Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 30, 2014

Alex Pareene: You have presumably heard of Tom Perkins, though probably not before last Friday, despite the fact that he is one of the richest men in the country. It was on Friday that the Wall Street Journal published his remarkable letter to the editor, in which Perkins foresaw an anti-rich "Kristallnacht" on the near horizon. ... When you remove the always ill-advised Nazi analogy, Perkins' comments are indistinguishable from the sorts of things hedge fund managers and venture capitalists and executives say on CNBC literally every day. ... [T]he combination of the financial crash and the election of Barack Obama made a generation of billionaires lose their minds.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Doc_Sarvis

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

One question raised by Matt Yglesias is why anyone bothers listening to deluded billionaires. People like Tom Perkins are quite good at making a lot of money, but not exactly experts in other fields. Indeed, the modern American plutocrat rarely wastes an opportunity to expose his ignorance of history, political science and even basic mainstream economics. ...

But we listen to their opinions, no matter how stupid they are, because our elected officials listen to their opinions, and their jobs depend on not recognizing or acknowledging how stupid they are.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

One question raised...is why anyone bothers listening to deluded billionaires.

AMEN, brother. Nanny Bloomberg, Dark Lord Soros, "Me Love China" Katzenberg, Greeny Steyr, Ted Turner, "Big Brother" Zuckerberg, et al...

Didn't Politico call 2013 "The Year of the Liberal Billionaire"? Plutocrats, indeed!

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-30 08:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thousands of American soldiers died to push back against the threat of Communism because we feared that economic system would overwhelm our Capitalist system and destroy our way of life. Little did they know that it would be the success of the Capitalist system which would be, in the end, the method by which those same countries we fought against that would destroy our way of life. We were actually better off in America when Russia, China and Vietnam were still Communists. The worst thing for the working class in America was the "victory" of Capitalism over Communism in the world.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 09:01 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

plu·toc·ra·cy (plo̅o̅-tŏk′rə-sē)
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
www.thefreedictionary.com

plutocrat
Syllabification: plu·to·crat
Pronunciation: /ˈplo͞otəˌkrat
/noun
often • derogatory
a person whose power derives from their wealth.
www.oxforddictionaries.com

klep·toc·ra·cy
noun klep-ˈtä-krə-sē
plural klep·toc·ra·cies
Definition of KLEPTOCRACY
: government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind
-- klep·to·crat noun
-- klep·to·crat·ic adjective
www.merriam-webster.com

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the tax rate was immediately raised to 80% on the wealthy, Perkins would still be fabulously wealthy with more money than he could spend in 20 lifetimes.

If food stamps were eliminated immediately, the poorest among us would be starving, or spending what little money they could piece together on cheap hand guns and start robbing for food money.

One of these outcomes is far more detrimental to those in the middle.

Choose wisely, America.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-01-30 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

might be to somehow convince rich people that it's their idea, and that we all love and admire them a great deal for coming up with it.

Not going to happen. I have dealt with a few of the super rich and their vision of themselves leaves no room to convince them of anything.

#5 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-01-30 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm going to say this once about television and the fascist media.

Nothing there is allowed that conflicts with the interests of the fascisti.

People who watch television are children who know no better, and idiots.

#6 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-01-30 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rich Conservatives are all about their own entitlement. They built the GOP convention theme around it in 2012; We built this. There is an absolute refusal to admit that there is no such thing as a self-made million or billionaire.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-01-30 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

#7 Self-interest is a hallmark of the RICH...not just rich conservatives.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-30 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG

The point you miss is that many of those 'liberal billionaires' advocate for changes that increase opportunity for those less fortunate. Things that conservative billionaires and your republican congress continue to obstruct.

#9 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-01-30 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

#9 The point that YOU miss is the many of those "liberal billionaires" are willing to exchange those and other changes for privacy and liberty, and in many cases are willing to sacrifice privacy and liberty in pursuit of goals that have nothing whatsoever to do with increasing opportunity for the less fortunate.

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-30 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Self-interest is a hallmark of the RICH"

Well looking at this thread it is the hallmark of the jealous.
It really is shameful how now it is acceptable to speak of taking someone else's stuff just because they have more. This is how far we have sunk that thievery is lauded as fair as long as those you take from have more then you. Everybody thinks they should be robin hood and have no sense of principle or decency.
Yup that guy has more shiny things then we do GET HIM!!!

#11 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

We were actually better off in America when Russia, China and Vietnam were still Communists. The worst thing for the working class in America was the "victory" of Capitalism over Communism in the world.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 09:01 AM | Reply

Astute observation. Just watched the Robert Reich documentary "Inequality for All" last night. It's worth a watch.

Guarantee it will pxxx you off. You can see when our USA economy turned down for most Americans about 35 years ago and turned up for the multi-national globalist plutocratic financiers and banker over-class. They mostly are overpaid and do little for society. The "job creators" in reality are not the mega rich, who invest capital around the world for only their gain, but the working and middle class who buy stuff that they need that feeds an economy. We're quickly losing a huge part of our economy because too much money in the hands of too few.

1950-1980 was a time of good education, which gave us equality and middle class wealth in America. Since then the sheep have been led down a path of divide and conquer intentionally, so that the few would gain enormously at the expense of the many.

inequalityforall.com

There is an obvious element to all of this. The once backbone of America is being turned into an ethnic religious under class, where ethnic centrism functions coincidentally as a causal factor for the winners and the losers. Even today the progressive elites and liberals are brain washed to absurdly claim that Caucasian gentiles are the societal winners with too much influence, when the reality is in the current economic paradigm most have been turned into victims and economic losers, just as have others.

#12 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-30 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

housands of American soldiers died to push back against the threat of Communism because we feared that economic system would overwhelm our Capitalist system and destroy our way of life. Little did they know that it would be the success of the Capitalist system which would be, in the end, the method by which those same countries we fought against that would destroy our way of life. We were actually better off in America when Russia, China and Vietnam were still Communists. The worst thing for the working class in America was the "victory" of Capitalism over Communism in the world.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 09:

WOW..you are a great writer.....you had me reading and going on and on and then with your PUNCH LINE....I realized...GOOD for you sweety...good luck with your stand up comedy career..

:)

#13 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-01-30 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It really is shameful how now it is acceptable to speak of taking someone else's stuff just because they have more. This is how far we have sunk that thievery is lauded as fair as long as those you take from have more then you."

So, I guess we're supposed to feel guilty for wanting a more fair economic system that allows working class folks to live decent lives. Sorry, I just don't. No amount of condescending garbage will make me forget how America was before the reduction in taxes on the wealthy and deregulation of industries ruined what was a system where both workers and owners could get ahead and grow our economy at the same time.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It really is shameful how now it is acceptable to speak of taking someone else's stuff just because they have more."

Not nearly as shameful, however, as insisting that a huge slice of the piece just isn't quite enough and society (and its people) be damned.

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12

Great post....I want to check that out when I can.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-30 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

The worst thing for the working class in America was the "victory" of Capitalism over Communism in the world.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 09:

Correction; the worse thing for the working class was the creation of the Federal Reserve and ultimate unsound fiat money when Nixon took us off the international gold standard. It was then when the working class wages began to pale behind the salary of the wealthy----it also allowed all kinds of mischief in congress and the misallocation of capital.

#17 | Posted by matsop at 2014-01-30 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its not enough that the plutocracy is eliminating the middle class.

They want to be admired for it. It truly hurts their feelings that the people they are screwing over aren't enjoying it.

Its not enough that they have a disproportional say in how the country is run. Its not enough the they covet what the middle class has and have been using their influence to take it for years now. Now they want to dictate how ordinary people should feel about it.

Now THAT is a sense of entitlement.

Eventually, ordinary people will reach a tipping point where they simply can no longer afford to indulge these entitled whiners when they squeal about how persecuted they are and that is when real corrections will take place.

#18 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"society (and its people) be damned."

Society is damned not because of a few big bad scary rich dudes but the demonstrated mentality that what you don't have is owed to you just because someone else does. You can whine all you want that its inequality or that life is not fair but in reality all it does is betray your lack of maturity. You want they have so you want to find a way to take it. And get this some have even gone as far as to say no one deserves more because it was not them that created. Like i said it is very sad and very pathetic and it is what is damning the people. Jealousy and spite are not ways to become a better society they are ways to divide. It is a very old and often used tactic to gain support of the ignorant masses, it is intrinsically evil. We would all be much better off if the class warfare crowd just grew up.

#19 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#7 Self-interest is a hallmark of the RICH...not just rich conservatives."

Self interest is a hallmark of man, regardless of income.

"The point you miss is that many of those 'liberal billionaires' advocate for changes that increase opportunity for those less fortunate. Things that conservative billionaires and your republican congress continue to obstruct."

How do you "increase opportunity for a high school dropout? Or a unskilled worker? That requires effort on the part of the individual. If you're poor in the US, someone will pay for you to get a skill or college degree. Period. The problem is that most people don't want the "opportunity" itself. What they want the dividend that would result by taking advantage of that opportunity, without exposing themselves to the risk or time required to do so.

Go look online at the number of job openings for workers with Six Sigma certifications. DOn't need a college degree, and most start no less than $80k range. The cert itself costs $3.5k from Villanova. Other schools have programs as well.

Opportunity...

If the rich want to make a difference, the best thing they could do is to continue to earn high incomes, and give it away to the poor. Because it's far less likely the poor will ever be able to demand more money on their own.

"1950-1980 was a time of good education, which gave us equality and middle class wealth in America. Since then the sheep have been led down a path of divide and conquer intentionally, so that the few would gain enormously at the expense of the many."

It was WWII that allowed for that to happen. If we were to nuke China and Europe, you would very likely see the same phenomenon repeat itself.

"So, I guess we're supposed to feel guilty for wanting a more fair economic system that allows working class folks to live decent lives. Sorry, I just don't. No amount of condescending garbage will make me forget how America was before the reduction in taxes on the wealthy and deregulation of industries ruined what was a system where both workers and owners could get ahead and grow our economy at the same time."

Then I'd break out the jackboots. Because what you want will never occur in a free society. Sorry.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-30 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The shallow Dr left. I dare you to answer

Why has Obama remained silent while QE adds to income unequality?

#21 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-01-30 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why can't you answer? Without an answer, you all PROVE your irrelevance!!!

#22 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-01-30 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You can see when our USA economy turned down for most Americans about 35 years ago"

No kidding!
Reaganomics is an abject failure.
Trickledown economics has turned the middle class into the modern equivalent of indentured servants
It's like feeding only the show horses in the barnyard in the hope they crap out enough leftover corn to feed the chickens, cows, goats, pigs, etc., etc.

#23 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-01-30 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-01-30 09:01 AM | FLAG: Truly believes things must have been all 'Hunkey Dorey' under communism in the old USSR.

#24 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-30 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

AMEN, brother. Nanny Bloomberg, Dark Lord Soros, "Me Love China" Katzenberg, Greeny Steyr, Ted Turner, "Big Brother" Zuckerberg, et al...

Didn't Politico call 2013 "The Year of the Liberal Billionaire"? Plutocrats, indeed!

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG

Quick question - do you think there's any difference between liberal billionaires using their wealth and power to try to help the working class
vs
conservative billionaires using their wealth and power to try to help THEMSELVES?

Think hard now...

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-30 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why has Obama remained silent while QE adds to income unequality?

#21 | Posted by DavetheWave

Umm because presidents who don't do what that bankers want get assassinated?

You think any repub would've done it differently?

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-01-30 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

We would all be much better off if the class warfare crowd just grew up.
#19 | Posted by salamandagator

ROTFLMAO!!

(Especially since you haven't figured out the real class warfare in this country is being waged by the few against the many.)

#27 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#25 Do you think any of those liberal billionaires are trying to help the working class, SPEAKS? Bloomberg wants a nanny state without guns, Soros has bankrupted more than one COUNTRY to pad his vault, Katzenberg loves him some offshoring, Steyr would bankrupt every person in the country if it meant we would be an environmental utopia, Turner advocates issues that give his forms of media more power, and Zuckerberg is a corporate whore for the NSA. Any of that helping?

#28 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-30 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know the answer, waveydavey, as well as the next guy. Obama is as beholding to Wall Street criminals as Bush was. This should be obvious to the most casual observer, as he chose Biden and made the rest of his appointments. Yellen may be a better choice than Summers, but hardly a radical shift from Bernanke. Any ordinary citizen must view Fed policy as a failure, if they have been paying attention. But there clearly are a few select beneficiaries of the Fed, Treasury, White House and Congress complete failure to follow the law and reduce unemployment. Humphrey-Hawkins still is the law of the land, one which our fearless leaders have swept under the rug. It is Obama' skill at obfuscation and redirecting anger that has made him so useful to the 1%. They love it even as they publically excoriate him.

#29 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-30 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It really is shameful how now it is acceptable to speak of taking someone else's stuff just because they have more."

I just have a little problem understanding how taking rich people's money, getting rid of

capitalism and people with "self-interest" is going to take us all to prosperity and Nirvana. That policy didn't do a lot for Russia, North Korea, China, Cambodia and all the others who took away all the money from rich people and then killed those that hadn't already left. Besides, what would we ever do without all the rich "progressives" in Hollywood the NBA, the NFL or the entrepeneurs making video games? We'd probably be watching political indoctrination and propaganda on TV all the time, like they do in those other countries, if we would still HAVE any TVs.
I kinda think some folks are dreaming if they believe the people in power are deeply concerned with average and or poor folks in this country. I have a feeling they are much more interested in increasing their power and making sure it will be permanent. I also keep remembering that phrase from Lord Acton about "absolute power" and when Jefferson said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Yeah, I keep thinking the elite "progressives" want to be in charge so they can "take care" of all those of us in the great unwashed. Their new leadership hero now on the scene said it well when she said in 1993...
"We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it." First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993, regarding health care reform.

#30 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

""We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it."

Fact of the matter is that the private sector isn't spending the money. They are sitting on it. They are hiding it in overseas banks. They are running up the stock market with it but they aren't investing in domestic industries that will create jobs. So, as we did pre-Reagan we need to increase taxes to make business investment more attractive to them. Job creation more attractive to them.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We'd probably be watching political indoctrination and propaganda on TV all the time, like they do in those other countries, if we would still HAVE any TVs."

You mean like all the folks who watch Fox News almost continuously?

#32 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#27 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

Way too many wars, Doc. I thought you tolerant, compassionate, understanding "progressives" we against all wars. Now you're talking about nothing but War on Poverty, War on Gays, War on Hispanics, War on Women, War on Blacks and now you're expanding it to Class War. DAMN! how can y'all fight so many wars all at the same time. Ya' ------- about the only one we had before you started this crap, the War on Terror. Now you are talking out of the other side of your mouths? Don't y'all ever get sick of all this "War" talk? For myself, I'm just about ready to declare war on the war-loving "progressives" if they don't get off this stuff.

#33 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32 You mean like all the folks who watch MSNBC almost continuously?

FTFY

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-30 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#31 I remember when having savings was considered a prudent hedge against lean times. Silly me, I was supposed to be spending it.

#35 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-30 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Especially since you haven't figured out the real class warfare in this country is being waged by the few against the many."

Might as well just admit you that you are the exact target of the jealousy propaganda. Probably easier then trying to educate yourself on the reality of the issue.

#36 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Fact of the matter is that the private sector isn't spending the money. They are sitting on it. "

How dare they do with what they have as they would like. Quick somebody take it from them and let the government administer it. After all it's not like the government is no good at that or anything.

#37 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Probably easier then trying to educate yourself on the reality of the issue.
#36 | Posted by salamandagator

Try a mirror.

#38 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

For myself, I'm just about ready to declare war on the war-loving "progressives" if they don't get off this stuff.
#33 | Posted by jestgettinalong

I doubt a single pair of knees are gonna be knocking together over that "threat".

#39 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They are running up the stock market with it but they aren't investing in domestic industries that will create jobs."

Figure it out, danni. Put away the bong, sleep it off. Then, with a somewhat clear head, wonder why they aren't investing billions in things like industries, energy, new businesses and things like that. Oh yes, has anyone also told you that the U.S. has the highest corporation tax rate in the entire world? We also have that Obamacare thingy hangin' around that bothers them. Hmmmmm....shouldn't take a brain surgeon although one, Dr. Ben Carson, has already figured it out.

#40 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"I remember when having savings was considered a prudent hedge against lean times. Silly me, I was supposed to be spending it."

So I heard...however, borrowing and spending just seemed to be some kind of "progressive" fantasy. I KNEW it was ridiculous when Doc's idol, Paul Krudman, said he wouldn't be worried about government spending until it went over 50%. If THIS guy is who they're listening to, I expect the worst! I thought it would be prudent to pay off all debt and hide the rest under my mattress.

#41 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Try a mirror."

I'm not the one making such incredibly asinine statements.

#42 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I doubt a single pair of knees are gonna be knocking together over that "threat"."

I know of a few. Kids and grandkids knees begin to knock when Grampa cuts off the "bennies." I better not find any "progressive" ideas. Gramma pays some attention too. You know, many moons ago she said something and asked if it pissed me off. I told her, no, there only thing two things she could do to really piss me off. When she asked me what, I told her...if she ever voted democrat or ever rooted against Notre Dame. She laughed and said she thought I was gonna say something serious. I told her I WAS serious, damn it!
She has never done either in all these years.

#43 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...government spending until it went over 50%."

50% of GDP, that is.

#44 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not the one making such incredibly asinine statements.
#42 | Posted by salamandagator

Obviously you and I view your posts in a quite different light. To me, they're narrow, ill-informed, immature, and ludicrous. Doubtless, you feel somewhat differently about them.

#45 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

What matters is productivity. Productivity is at an all time high, even as employment drops. This is as true in China as the USA. What that means is fewer and fewer people can support more and more people. But this freaks the 1% out, because they want it all, they can't even stand the idea of paying a living wage to one person, since it cuts into their profits. It is all a big lie, a lie designed to move money from our pocket to a one percenter's pocket. They control our financial system, and through that mechanism they are winning this class war.

#46 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-30 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"WSJ Defends Paranoid Rich Guy, Naturally" (www.huffingtonpost.com)

#47 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What matters is productivity. Productivity is at an all time high, even as employment drops."

This is the natural progression of things. All advancement comes at a cost. As computers and machines take over the jobs productivity increases. As the higher level jobs are taken over what is left are lower wage unskilled jobs. It is ridiculous to think that sweeping a floor or flipping burgers should win someone a good wage and yet that is what is being asked for. You worry about eating into profits but do you have any idea what profit margins are for large corporations? They are tiny and do not allow for massive labor cost increases even if we were to pretend that the jobs in question are deserving of high pay. We need to get over the idea that just because you are a person you have a right to be at the same economic level as a different person. Life is not always fair some people will have more then others, most people understood this as it is a vital part of maturity. It is only when there are some who wish to manipulate the masses are we told that we need to forget that and jealousy is the trait we need to promote as good.

#48 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why the rich are freaking out

NEW YORK -- The co-founder of one the nation's oldest venture capital firms fears a possible genocide against the wealthy. Residents of Manhattan's tony Upper East Side say the progressive mayor didn't plow their streets as a form of frosty revenge. And the co-founder of Home Depot recently warned the Pope to pipe down about economic inequality.
The nation's wealthiest, denizens of the loftiest slice of the 1 percent, appear to be having a collective meltdown.

President Barack Obama and the Democrats have pivoted to income inequality ahead of the midterm elections. Pope Francis has strongly warned against the dangers of wealth concentration. And all of this follows the rise of the Occupy movement in 2011 and a bout of bank-bashing populism in the tea party.

The collective result, according to one member of the 1 percent, is a fear that the rich are in deep, deep trouble. Maybe not today but soon.

"You have a bunch of people who see conspiracies everywhere and believe that this inequality issue will quickly turn into serious class

warfare," said this person, who asked not to be identified by name so as not to anger any wealthy friends. "They don't believe inequality is bad and believe the only way to deal with it is to allow entrepreneurs to have even fewer shackles."
And so the rich are lashing out.

www.politico.com

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-30 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It is ridiculous to think that sweeping a floor or flipping burgers should win someone a good wage and yet that is what is being asked for."

Why is that ridiculous? If you require a human being to work full time to do this job then shouldn't you pay that human being enough to survive so that they can continue to work for you full time?

Its ridiculous to think that anyone is entitled to full time workers who have to be subsidized by the public. It only stands to reason that if someone is going to starve to death or end up homeless if they work for you full time, you're not paying them enough.

#50 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why is that ridiculous? If you require a human being to work full time to do this job then shouldn't you pay that human being enough to survive so that they can continue to work for you full time?"

So why bother? No education, no trying just grab the first brainless job you can and you have yourself a career. Sound good to me.

But seriously pay should be commensurate with value of the job not the person. That is part of the reason why jobs are lost, if a person requires more to live then the value of the job they will not have a job and will be replaced.

#51 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But seriously pay should be commensurate with value of the job not the person."

Then elementary school teachers should make a boatload more dough than they do.

#52 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#52 That is absolutely true. The flip side of that coin is that burger-flippers shouldn't.

#53 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-01-30 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Then elementary school teachers should make a boatload more dough than they do."

only if we truly value their job that much. Some of us do....some of us don't.

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-30 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50 One of the best posts in this subject!

#55 | Posted by schmanch at 2014-01-30 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eventually, ordinary people will reach a tipping point where they simply can no longer afford to indulge these entitled whiners when they squeal about how persecuted they are and that is when real corrections will take place.

#18 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 12:32 PM | Reply

That's exactly why the political and financial elites like Feinstein, Bloomberg, Soros, Kochs, etc are attempting to brainwash and cobble together enough Americans who will support their agenda to strip the right of all Americans to defend themselves.

They know that when a society that was once middle class is pushed to breaking point of abject poverty by a 1% that has it all, it could become more than nasty. Let's hope it never gets to that, but if it does Americans will not want to lose the right of self defense.

www.forbes.com

#56 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-30 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe Buchanan as a paleocon would have been a credible American President and far better for the USA than those we've had since 2000.

POSTED BY ROBSON AT 2014-01-29 08:34 PM

I've never seem anyone totally lose credibility in a single sentence before, ever.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-30 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#57...LOL. I've also never seen anyone use a copy / paste and completely out of context from an earlier and separate thread, in an effort to make some kind of rebuttal. That comment about Buchanan was made in regards to the privacy poll.

Pat Buchanan would have been much more responsible than Bush on wars, tax cuts, trade and the bankster scam. We would not have wasted the trillions in Iraq, and a war in Afghanistan would have been more surgical. I may not agree with him on the social issues, but those are irrelevant small potatoes compared to what Bush and Wall St did to our country and economy.

#58 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-30 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

" It is ridiculous to think that sweeping a floor or flipping burgers should win someone a good wage and yet that is what is being asked for."

No it isn't ridiculous it is only right and we aren't going to just ask either. Today's uber rich are similar to their counterparts living it up in the Roaring 20's. The party is nearly over and then it will be time to start paying the taxes that rebuild the country just like they did in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-30 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58

No rebuttal intended. Just noting the "Lock and Load" mentality.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-30 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But seriously pay should be commensurate with value of the job not the person."

But people have to eat and have a roof and clothes in order to work. The idea that in the absence of publc asistance, employers would still be able to pay people less than they need for the necessities doesn't make any sense.

"That is part of the reason why jobs are lost, if a person requires more to live then the value of the job they will not have a job and will be replaced."

So what's your answer? Americans start living in corrugated metal huts without running water or sanitation? Should they start eating garbage? Should their starving kids start appearing on TV commercials where Alyssa Milano begs people in more civilized countries to buck up so they can eat?

Inherent in the argument that Americans should be able to survive on third world wages is the idea that the US should be a third world country. That's about as anti-American (as destructive to American citizens) as it gets.

#61 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Ever notice how high salaries are justified because of "how hard these people work" and how many hours they put in. But then when the working poor work hard and put in extra hours (i.e., 2nd jobs) they aren't justified to make enough money to live on?

Valuing profits over people is not a morally defensible position.

#62 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-01-30 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Inherent in the argument that Americans should be able to survive on third world wages"

No one suggested that and you know it.

"So what's your answer? Americans start living in corrugated metal huts without running water or sanitation?"

Answer to what? The problem? There is no answer, there is no leveling the field, that is a pipe dream. If you force labor rates artificially high you remove incentive to hire. Why would anyone want to pay a living wage for a job they could replace with a machine for much less cost? So what you would be left with would be to take from some to give to others even though their own input is not worth it. That is immoral and unfair at a far deeper level then a few guys having to live together because they all work at mcdonalds.
There will always be income inequality, that is life and it is fair. You should be paid for the value of your job and that is that. Well at least if there is to be any semblance of freedom left in this country.

#63 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what are we supposed to do with all the extra people once there are enough to do all the un-automated work? If working people don't make enough to live on, either we have to subsidize employers profits by feeding and housing their employees with our taxes, or step over homeless people in the streets. If you have full time work that can't pay a living wage, you don't have a viable business model.

#64 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-01-30 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

well said whodaman,

#50 what sully is really saying is that the poor have no value and are expendable. The 1% are chipping away at our countries founding principles, one by one, and driving our economy back into the dark ages. Its certainly good for them.

#65 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-30 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Ever notice how high salaries are justified because of "how hard these people work" and how many hours they put in. But then when the working poor work hard and put in extra hours (i.e., 2nd jobs) they aren't justified to make enough money to live on?"

What sort of "work," Whoda? How much do you think we should pay the guy holding the "Stop/Slow signs on highway work sites. What skills are required and how much does he need to "live on?" Is that a position and career you have strived hard to acquire?

Generally, whenever you go into a sign holder or fast food job, I don't think your skill is in big demand and if you enter a fast food establishment you'll probably find the employees, by far, are of the younger generation with maybe an older manager or assistant manager. I don't think many go to work there expecting to establish a lucrative career. It's an entry level occupation and many of those younger employees are part time and maybe still in school or college.
Understand also that the law of supply and demand applies to the labor market as well as to the goods and services market. As prices go up, people buy less...as wages are forced up, employers hire less.
The best example of supply and demand and free markets is the NBA and NFL. Good quarterbacks and basketball high scorers are scarce and demand is high...that's why they get the big bucks. The demand for ball stewards is not so high and many are available so the wages are not so high. Same for burger flippers and cash register attendants. Lots are available with not a lot of demand. Lose one, get another an hour later. Can't replace Manning or Brady like that though. If the government keeps corrupting economic laws out of ignorance, it's gonna create one hell of a mess...worse than it is already.

#66 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No one suggested that and you know it."

You didn't say it outright. But you are firm in your stance that employers should be able to pay full time employees wages that result in their needing government assistance in order to have what we consider the necessities by our standard of living.

Given that policy, there are only two things that can happen: 1) The taxpayer subsidize these people (and their indirectly their employers) or 2) Americans substantially lower our expectations as far as what we consider a "necessity" - aka certain people live third world lifestyles (and it won't stop with fry cooks either).

"Answer to what? The problem? There is no answer, there is no leveling the field, that is a pipe dream."

Where did I mention levelling the field. We are talking about minimal living standards. This is BS meme that people use to muddy the waters. I've never once in my life said everyone deserves to be equally wealthy or anything close to that.

"If you force labor rates artificially high you remove incentive to hire."

If you need someone to do a job then you need them to alive and healthy. So how is paying them to meet those minimal expectations an "artificially" high?

I would argue that the taxpayers are enabling artificially low wages by subsidizing these employees.

"Why would anyone want to pay a living wage for a job they could replace with a machine for much less cost?"

They wouldn't. If they have the money to invest, employers will replace any employee they can with a machine no matter how much the employee makes.

"So what you would be left with would be to take from some to give to others even though their own input is not worth it. That is immoral and unfair at a far deeper level then a few guys having to live together because they all work at mcdonalds."

Its up to the employer to decide whether being in business and having employers is worth it. Nobody is being coerced to do anything and nothing is unfair.

The current system where everyone else has to subsidize these employees is coercive and unfair.


"There will always be income inequality, that is life and it is fair."

Again, you're muddying the waters with silly deflections.

"You should be paid for the value of your job and that is that. Well at least if there is to be any semblance of freedom left in this country"

So be honest about it and admit that you have no problem with Americans who work full time living like third world peasants. Or come out and say that you think taxpayers should have to subsidize these employees to the benefit of their employers. YOu can't ignore the consequences of what you are condoning.

#67 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#50 what sully is really saying is that the poor have no value and are expendable."

That's a ridiculously bad interpretation of my post. Just horribly off....

#68 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The 1% are chipping away at our countries founding principles, one by one, and driving our economy back into the dark ages. Its certainly good for them."

Chipping principles like what?
Exactly what are they taking away?

Progress has hurt man as much as it helps but we have made the decisions. We want cheaper and faster stuff and have created a market where it is necessary. You want to blame it on the few because it is an easy out but in reality it is all of us. We want cheap so we buy cheap and force suppliers to make cheap but now that the consequences of our short shortsightedness are in you want to blame others. You want higher paying jobs?
Great buy stuff that requires it, but not enough people do. Funny thing is that it is the rich that do that but they are evil so we can all contribute to the problem but they take the blame.

But the founding principles are being chipped away. not by the 1% but by those who are driven mad with jealousy. It is people like you that decide it is fine to take extravagant amounts as long as the person has more explain when the founders ever thought that was good. Explain how ridiculous taxation was not one of the reasons for revolting. Explain how the country was founded on the principles that regardless of your effort if you see someone with more you should take it. Explain how it was founded on the idea that men are no better then the hours of the day? Explain how personal responsibility was shunned by the founders.
Explain how it was founded on the idea that if you get a big enough mob it is no longer stealing to take away. Explain how they thought just by being born we all should have a free ride.

No, you cannot. It is not the evil, scary, big bad rich that are chipping away it is those that seek to steal from them and pretend like it is magically fair.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought it was kind of funny. Sully, you heartless bastard.

#70 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-01-30 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Nobody is being coerced to do anything and nothing is unfair."

Very good. An agreement is reached for the value of the labor not the amount the laborer wants to achieve his desired living standard.

"They wouldn't. If they have the money to invest, employers will replace any employee they can with a machine no matter how much the employee makes."

Exactly, so you admit that artificially inflating the wages will only harm the workers.

"So be honest about it and admit that you have no problem with Americans who work full time living like third world peasants. Or come out and say that you think taxpayers should have to subsidize these employees to the benefit of their employers. YOu can't ignore the consequences of what you are condoning."

15,080 is what a minimum wage worker earns per year. Sure it is almost impossible to live off that alone but 2 can support a household. The third world is a strawman, hyperbole that shows what exactly your argument is. You have to take it to that level because you do not have an argument that can be supported without it. No one is advocating huts and leantos as what we are striving for. But under the current system that is not an issue in this country. The amount of people living in those conditions is incredibly small and raising what a floor sweeper makes won't do anything positive as those are those without jobs and would only make it harder.

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is not the evil, scary, big bad rich that are chipping away it is those that seek to steal from them and pretend like it is magically fair.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Disappointing that you're retreating back to irrelevance with this nonsense.

#72 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Disappointing that you're retreating back to irrelevance with this nonsense."

Sorry i will call a spade a spade. It is stealing to take by force what is not willingly given is it not?

Are businesses willing to reduce their already low profit margins or raise prices reducing sales?

No i think not. So if the jealous types have their way there is nothing it can be called but theft.

#73 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Very good. An agreement is reached for the value of the labor not the amount the laborer wants to achieve his desired living standard."

OK, so in other words: If Americans can be convinced to work for third world wages and live a third world lifestyle, you are OK with it?

OR: The rest of need to subsidize these employees.

Which is it?

You want to act like I'm putting words in your mouth. But you also want to dance around the issue and avoid direct questions.

"The third world is a strawman, hyperbole that shows what exactly your argument is. You have to take it to that level because you do not have an argument that can be supported without it. No one is advocating huts and leantos as what we are striving for."

--------. I've frequently seen people saying that the reason why jobs go overseas is that Americans are "greedy". Inherent in that claim is that we should be able to compete with the third world on labor costs, which means some Americnas have to live like them.

"But under the current system that is not an issue in this country."

Because you and I have ot subsidize these employees.

"The amount of people living in those conditions is incredibly small and raising what a floor sweeper makes won't do anything positive as those are those without jobs and would only make it harder."

Actually since the lower classes have to spend almost every penny they make - and spend it here- paying them more will help our economy. Trickle down is disproven nonsense. Trickle up is the reality.

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No i think not. So if the jealous types have their way there is nothing it can be called but theft."

The jealousy and theft memes are senseless blather that I can easily turn back around on the other side. I can easily turn it back around on the other side but it would be just as senseless so I won't bother.

If you honestly believe this ----, its your problem. It is zero integrity to it.

#75 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 06:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Explain how it was founded on the idea that men are no better then the hours of the day? Explain how personal responsibility was shunned by the founders.
Explain how it was founded on the idea that if you get a big enough mob it is no longer stealing to take away. Explain how they thought just by being born we all should have a free ride."

We can't. BUT...but it's not FAIRRR. I wanna be six feet and eleven inches tall and be hired by the Miami Heat. Either that or have the government make all the other guys play on their knees to "level the field." I didn't want to waste all that time and money/loans going to med school either. Can you imagine what that would entail over all those years? However, maybe the government should give me a cheaper medical license and put me to work in Walter Reed shaving scalps for the brain surgeons for a few hundred K.
Posted by WhodaMan and Nutcase

#76 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-01-30 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"OK, so in other words: If Americans can be convinced to work for third world wages and live a third world lifestyle, you are OK with it?"

Yes, what are we all children that can't be trusted with anything? But again you go to the 3rd world hyperbole. Come on Sully you are better then that.

" Inherent in that claim is that we should be able to compete with the third world on labor costs,"
No because that is only a part of the picture.

"Because you and I have ot subsidize these employees."
Well think about it, the very people you want to blame are the ones who pay the lions share of taxes so if anyone is to subsidize it is them.

#77 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#75

So what would you call getting a bunch of people riled up wanting to take stuff from others then?

#78 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes, what are we all children that can't be trusted with anything? But again you go to the 3rd world hyperbole. Come on Sully you are better then that."

Are you completely ignorant of history? Before the labor movement, companies could pay people as little as they could get away with. And they essentially had people locked up as slaves. They even paid people with their own money that they created. This isn't hyperbole. It happened. Its very easy for a few large employers to get together and collude on what they are going to pay people and smaller employers are going to follow suit. Without a minimum wage and organized labor we would be a third world country.

"Well think about it, the very people you want to blame are the ones who pay the lions share of taxes so if anyone is to subsidize it is them"

That's a mathetically incorrect statement and you know it. They can't subsidize themselves and they don't pay all the taxes so mathetically, everyone else is in part subsidizing them.

"So what would you call getting a bunch of people riled up wanting to take stuff from others then?"

Wall Street.

In all seriousness, you're imaginging that this is what is happening. I don't care how you refer to events that only exist in your imagination so far as you don't try to apply them to the real world.

#79 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

" It happened. Its very easy for a few large employers to get together and collude on what they are going to pay people and smaller employers are going to follow suit. Without a minimum wage and organized labor we would be a third world country.
"

While it is true that history can repeat itself thinking that people would ever let it get back to the point it was way back then is ludicrous.

"That's a mathetically incorrect statement and you know it. They can't subsidize themselves and they don't pay all the taxes so mathetically, everyone else is in part subsidizing them."

What percentile pays over 70 percent of income taxes?
yup top 1%
Like it or not they pay for most of the country. Any subsidizing comes from those that contribute the most.

"Wall Street.
In all seriousness, you're imaginging that this is what is happening. I don't care how you refer to events that only exist in your imagination so far as you don't try to apply them to the real world."

I tried sully, i did, but with statements like that i think you are too far gone. You have bought into the propaganda and drank the cool-aid to the last drop.

#80 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-01-30 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Conservatives" clearly don't believe in America. Their vision is of some other dark place with Lords and serfs. The irony is that they think, when it's all said and done, that they will all be the Lords. Hah!

#81 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-01-30 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

yup top 1%
Like it or not they pay for most of the country.

Because they own most of the country, and because they get the majority of the income in the country. Taxes are paid on income and assets, are they not?

#82 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-01-30 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Before the labor movement, companies could pay people as little as they could get away with.
#79 | POSTED BY SULLY

Have you ever thought that you and every other liberal does the same thing when you go shopping? No. Probably not. Liberals don't think.

#83 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-30 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who exactly are the 1% that own America and our elected politicians?

Give us their long term geopolitical demographics, their Party of registration for the last 5 years, the religion of their parents, their home address, where they and their children attend church or synagogue etc and services, where they graduated from university, their net financial wealth and whether they ever served in uniform.

Give us everything about them and their cronies who now want to publicize everything about us.

#84 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-30 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What percentile pays over 70 percent of income taxes?
yup top 1%
Like it or not they pay for most of the country. Any subsidizing comes from those that contribute the most."

To the extent that their employees are being kept afloat by government assistance, a portion of that money comes from other people who are subsidizing their business. You are entitled to your own opinion but math is math.

"I tried sully, i did, but with statements like that i think you are too far gone. You have bought into the propaganda and drank the cool-aid to the last drop."

But I'm not the guy who is falling back on silly "jealousy" propaganda whenever my opinion is challenged. If either of us is guilty of spouting someone else's talking points, its clearly you.

#85 | Posted by sully at 2014-01-30 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you ever thought that you and every other liberal does the same thing when you go shopping? No. Probably not. Liberals don't think.

#83 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-30 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, I'm not a shopper who does alot of price comparing. I don't fret over a small price differences. I do avoid certain establishments due to their policies.

And I'm not a liberal or any other kind of ideologue. Just because you are slave to someone else's ideals doesn't mean everyone else is.

#86 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have you ever thought that you and every other liberal does the same thing when you go shopping? No. Probably not. Liberals don't think.
#83 | Posted by Ray

Someone needs an editor...

Have you ever thought that you and every other liberal does the same thing when you go shopping? No. Probably not. Liberals don't think. Me, I'm a thinking man. In fact, I'm a thinking man's thinking man. That's what I think. I think.
| Posted by Raymond J. Johnson, Jr.

#87 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-01-30 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I'm not a liberal or any other kind of ideologue. Just because you are slave to someone else's ideals doesn't mean everyone else is.
#86 | POSTED BY SULLY

Whatever you are. Surely you pay attention to prices when you go shopping. Whether buying labor or cell phones or cars, the same kind of value system applies.

The point is that it is natural for shoppers of any kind (employer or consumer) to try to get the most value at the lowest price as it is for sellers to want the highest price for the most profit. Whether consumer, employer or worker, they all think the same way.

#88 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-30 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

RAY -

I'm interested in your opinion regarding the "Capitalism vs. Democracy" article located on the back page.

When and if you get a chance, it's an interesting read.

#89 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-01-30 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The point is that it is natural for shoppers of any kind (employer or consumer) to try to get the most value at the lowest price as it is for sellers to want the highest price for the most profit. Whether consumer, employer or worker, they all think the same way.

#88 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-30 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

As human history proves, its also natural for human beings to do all sorts of horrible things to one another in the absence of real consequences. What's your point?

#90 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-30 08:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#83....Why do Americans accept being paid less, forced into more unpaid wars, and CEOs paid for failure instead of success?

We need a 20% surtax that is imposed on every well paid banker and CEO from the start to the absurd finish of our frivolous wars. They profit and they need to pay and they rarely if ever wear a uniform into combat. Big changes needed.

#91 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-30 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

As human history proves, its also natural for human beings to do all sorts of horrible things to one another in the absence of real consequences. What's your point?
#90 | POSTED BY SULLLY

The subject is voluntary exchange, not war and persecution.

#92 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-30 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

To the extent that their employees are being kept afloat by government assistance, a portion of that money comes from other people who are subsidizing their business. You are entitled to your own opinion but math is math. - Sully

I see no math in your post, only opinion...

Regardless, remove the subsidy, I mean you aren't ideologue right..... its easy to see so long as the assistance keeps rising, ie those that can get assistance, the less fortunate will take advantage of it. Same with the medicare expansion.

The government keeps raising the bar on what it gives out in assistance, if the employee can go get it, why should Walmart raise its wages? Do you think people will stop getting assistance at $10 an hour?

Next year California goes to $10 an hour, do you think the WalMart excuse will disappear?

I am all for getting WalMart off of government subsidies....

What wage does your opinion of WalMart keeping afloat because of government assistance to its employees is?

49% of the population lives in a households that received government support of some kind.
www.washingtonpost.com

So use some math, and get down to business and let me know what wage will get that 49% off of getting government assistance.....

#93 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-01-30 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's one Chip: GDP per capita, has doubled over the last 40 years, while wages have stagnated. It's not that our nation's wealth has gone away, it's just being captured by the top 1%. And their power over politicians is keeping it that way. It is this concentration of wealth that makes the economic growth we see in GDP charts so ineffective at improving the quality of our lives.

Here's another Chip: All men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All the Libertarian rightie tighties would deny this right to the poor, deny them health care, deny them a living wage, deny them a square meal, all so that the 1% can have more. Its working, even Obama, Mr. Change, is on board.

Here's another Chip: Lets dumb down the schools, teach creationism, move manufacturing overseas, reshape our economy into a third world nation of bartenders, maids and waitresses in service to tourism. We'll call it the "information economy". The internet is not as important to our quality of life as the washing machine or stove, much less a car. There still is automobile manufacturing going on. Foreign ownership of U.S. assets has increased significantly since 1945, growing especially quickly over the past two decades. Japan owns Hollywood, Holland owns Budweiser and on and on. This means profits are exported yet has nowhere else to go but to buy more and more US companies.

Here's another Chip: The US military is incapable of winning wars against the Viet Cong, Iraqis or Taliban, yet they are spending our present and future standard of living at a furious pace. These clowns send $200 million attack helicopters against $200 grenade launchers and losing. Theses failures and costs are born by the US middle class whose standard of living is in decline on account of these repeated failures.

#94 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-30 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"I see no math in your post, only opinion..."

Did I need to literally write out 100% > 70%? Do you think that is an opinion? Sheesh.

"I am all for getting WalMart off of government subsidies...."

Really? Because you filled a good deal of space with excuses for not paying people better.

"So use some math, and get down to business and let me know what wage will get that 49% off of getting government assistance....."

Why would you need me to do any math for you? If you pay people a wage that puts their income above the maximum threshhold for assistance, they won't be on assistnace.

A better question is "What is a real living wage?". I don't have all the information to answer that question but it obviously isn't $7.25/hr.

#95 | Posted by sully at 2014-01-31 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why would anyone want to pay a living wage for a job they could replace with a machine for much less cost?
#63 | Posted by salamandagator

Um...because they're not a greedy -------.

It really is that simple, if your company is making billions in profits while your employees go hungry, you are not a moral being.

#96 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-31 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The worst thing for the working class in America was the "victory" of Capitalism over Communism in the world.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

Interestingly, that's the same sentiment many northern Democrats held about the Civil War. They weren't competing for agricultural jobs in cotton and tobacco fields; they just wanted slavery contained to the existing land. Back then, the Democrats had the nerve to riot, as they did in New York City after the victory at Gettysburg made it apparent that draftees would be fighting and dying for the right to soon be competing against freed slaves for city jobs.

#97 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here's another Chip: The US military is incapable of winning wars against the Viet Cong, Iraqis or Taliban, yet they are spending our present and future standard of living at a furious pace. These clowns send $200 million attack helicopters against $200 grenade launchers and losing. Theses failures and costs are born by the US middle class whose standard of living is in decline on account of these repeated failures.

#94 | POSTED BY NUTCASE

The American military will perform best when we return to desperate days of industrial scale killing.

When we try to protect human rights, we'll lose to just about any 5,000 person militia that 'takes the field' against us.

#98 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

The American military will perform best when we return to desperate days of industrial scale killing.
#98 | Posted by DixvilleNotch

You are correct. The solution...
War as a

#99 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-31 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

You are correct. The solution...
War as a last, not first, resort.

#100 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-01-31 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Collateral damage wins wars.

#101 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Collateral damage wins wars.

#101 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 10:00 AM |

Collateral damage also creates major blow back and generations of highly vindictive people that are willing to do anything to get even. The targets call them terrorists. They have the ability to create economic disasters because their asymmetric warfare, costs them millions or less, while their targets must spend billions and trillions to defend against them and the people lose their freedom in the process.

When people are willing to die to get even, there isn't much of an effective defense except a national security state that listens and monitors and watches everything.

Wars need to fought and paid for by the 1% and the political elites. Then negotiations would replace war.

Instead the 1% glorifies war as it did the other night during Obama's speech so as to motivate the young and naive who will willingly subject themselves to death and maiming (not actually for country) but for the 1% who own much of the country.

#102 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-31 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

"No it isn't ridiculous it is only right and we aren't going to just ask either. Today's uber rich are similar to their counterparts living it up in the Roaring 20's. The party is nearly over and then it will be time to start paying the taxes that rebuild the country just like they did in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's."

They were't rebuilding the country during that time. They were building bombers. And ICBMs. And tanks, and figters, and aircraft carriers.

We do need new bombers. Ours are getting a little long in the tooth.

And besides, paying higher taxes does nothing to increase the economic value of a unit of labor.

"If you have full time work that can't pay a living wage, you don't have a viable business model."

If you have full time work that can't pay a living wage, you don't have consumers who are willing to support you paying a living wage. FTFY.

"Its ridiculous to think that anyone is entitled to full time workers who have to be subsidized by the public. It only stands to reason that if someone is going to starve to death or end up homeless if they work for you full time, you're not paying them enough."

Why is it ridiculous? it's not the business that feels the worker is entitled to a "living wage," it's society. So why shouldn't society be the ones to foot the bill? Society is going to have to support them anyway, so doesn't it sort of make sense to have those recipients defray part of that cost by working at low paying jobs? because the other option is to demand that employers pay more, which will result in decreased demand for labor, and more people completely dependent on transfer payments.

#103 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's not the business that feels the worker is entitled to a "living wage," it's society. So why shouldn't society be the ones to foot the bill?

#103 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

That's it in a nutshell.

#104 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is everyone in the world entitled to a "living wage?" Or just Americans? Or just Americans, plus illegal immigrants?

#105 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

"15,080 is what a minimum wage worker earns per year. Sure it is almost impossible to live off that alone but 2 can support a household."

Then it's probably a good thing that the number of single income households eanring minimum wage is very tiny. About 1.1% of the workforce, or .8% of the total population.

"Are you completely ignorant of history? Before the labor movement, companies could pay people as little as they could get away with. And they essentially had people locked up as slaves."

Really?

how much did companies have to pay an independant farmer? What about trappers? Lumbermen?

Here's how it really was. Companies were able to pay low wages, because even at those wages, the standard of living of the worker was higher than it would have been tending to a small farm, or hunting and gathering, or trapping, or eeking some other brand of subsistence living. So you could work 16 hours a day in a factory for what someone was willing to pay, or you could homestead on a farm somewhere in the hopes that it would pay out.

The bottom line is that Jurgis Rudkus could have left "The Jungle" whenever he pleased. The US government would have been more than happy to give him a few acres to cultivate. But inevitably, "The Jungle" provded a higher, easier, standard of living.

"As human history proves, its also natural for human beings to do all sorts of horrible things to one another in the absence of real consequences. What's your point?"

So not paying someone more than market value is "doing something horrible."

There are lots of girls from college who need to be punished for the horrible thing they did by not having sex with me.

#106 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

" because the other option is to demand that employers pay more, which will result in decreased demand for labor, and more people completely dependent on transfer payments."

Except that historically that has never been shown to be true.

#107 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Then it's probably a good thing that the number of single income households eanring minimum wage is very tiny. About 1.1% of the workforce, or .8% of the total population."

but we have pretend otherwise so as to believe that raising the wage will somehow save our economy.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Why is it ridiculous? it's not the business that feels the worker is entitled to a "living wage," it's society."

Wrong. Its human biology. We need to eat. We need food and clothes and sanitation in order to stay healthy. If the taxpayer has to provide these things to your full time workers in order for them to stay healthy and working for you then you aren't paying them enough.

"So why shouldn't society be the ones to foot the bill? Society is going to have to support them anyway, so doesn't it sort of make sense to have those recipients defray part of that cost by working at low paying jobs?"

You're making a "privatize the profits, make the expenses public" argument. There is no reason for anyone to entertain this nonsense for event a second.

"because the other option is to demand that employers pay more, which will result in decreased demand for labor, and more people completely dependent on transfer payments."

That isn't true.

#109 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

madbomber is killing it today.

#110 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

"And besides, paying higher taxes does nothing to increase the economic value of a unit of labor."

Baloney. It increases the value of business deductions and thereby makes the decision to hire more likely.

Conservatives find many theories to try and pretend that our history didn't really happen. Problem is too many of us went to school and learned about FDR and the 30's thru 70's.

#111 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

The bottom line is that Jurgis Rudkus could have left "The Jungle" whenever he pleased.

Exactly.

#112 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

To pretend that an increase in minimum wage won't send more money directly into the economy and thus increase demand for goods and services is ridiculous and has been proven every time the minimum wage has been increased even though that same argument has been presented every time the minimum wage has been increased. Repetition does not make it true.

#113 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Here's how it really was. Companies were able to pay low wages, because even at those wages, the standard of living of the worker was higher than it would have been tending to a small farm, or hunting and gathering, or trapping, or eeking some other brand of subsistence living. So you could work 16 hours a day in a factory for what someone was willing to pay, or you could homestead on a farm somewhere in the hopes that it would pay out."

Utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to even passing scrutiny.

#114 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, yeah, Danni. Dem Pork has a great track record as a money multiplier. It's economic magic.

#115 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

madbomber is killing it today.

#110 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

If by "it" you meant the truth, then yes, he is.

#116 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The rural vs. urban work scenario is very accurate and is exactly what is now playing out around the world, most notably in China.

FACT.

#117 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"To pretend that an increase in minimum wage won't send more money directly into the economy and thus increase demand for goods and services is ridiculous and has been proven every time the minimum wage has been increased even though that same argument has been presented every time the minimum wage has been increased. Repetition does not make it true."

It won't hurt our economy and will likely help...I've said that many times. But it won't have that big of an impact. The demand for goods and services, purchased by minimum wage workers, will increase, no doubt....along with the prices.

Minimum wage workers can't outrun inflation. minimum wage needs to keep pace with inflation.....but you can't raise it up to outrun it. It won't work. If someone wants a better standard of living....they need a better skill, work ethic, etc....not a higher minimum wage.

#118 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It won't hurt our economy and will likely help...I've said that many times. But it won't have that big of an impact. The demand for goods and services, purchased by minimum wage workers, will increase, no doubt....along with the prices. "

It won't just be minimum wage workers, about 30% of the work force will end up getting raises due to the "ripple effect" of raising the minimum wage.

#119 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If someone wants a better standard of living....they need a better skill, work ethic, etc....not a higher minimum wage."

Beyond a basic minimum I agree but raising it to $10.10 is really only restoring it to its historical level of buying power.

#120 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The US military is incapable of winning wars against the Viet Cong."

Wrong as we won every major battle. It was the the politicians who 'lost' that war by playing it as a game, such as drawing a line on the map (DMZ) and telling our military that if the enemy retreats behind that line we had to let them go. Had they let the US military go for Hanoi the war would have ended differently, and sooner.

#121 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-31 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Had they let the US military go for Hanoi the war would have ended differently, and sooner."

Yeah, the Communist Chinese would have sat quietly by and let that happen. Just like back then some folks are all too willing to invest other people's sons in crazy wars of choice. Vietnam was a civil war and we had no business ever being involved. But hey, today the same folks want TPP so we can send a few million of our jobs over there.

#122 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

they can't outrun inflation, Danni. I suspect you believe otherwise.

If so, then nevermind.

#123 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"they can't outrun inflation, Danni. I suspect you believe otherwise. "

NO, I lived through the seventies. When a country fights unnecesary wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan bills need to get paid and inflation is usually the way they are but why should those on the very bottom rung be expected to bear so much of the burden, why not those on the top who were mostly responsible for getting us into those stupid wars?

#124 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's not clear what exactly Danni believes. TPP taking jobs bad, outsourcing jobs bad, illegal immmigrants taking jobs good. Inflation bad, raising wages unilaterally good. 3% deficit spending bad, 10% deficit spending good. 4% unemployment bad, 8% unemployment good. Real estate bubble in 2006 on 1% interest bad, re-inflating 2006 bubble with 0% interest and $1T of annual quantitative easing good. Don't look beyond party lines for her to make sense.

#125 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#125

LOL ...very true.

#126 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

So why shouldn't society be the ones to foot the bill?
#103 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

So businesses exist outside society.

#127 | Posted by 726 at 2014-01-31 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ignorant do-gooders like Danni and Sully think a raise in minimum wage will raise the living standards of low skilled workers. It will if they can keep their jobs.

Employers have no interest in worker personal problems. If you went to your boss and asked for a raise because your wife had a baby, he's look at you like you're nuts. Reason being, employers base the price of labor upon what THEY think a worker is worth to them, not what YOU think.

Given that the rate of unemployment is already double the national rate, it's not hard to predict that more workers will be priced out of the market though layoffs, off-shoring and automation.

It would be justice if Danni and Sully joined them.

#128 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-31 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Except that historically that has never been shown to be true."

???

You're basically making the argument that imncreasing costs have no effect on demand. Are you sure you want to stick with that?

"Wrong. Its human biology. We need to eat. We need food and clothes and sanitation in order to stay healthy."

There are two aspects to this argument. First, these needs pre-date wages. There is no direct correlation between earning a wage and meeting the requirements for survival. Second, these needs can be met at the current minimum wage, and in fact fare below it. What's being demanded now is that an individual is entitled not just to survival, but a high standard of living. Those are two very, very different things.

"You're making a "privatize the profits, make the expenses public" argument. There is no reason for anyone to entertain this nonsense for event a second."

It is a public expense, because it's something the public, not them employer, wants. The public is going to be paying for them anyway. By becoming employed, they simply allow for the employer to pick up some of that cost.

"Baloney. It increases the value of business deductions and thereby makes the decision to hire more likely."

Technology is also a deducation. And a preferrable one in the face of increasing labor costs. And again, it still doesn't alter the value of the worker, but rather the value of the market itself.

"Utter nonsense that doesn't stand up to even passing scrutiny."

yeah it does. And you know it. The simple fact is that working at McDonald's for minimum wage still provides a higher standard of living than panning for gold in the Klondike, or hunting and gathering, or cutting wood, or some other form of subsistence survival. All you need to do is compare your average subsistence farmer in Papua New Guinea or Africa with a minimum wage household in the US.

"Minimum wage workers can't outrun inflation. minimum wage needs to keep pace with inflation.....but you can't raise it up to outrun it. It won't work. If someone wants a better standard of living....they need a better skill, work ethic, etc....not a higher minimum wage."

DID YOU KNOW THAT...

From 1987 through 2012, food service worker productivity increased by .6 per year, while labor costs have increased by 3.6% per year, and wages by 3.1% per year.

IOW, wages have risen five or six times as fast as what would have been justified by gains in worker productivity.


#129 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not clear what exactly Danni believes. TPP taking jobs bad, outsourcing jobs bad, illegal immmigrants taking jobs good. "

Baloney, when Bush was telling us "they're only coming here to do jobs Americans won't do" I was very much against illegal immigration but after they were virtually invited into the country by the conservatives for cheap labor during the housing bubble I don't think it is fair now to just deport them. NAFTA destroyed much of the Mexican farming economy and these people were left without a source of income so you can't blame them all that much for coming here.

#130 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost

www.epi.org

#131 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-31 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The simple fact is that working at McDonald's for minimum wage still provides a higher standard of living than panning for gold in the Klondike, or hunting and gathering, or cutting wood, or some other form of subsistence survival.

Depends on you define "higher standard of living". If a self-sufficient subsistence farmer working his plot of land is driven off by Western agricultural imports and forced to work in a sweat shop and live in a shanty town, has he really improved his standard of living?

Hunter gathers worked fewer hours and had more leisure time. Read Sahlins.

The Original Affluent Society
Marshall Sahlins

Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.

www.primitivism.com

#132 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-01-31 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"From 1987 through 2012, food service worker productivity increased by .6 per year, while labor costs have increased by 3.6% per year, and wages by 3.1% per year."

We aren't all food service workers. Overall productivity has far outpaced wages.

www.nytimes.com

#133 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me tell you what an increase in the minimum wage does. I have five kids. One of my sons is disabled. (His vascular system is all ------ up from birth. He has has had about a half dozen operations and almost died several times.) His disability is severe enough so that he is eligible for government assistance. He could literally sit around and collect a check of about $800 a month as well as probably get government housing if he applied. Or he can take a minimum wage non-strenuous job, interact with other people, and have a fuller more engaging daily existence.

Now given that he can do some types of labor, I wouldn't allow my son to simply take the disability check and live under my roof. But in any case, - just from a dollars and cents point of view there is less incentive to do so if he is actually getting enough money from his job to have some real independance and greater freedom.

The point is, the minimum wage has a ripple effect in ways many of you have not even stopped to consider.

#134 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-01-31 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

So why shouldn't society be the ones to foot the bill?
#103 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

So businesses exist outside society.
#127 | POSTED BY 726

No. Social issues such as 'a living wage' and a 'minimum standard of living' exist outside of businesses.

#135 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There is no direct correlation between earning a wage and meeting the requirements for survival."

In our society, there's a correlation between having money and having the necessities. If you're working 40 hours a week then your wage effects whether or not you have the funds to buy what you need to survive. You're being dishonest by pretending this isn't the case. The bottom line is that if the government is keeping your full time employees alive, then you your business is reliant on governemtn assistance. Nobody is entitled to have their business propped up by the taxpayer.

"yeah it does. And you know it. The simple fact is that working at McDonald's for minimum wage still provides a higher standard of living than panning for gold in the Klondike, or hunting and gathering, or cutting wood, or some other form of subsistence survival. All you need to do is compare your average subsistence farmer in Papua New Guinea or Africa with a minimum wage household in the US."

I was saying your previous claim was wrong because it was based on the assumption that all Americans could be farmers or mountain men, which is ridiculous.

Now you're comparing Americans to third world denizens. I don't waste time on people who think the US should be in any way similar to the third world.

#136 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.
www.primitivism.com

#132 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I don't think the author of that 'piece' understands the meaning of the word 'slaving.'

#137 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Let me tell you what an increase in the minimum wage does."

We can just look at what has happened when it has been raised in the past.

#138 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I realize society subsidizes minimum wage workers in the form of providing food stamps, Medicaid, etc when those folks receive those benefits and those benefits subsidize the profits of the employer.

But what really bothers leftists like Danni? Is it the wage or is it the profit earned by the business owner? Because Danni is pissed off that the Walmart family has earned billions off this practice.

But across the parking lot of every single walmart are businesses that feed off the traffic walmart generates essentially operates their business the same...with a significant # of minimum wage workers. (restaurants, retail, any strip mall business).

But we know as much about those business owners as we do about the Walton family so the outrage is subjective. The Chinese buffett folks aren't the kids/grandkids of Sam Walton, so we fixate on Walmart.

And when they think about these wage increases, they envision the Walton family feeling no pain but we know better than that. In some cases, society subsidizes survival...not billion $ profits.

They think Walmart shouldn't have the right to do this.....so, neither should the Chinese buffet owner? you know...the ones who barely paid their rent? I'm just bringing this problem from the macro down to the micro a bit so as to understand how it will really pan out.

I'll restate that we can raise up the minimum wage (I don't care about walmart's prices and I can live without the Chinese restaurant anyway). Businesses, for the most part, will survive and figure out a way to pass on the price, as will the Walmart family.

The subsidy of minimum workers is unfortunate and I don't really see a way around it. The subsidy that is optional and has been stupidly given to Walmart is when localities such as cities, counties, etc have given Walmart special tax incentives to build stores in their communities. That's insane considering the bills we have to pay to provide bennies to their workers. Walmart might have the right to build their stores and run their business that way but nobody sure as hell should have given them any encouragement or an incentive to do so.

#139 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now you're comparing Americans to third world denizens. I don't waste time on people who think the US should be in any way similar to the third world.
#136 | POSTED BY SULLY

Now you're just being funny. We are constantly competing with third world denizens internationally and within our borders. We've managed to export local jobs to third world denizens.

#140 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't think the author of that 'piece' understands the meaning of the word 'slaving.'"

Actually his descriptions of hunter-gatherer society are now orthodoxy in anthropology. Read his entire book. You might learn something.
www.goodreads.com

#141 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-01-31 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

You want American wages for American jobs to rise? Restrict the supply of workers for American jobs to Americans.

#142 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#141 Might be a good read, but the author lost me at 'slaving.' I'll take being poor in America any day over hunting/gathering.

#143 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's only one explanation for Democrats that rail against low wages and exporting jobs but want to increase immigrant workers in America.

#144 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The point is, the minimum wage has a ripple effect in ways many of you have not even stopped to consider."

good example of my point about inflation. In your son's case, the disability benefit will increase right along with an increase in the minimum wage....so the choice will be a similar dilemma, as it will equal out either way.

How do you suppose the govt came up with the $800 figure in the first place? somewhere in there, it's based on wages As wages increase...the disability benefit will increase commensurately.

#145 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But what really bothers leftists like Danni? Is it the wage or is it the profit earned by the business owner? Because Danni is pissed off that the Walmart family has earned billions off this practice."

What really pisses me off isn't the profit earned by the Waltons, when Sam Walton ran Walmart they sold American made goods and paid decent wages to their employees due to, in part, the fact that the minimum wage was closer to its historic level of buying power. And it didn't bother me or much of anyone else that Mr. Walton earned a healthy profit. But yes, it does piss me off that billionaires like Walton's heirs, but certainly not just them, have contrived to use their political clout, created through their wealth, to have the US agree to trade deals which have then enabled them to outsouce millions of jobs and destroy much of the middle class of this country....and they aren't done yet....they want to further destroy our middle class and they will happily leave million of Americans in poverty for the sake of wealth they will never ever be able to spend.
It does piss me off that our politics is so polluted with money that it is almost impossible for average Americans to expect Congress to make policies that are good for the vast majority of people in this country while a few billionaires exercise huge amounts of power just because they sit on big piles of money their Daddy's left them.

#146 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's only one explanation for Democrats that rail against low wages and exporting jobs but want to increase immigrant workers in America.

Are the number of people working going to change because their status changes?

What happens when you bring all those that are working "under the table" into legal employment and wage law?

I don't think it's quite as simple as you postulate.

#147 | Posted by YAV at 2014-01-31 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If someone wants a better standard of living....they need a better skill, work ethic, etc....not a higher minimum wage."
Beyond a basic minimum I agree but raising it to $10.10 is really only restoring it to its historical level of buying power.

#120 | POSTED BY DANNI

they can't outrun inflation, Danni. I suspect you believe otherwise.
If so, then nevermind.

#123 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I too want purchasing power to increase. Inflation kills purchasing power. Better to argue against quantitative easing, zero interest, and government stimulus. Stopping the erosion of the dollar would be much more beneficial for purchasing power.

#148 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#147 It's vote buying, pure and simple. Why working class Americans want to buy votes for Dems by raising the living standards of non-Americans is the funny part.

#149 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now you're just being funny. We are constantly competing with third world denizens internationally and within our borders. We've managed to export local jobs to third world denizens.

#140 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The idea that we're involved in "competition" with a country like China is absurd. China doesn't engage in fair trade or anything even close. We're giving jobs away to China.

And my point is that if you make arguments that are based on the premise that we should even consider having Americans compete with third world peasants on cost of labor (and therefore standard of living) then your regard for the US is too low for me to care what your opinion is.

Rightwingers (or anyone else) who want the US to become a third world country shouldn't even be allowed to vote as far as I'm concerned

#150 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

And my point is that if you make arguments that are based on the premise that we should even consider having Americans compete with third world peasants on cost of labor (and therefore standard of living) then your regard for the US is too low for me to care what your opinion is.

#150 | POSTED BY SULLY

Sully, you should advocate exporting illegal immigrants with all that neocon anger running through your veins.

Instead, you're in denial about who Americans compete with, abroad and at home.

#151 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me get this straight, from your #150:

Your premise is that your regard for the US is so high that we should not even consider having Americans compete with third world peasants on cost of labor (and therefore standard of living). And you vote Democrat.

LOL

Best thread ever.

#152 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Your premise is that your regard for the US is so high that we should not even consider having Americans compete with third world peasants on cost of labor (and therefore standard of living). And you vote Democrat."

Why are you saying I vote Democrat?

And we don't have to compete with the third world on wages. The US is a very lucrative market. That gives us alot of leverage - although America hates like to pretend that we have one. We could easily set up conditions under which people who want to sell here can either hire here or pay out the @$$ for the right to sell here.

And yes, I'm willing to deal with a the higher cost of living that comes with not living in a third world country.

#153 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why are you saying I vote Democrat?

#153 | POSTED BY SULLY

Because you're an economic idiot.

#154 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because you're an economic idiot.

#154 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Says the guy who believes in thoroughly disproven trickle down nonsense.

#155 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tell me again how Trickle Up goes Sully. Thoroughly proven, is it?

#156 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tell me again how Trickle Up goes Sully. Thoroughly proven, is it?

#156 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

By any objective measure, yes, wealth trickles up. I can off my opinion as to why this is. But that wealth undoubtedly trickles up is mathematically proven. What kind of economic idiot are you that you don't know this?

#157 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

You think it might go both ways?

#158 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

the upward redistribution of wealth

www.google.com

#159 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-31 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

mathematically proven

#157 | POSTED BY SULLY

Do you recall the formula?

#160 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you recall the formula?

#160 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is no formula. All you have to do is look at where wealth ends up. It works its way up to the wealthiest and then stays there. Nobody denies this, except you apparently.

#161 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only Americans that will benefit from more temp work visas and amnesty for illegals are the Democratic political elite who see more votes in their crystal ball, the religious leaders who see more money in the collection plate, and the Republican elites who see more profits for their corporate shills.

No one is looking out for most Americans in this debate who will lose, except possibly Numbers USA www.numbersusa.com other such groups. Comprehensive reform is political smoke screen and double talk for this version of the Screw American Taxpayer and Workers Bill.

Enforce existing laws and most will go home. Cut or eliminate temporary visas and Americans can better justify the high cost and debt of a technical education.

#162 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-31 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

undoubtedly trickles up -- is mathematically proven.

#157 | POSTED BY SULLY

There is no formula. All you have to do is look

#161 | POSTED BY SULLY

You crack me up. Keep at it. Friday funnies.

#163 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

You crack me up. Keep at it. Friday funnies.

#163 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those aren't contradictory statements. If you look at where wealth is accumulating in this country, it is trickling up. This is mathematically proven by the amount of money accumulating at the top increasing. I don't know why you think a formula is necessary in order to observe that money is accumulating at the top.

You are not only completely ignorant to basic economic realities but also unable to comprehend basic logic.

#164 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's your idea of "mathematically proven?"

I might have known.

LOL

#165 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That's your idea of "mathematically proven?""

Yes, the measurable flow of money from the lower classes to the most wealthy is mathematically proven.

I don't know what you're LOLing about. You're clearly way over your head.

#166 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

85 people own half of the world's wealth, how do you think they got so much?

#167 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Depends on you define "higher standard of living"."

While true, I think in this case we can all agree that the purpose of the minimum wage would be to provide a high level of material comfort. I, and maybe yourself, can appreciate being able to hunt and fish, grow your own food, etc. Your average Manhattanite probably does not share that same affinity.

"We can just look at what has happened when it has been raised in the past."

Really? What studies have you been looking at? Because everything I've ever seen indicate that, as a minimum wage increases, demand for labor decreases.

"It's vote buying, pure and simple. Why working class Americans want to buy votes for Dems by raising the living standards of non-Americans is the funny part."

That's my line dude.

But it's true. If I want my kids to clean their rooms or improve their grades, I provide them with an incentive to do so. But in return for the rewards I provide them, I expect something in return. If I just want them to like me, I provide the rewards with no strings attached. I truly believe that the current system isn't intended to help the poor become self-sufficient. It's intended to keep them comfortably poor. If it weren't, there would be some sort of obligation on the part of the poor in return for recieving benefits.

"Says the guy who believes in thoroughly disproven trickle down nonsense."

I'm not a Reagan groupie by any stretch, but I don't think you're aware that under Reagan's economic policies, the tax burden actually shifted to the left. The wealthiest americans picked up a largeer share of the tax burden, even while their individual tax rates were lowered. The best thing, it happened naturally. Instead of happening as a result of some coersive policy forcing people to behave in a way they otherwkise wouldn't.

#168 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There is no formula. All you have to do is look at where wealth ends up. It works its way up to the wealthiest and then stays there. Nobody denies this, except you apparently."

This is like saying that it's the handsome guys with the great personalities that get all the girls. One does not naturally accruse a greater amount of wealth than they already have. IOW, being rich itself won't make you richer. I'm not going to give Bill Gates $200 because he's rich. I will, however, give him $200 for a copy of Windows. Or Office. And so will the rest of us. And he will be richer because of it.

Those who accrue the most wealth are those with the most to offer society. We give it to them willingly. The only time that's not the case is when the money is taken by the government, and the government gives it to those people. People whom we wouldn't willingly have given our money to.

#169 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"85 people own half of the world's wealth, how do you think they got so much?"

By selling something that everybody wants.

If you produced a $1 widget that was deemed essential by half of the population on earth, you'd be rich. Now think about what happens when you produce something that cost $200, and is in demand by 1/6 of the population. Now you know why Bill Gates is so rich.

It's also worth noting that there are millions out there who have no "wealth." At least not in the western sense. How do you value the Yert of a Siberian Nomad?

#170 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"85 people own half of the world's wealth, how do you think they got so much?"

show me the list. with a few exceptions, they own natural resources and/or their respective govts.

#171 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.forbes.com

I need to retract my last post. There are more folks from the US than I thought and it's from more than just oil/natural resources.

#172 | Posted by eberly at 2014-01-31 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Those who accrue the most wealth are those with the most to offer society."

I don't believe that at all. Some of the worst people on Earth have vast fortunes. While some of the most valuable people to the human race have little or no wealth.

#173 | Posted by danni at 2014-01-31 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#171 | Posted by eberly

www.forbes.com

#174 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-01-31 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

""85 people own half of the world's wealth, how do you think they got so much?""

Capitalism.

#175 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-01-31 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

What percentage of a country's wealth leaves with a fleeing dictator?

#176 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

What percentage of the wealth is in the hands of the men who control the Chinese government? or Russia's?

I'd like mathematical proof.

#177 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-01-31 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

""85 people own half of the world's wealth, how do you think they got so much?""

Capitalism.

#175 | Posted by nullifidian

Wrong! The correct answer is fascism. Don't be lazy. Take the time to learn the difference.

#178 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-31 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fascism is a political system, not an economic system.

#179 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-01-31 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't believe that at all. Some of the worst people on Earth have vast fortunes, while some of the most valuable people to the human race have little or no wealth.

What does "best" or "worst" have to do with it. Steve Jobs was characterized as a complete jerk. Does that mean he shouldn't be entitled to the earnings he accrued by providing Apple products to planet earth?

And I'd like to see an example of someone who is very valuable from an economic perspective, yet is still poor.

#180 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Fascism is a political system, not an economic system."

Corporatism best describes the economic system tradtionally pursued by fascist governments. It's also the favored progressive economic system, as it is able to avoid many of the negative sides of socialism, while providing many of the same outcomes.

#181 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fascism is a political system, not an economic system.
#179 | Posted by moder8

Don't be so narrow. It's a political system that assumes control over the economic system. That's the political climate we live under today.

#182 | Posted by Ray at 2014-01-31 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This is like saying that it's the handsome guys with the great personalities that get all the girls. One does not naturally accruse a greater amount of wealth than they already have. IOW, being rich itself won't make you richer. I'm not going to give Bill Gates $200 because he's rich. I will, however, give him $200 for a copy of Windows. Or Office. And so will the rest of us. And he will be richer because of it."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I haven't clamed that money reproduces itself. I've claimed that it is an observable fact that people are the bottom of the economy don't hang on to money for long and wealth gradually accumlates among the wealthiest people.

"Those who accrue the most wealth are those with the most to offer society."

Then explain the recent implosion of the world finanical system. Even if they weren't thieves, Wall St paper shufflers don't produce much for society, BTW.

#183 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I've claimed that it is an observable fact that people are the bottom of the economy don't hang on to money for long and wealth gradually accumlates among the wealthiest people."

Misobservation.

Should read: that it is an observable fact that people of low economic lavue GENERALLY, don't hang on to money for long and wealth gradually accumlates among those with the most economic value."

You're not taking into account the most important variables. Namely those that contribute to one person becoming rich when another doesn't. We can isolate those variables relatively easily.

"Even if they weren't thieves, Wall St paper shufflers don't produce much for society, BTW."

Sure they do. They provide the funding. They are the engine room. Without them, many good ideas would never reach fruition in the form of a marketable good or service. Microsoft, Apple, and most others all required some sort of outide investment. That comes from Wall Street.

#184 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-01-31 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Sure they do. They provide the funding. They are the engine room. Without them, many good ideas would never reach fruition in the form of a marketable good or service. Microsoft, Apple, and most others all required some sort of outide investment. That comes from Wall Street."

That's a very small part of what they do. Alot of it is unproductive or even counter productive paper shuffling.

#185 | Posted by Sully at 2014-01-31 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Remember, you are not paranoid if they are really out to get you and it is apparent that the left really is out to get them.

#186 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-01-31 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sully is F.o.S. as usual, Apple was started by one venture capitalist and two kids who "borrowed' most of their initial ideas from Xerox. Microsoft was started by two kids and $20,000 to buy an operating system developed with public funds. Wall Street is interested in skimming profits from the economy and they do an excellent job of that.

#187 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-01-31 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

The more aware we are, the worse the outcome gets for most middle class Americans. Some are blinded by partisanship.

Pat Buchanan may have presented the last of a few remaining opportunities for a competent USA first President that we Americans have had in decades, if not centuries.

America needs a major wake-up call that discredits the mainstream propaganda we call the media and conventional politics. We need new political alliances far removed and outside the normal D/R.

I'd suggest an independent team comprised of Buchanan and Robert Reich for starters. The current left-right elitist cabal are basically self serving crooks that will inevitably destroy us for their cronies benefit.

Buchanan was a candidate in 2000 when the media and neocon Israeli first promoted candidate George W Bush won. The outcome is clear and rest is history. American firsters lost and neocons won.

buchanan.org

#188 | Posted by Robson at 2014-01-31 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Run, Pat, run!"

The Klown Kar just doesn't seem komplete wif out him.

#189 | Posted by Corky at 2014-01-31 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Rich Conservatives are all about their own entitlement."

And George Soros is what?

#190 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-01 03:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

We can just look at what has happened when it has been raised in the past.

#138 | Posted by Sully

Please, don't bother the RW with history. They hate history.

#191 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-01 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort