics. Obviously he deserves to dictate the rules of society and everyone worth less than a billion should just shut up and accept his divine leadership. The Koch brothers inherited a fortune from their daddy who made millions off the Soviets, clearly we should declare them part of the God-King caste and do whatever they want. Democracy? Just a tool for the lazy poors who do all the work to usurp wealth from the people who stole it fair and square.
Umm, about Mr. Gates. True story.
In 1984, my partner and I purchased a computer and $2,000 worth of software. This is what we got: a leading relational database, DataEase, which required three days of school to learn how to program it and build your own databases. MultiMate word processor, which you used with the manual on your lap because you had to look up arcane keyboard combinations to do anything with. Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, which took days and days of study to learn the macro language to make it useful. None of these programs talked to each other. Oh, and we spent $99 of the $2,000 on a program called Chart from Microsoft--but that was the only money that Bill Gates got out of the $2,000.
Fastforward to Office 2000, which I bought when I purchased a new computer. For just $99 total, I got Word, Access, Excel plus some other stuff. The programs were a thousand times better than what we had purchased in 1985, the programs all talked to each other, and were immediately useful with the tiniest amount of training or study.
I don't know about the rest of your post, but the guy who cut the cost 95% and made the product a thousand times better, products that were central to the productivity revolution, deserves to be one of the richest guys on the planet. That company can never charge me enough for the value already rendered.
Your no-skill or low-skill oxygen consumer? Gets what they are worth.
In 1984, my partner and I purchased a computer and $2,000 worth of software. This is what we got: a leading relational database, DataEase, which required three days of school to learn how to program it and build your own databases. MultiMate word processor, which you used with the manual on your lap because you had to look up arcane keyboard combinations to do anything with. Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, which took days and days of study to learn the macro language to make it useful. None of these programs talked to each other. Oh, and we spent $99 of the $2,000 on a program called Chart from Microsoft--but that was the only money that Bill Gates got out of the $2,000.
Fastforward to Office 2000, which I bought when I purchased a new computer. For just $99 total, I got Word, Access, Excel plus some other stuff. The programs were a thousand times better than what we had purchased in 1985, the programs all talked to each other, and were immediately useful with the tiniest amount of training or study.
I don't know about the rest of your post, but the guy who cut the cost 95% and made the product a thousand times better, products that were central to the productivity revolution, deserves to be one of the richest guys on the planet. That company can never charge me enough for the value already rendered.
Your no-skill or low-skill oxygen consumer? Gets what they are worth.
Uhmmm about Mr. Gates, true story....a LOT of other people wrote the software you're discussing. Which is kind of the persons point.
As for why its cheaper....one copy, or a million copies, the cost to produce doesn't change much. So as you sell larger numbers of copies, you can still make bank at a lower price point.
In the year 2015 maybe about 25% of all jobs pay at a rate that allows full time workers to get government benefits. Even if the current people who are working in these jobs get training and move out of the low wage workplace someone else will take their place. So the argument that low wage workers just need to get more skills and education to move up does not really help the situation. Face it, no matter who is working in these jobs at any time, a large number of jobs in America pay under $10 an hour. And these are the jobs that are growing in today's economy. If you want a job, these are the jobs the typical American can get. And they are not jobs for kids and senior citizens anymore. Lots of the folks working at McDonalds are bring up a family on that job's income.
So, who should pay for the government benefits for the 25% of households whose primary bread winner is making $8 an hour or less than $20K a year?
Is it the responsibility of the employers of low wage labor? Or every taxpayer? Or should we just eliminate things like Food Stamps, reduced lunches at school, Medicaid, government paid housing, etc. for people who work?
Remember, someone is going to be doing these low wage jobs regardless of the hopes and dreams of people in them today.
You are making an excellent point, that our economy is producing crappy low paying jobs. Anyone can go look at the top 10 occupations with the most workers and nearly all of the top 10 are low wage jobs.
Anyone can go look at the top 10 jobs that will have the most job openings over the next 10yrs, they are nearly all low paying.
But for many reality is meaningless.
The fact that the U.S. economy has never had full employment and doesn't want full employment, which means millions upon millions of Americans will be unemployed. This is a guaranteed fact of our economy, but that fact is meaningless.
In many ways America is a low wage nation. The median income of all working Americans is a little over $28,000.
The vast majority of American jobs don't pay all that much, and incomes for a huge percentage have been stagnate for many decades which is all meaningless in these discussions with many of these hate filled posters who just want to insult and degrade economically less well to do Americans as losers, takers, criminals, lazy, stupid, etc.
Uhmmm about Mr. Gates, true story....a LOT of other people wrote the software you're discussing. Which is kind of the persons point.
As for why its cheaper....one copy, or a million copies, the cost to produce doesn't change much. So as you sell larger numbers of copies, you can still make bank at a lower price point.
So you never heard about the hundreds and hundreds, thousands and thousands of Microsoft employees who became millionaires by working at Microsoft? Some say 12,000 employees did that well. I don't think you can find evidence of Microsoft employees being on food stamps during Gate's tenure.
As for the economics of larger volume, I guess that IS the point. Microsoft WON in the marketplace, buyers voted with their wallets and Microsoft won. Microsoft earned it, without Elon Musk-style taxpayer bribes and giveaways.
So you never heard about the hundreds and hundreds, thousands and thousands of Microsoft employees who became millionaires by working at Microsoft? Some say 12,000 employees did that well. I don't think you can find evidence of Microsoft employees being on food stamps during Gate's tenure.
As for the economics of larger volume, I guess that IS the point. Microsoft WON in the marketplace, buyers voted with their wallets and Microsoft won. Microsoft earned it, without Elon Musk-style taxpayer bribes and giveaways.
You never heard of all the anti-competitive practices Microsoft engaged in to maintain their monopoly?
And if reducing the price is so great, what about all the free software that's just as good as Office? Shouldn't those guys be nominated to be God-Kings of Earth? Oh, no, they didn't use monopoly power to overcharge for their products, so they can just suck it in the rat race like everyone else.
I mean, Bill Gates is a relatively good person as billionaires go. Doesn't mean he should run the world on the basis of his computer programming skills.
You never heard of all the anti-competitive practices Microsoft engaged in to maintain their monopoly?
Yeah, what about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
I mean, Bill Gates is a relatively good person as billionaires go.
Um, by your own admission, Gates operated a monopoly and engaged in anti-competitive practices.
By definition then, it is impossible for Gates to be a "relatively good person."
Gates is a thief and a thug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
So you never heard about the hundreds and hundreds, thousands and thousands of Microsoft employees who became millionaires by working at Microsoft?
Through illegal business practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
Microsoft WON in the marketplace, buyers voted with their wallets and Microsoft won. Microsoft earned it, without Elon Musk-style taxpayer bribes and giveaways.
Um, Microsoft had a monopoly.
Buyers had no choice.
And while Microsoft might have won big money-wise, the rest of the World lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
In 1984, my partner and I purchased a computer and $2,000 worth of software. This is what we got: a leading relational database, DataEase, which required three days of school to learn how to program it and build your own databases. MultiMate word processor, which you used with the manual on your lap because you had to look up arcane keyboard combinations to do anything with. Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, which took days and days of study to learn the macro language to make it useful. None of these programs talked to each other. Oh, and we spent $99 of the $2,000 on a program called Chart from Microsoft--but that was the only money that Bill Gates got out of the $2,000.
What I'm hearing is you and your partner didn't do any research and made very bad decisions.
Ironically, the US government actually made good decisions. The military purchased Epson computers -- yes, back in the day Epson was known for its computers and printers and other accessories.
In 1984, I was at TRADOC Headquarters writing and editing tactical doctrines for Central Asia, and then implementation of Division '86 and AirLand Battle 2000.
The system ran on QDOS, which was the original disc operating system. Gates bought the rights to it from the creator, and then breached the contract. And then Gates made a mess of MSDOS, because he didn't know what the hell he was doing.
And it used Windows, but not by Microsoft. Windows was created by the Software Group. We used it with a program called Enable.
I could have 8 windows open simultaneously like 3 word processors; 2 databases, 2 spread-sheets and a telecommunications window to send data back and forth.
So when my boss asks "How much air power are you going to need to support a mech brigade in a blocking position on the Eastern Approach (coming off the Iranian Plateau into Kuzehstan)" I just go to the telecommunications window, call up the files and send them to him.
Gates bought that, took it off the market, and when it resurfaces, it's now called MSWindows and sucks.
Look at the history of other disc operating systems. They aren't issuing a new revision every 30 days, like Microsoft did. MSDOS 1.01 and then 30 days later MSDOS 1.012 and then 1.014 and then 1.02 and then 1.021 and then 1.10 and then 1.101 etc etc etc.
Then instead of having the courage to admit he's clueless, he blames the problems on "virus." So now everyone is wasting money buying anti-virus programs when the real problem is sloppy software programming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
Fastforward to Office 2000, which I bought when I purchased a new computer. For just $99 total, I got Word, Access, Excel plus some other stuff. The programs were a thousand times better than what we had purchased in 1985, the programs all talked to each other, and were immediately useful with the tiniest amount of training or study.
Faulty Comparison If you try to make a point about something by comparison, and if you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing, then your reasoning uses the fallacy of faulty comparison or the fallacy of questionable analogy.
Suppressed Evidence Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
Don't you understand how software works?
I'm guessing you have no idea what the TIA is.
The telephone industry got together and said, "Hey, let's make our architecture cross-compatible."....the whole world won.
The cellular telephone industry (CTIA) got together and said, "Hey, let's make our architecture cross-compatible."....the whole world won.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) got together and said, "Hey, let's make our architecture cross-compatible."....the whole world won.
The Computer Hardware Manufacturing Benchmarking Association (CHMBA) got together and said, "Hey, let's make our architecture cross-compatible."....the whole world won.
The Computing Technology Industry Association (comptia) got together and said, "Hey, let's make our architecture cross-compatible."....the whole world won.
Are you starting to get the idea?
Where's the operating system industry association?
There is none.
Gates would never allow it.
In order to write software, I need access to certain codes in the disc operating system. Apple had no problem making such code available, and neither did IBM or the others, but Gates refused.
Had you bothered reading the complaint in the anti-trust action against Microsoft, you'd know that was a major factor.
Claiming that software sucks, and then refusing to acknowledge that Gates withheld code from potential competitors that wasn't even copyright protected, patent protected or even considered "proprietary" in nature is a Circular Argument Fallacy.
Had you never used a computer until 2000, you would have still spent 3 days learning how to write macros.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
I don't know about the rest of your post, but the guy who cut the cost 95% and made the product a thousand times better, products that were central to the productivity revolution, deserves to be one of the richest guys on the planet. That company can never charge me enough for the value already rendered.
Not relevant and absurd.
The prices of consumer goods decline over time as a function of Economy of Scale. DVD players entered the Market at $750+ each, but now you can get them at Wal-Mart on sale for $34.
Had Microsoft never existed, the end result would be the same, and everyone would be better-off without Microsoft.
What Gates did was illegal, immoral and unethical; nothing will ever change that; and the ends never justify the means...never...meaning "at no time ever."
Gates gives 250 computers to a school for free......under the condition that the school district signs a $3 Million annual multi-year IT contract.
The school district ends up paying $21+ Million over 7 years for services it could have contracted on the open Free Market for $1.4 Million.
I'm just pointing out how sloppy your math is, because the people in that school district and State did not save 95%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
So if one person invents a machine to consume all the Earth's resources and provide everything he needs, he deserves to live in extreme wealth while the entire planet starves to death. It's the law of supply and demand, and the guy who hoovered up all the money decided he doesn't need other humans! Sorry, human race!
Straw Man Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Is it your time of the month or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
You're literally proposing an extreme authoritarian dictatorship and you won't even admit it.
Double Standard There are many situations in which you should judge two things or people by the same standard. If in one of those situations you use different standards for the two, your reasoning contains the fallacy of using a double standard.
Just pretend Microsoft is really the American Hospital Association charging you $55,000 for an appendectomy that only costs $2,800 with a profit margin, and you'll feel better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Bill Gates invented an operating system....
That is neither historical fact nor historical truth.
The only thing Gates ever invented was clever ways to rip-off people and muck things up, while dodging anti-trust actions.
Frontline did a documentary....obviously few have seen it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
...., and then mercilessly crushed all competition using monopolistic tactics.
Yeah, but you said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
I mean, Bill Gates is a relatively good person as billionaires go.
Does not compute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Obviously he deserves to dictate the rules of society and everyone worth less than a billion should just shut up and accept his divine leadership.
Just pretend Microsoft is really the American Hospital Association charging you $117,000 for assistant surgeon fees that really only cost $2,600 with profit margin, and you'll feel better.
The minimum wage should be high enough so that if someone is working full-time, they wouldn't be eligible for Food Stamps or Medicaid.
Then you won't be opposed to requiring a 2/3 majority vote in both the House and Senate to alter eligibility requirements, as well as a 75% referendum in each State.
Also, you won't object to drug testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Otherwise, the taxpayer is subsidizing employer's low wages.
Welfare benefits are not a requirement. The former federal government can end Welfare Benefits whenever it chooses.
Or whenever States start seceding.
Whichever comes first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Why does anyone think that a significant portion of the jobs that require doing in our economy (like flipping burgers) should pay crappy wages?
It is the Laws of Economics that determine wages/salaries via Supply & Demand for a specific Skill-set in a given Labor Market, not FrankMiller's subjective emotionally-based view on how things ought to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Why does anyone think it's okay to say, "we need people to do these jobs, and we need them to not make any money doing it"?
You're the only one who thinks that way, but then I guess a Straw Man is the best you can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Wow. discuss cutting food stamps, and everyone on the right here cheers.
You're claiming tattoos are a Basic Human Right. And beer. And dope. And NetFlix. And World of Warcraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Discuss companies not being subsidized by the state....and everyone here starts talking about the poor poor companies, and how dare we talk about making them pay the actual costs of their employees.
Since when are employers responsible for tattoos, beer, dope and lotto tickets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
The NERVE of us.
Wow....I just ....wow.
That's right....you got a lot of nerve telling us we have to buy beer and tattoos for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
If you do not understand this it is because you do not understand our economy.
All economies operate on mathematical laws, not touchy-feely emotions.
If you ever come round to understanding that, there might be hope you understand Economics.
If you touchy-feely pukes are so worried about wages, why don't you tip?
You're free to tip every employee that makes a minimum wage when you use their services.
What's the problem?
Is voluntary tipping not totalitarian enough for you?
I just thought I'd take the time to point what a bunch of Liberal Elitist Pharisees you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
So what you're saying is that you created a welfare state that failed and you can no longer sustain it, so now you want to shift the cost of it over to private business and demonize them to keep yourself looking like a saint. I think that about sums it up.
Yes, indeed, that would be the long and short of it...
Mircea
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.
