You are paying for it

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Your point has no factual basis other than rude and some author trying to push a book. Kind of like the guy who says bet the grays.

Again show me a third world country's poverty threshold stats, any third world country and show me how close we are.

Which was your point, no?

No it wasn't my point and I am done with you. Waste of everyones time continually having to dumb down the conversation. You need to drop down the claiming latter of discussions. Let me guess, you've been drinking.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

No it wasn't my point and I am done with you.

Yea stats and facts don't matter when there's a movement.

Put your fingers in your ears while you go blah, blah, blah

And resurrect Occupy

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

. You need to drop down the claiming latter of discussions. Let me guess, you've been drinking.

You need to come up with something, anything to substantiate your rants.

You start a post with “Oligarchy, We are becoming third world” yet that is not your point?

When I started my post, “Chicken Little” that was my point and it has been confirmed as correct by your inability to do anything but put your fingers in your ears and make believe my reasoning was achieved through a bottle instead of reality based facts.

[Danzig]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wo...duces-poverty/


Hot dog, figured out gow to.cut/paste on.this thing...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

No it wasn't my point and I am done with you. Waste of everyones time continually having to dumb down the conversation. You need to drop down the claiming latter of discussions. Let me guess, you've been drinking.

Been there......

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You need to come up with something, anything to substantiate your rants.

You start a post with “Oligarchy, We are becoming third world” yet that is not your point?

When I started my post, “Chicken Little” that was my point and it has been confirmed as correct by your inability to do anything but put your fingers in your ears and make believe my reasoning was achieved through a bottle instead of reality based facts.

In what way are we becoming third world like? Certainly not the fuking tangent you went off on. Ask Rudeboy tomorrow when your head clears he may have the patience that i don't to explain it in a way even you can understand.

[Rudeboyelvis]

I'll try, but don't hold me to it.

My initial point was in response to the original post / Thread starter which contained a link to a Forbes Article the pronounced:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

To which led to an immediate discourse about how the culprit for all of this is that the minimum wage is too low, thus Walmart workers require 6.2 billion in public assistance to make ends meet. A fairly elementary conclusion, be it however ill-informed.

The conversation then took another turn into the abyss of wealth concentration and middle class wage stagnation, which is where I took chimed in. The issues with the top 1% getting exponentially more money than their counterparts even 15 years ago, and the way it has coincided with the exponential shrinking of the middle class, is due to a myriad of complex circumstances, none of which have a single thing to do with the minimum wage.

But that is the way the media has programmed it's viewership. Straw man - pit the have-nots against the have-alot-less-than-they-used-tos in the hopes of keeping the smokescreen veiling the continued thievery of our economy, at any and all cost.

So on one hand, I agree fully with Dell in that I do not believe that there is any value at all, and actually potential economic collapse, in artificially propping up the lower class by imposing huge increases in the minimum wage as it only serves 2 purposes:

1. to devalue the entire economy
2. impose even further degradation of what is left of the middle class by exponential hyper-inflation. People can cite "studies" that shows that increasing the cost of bringing products to market (from the Port intake to Distribution to Warehousing, to however many other steps it takes before your Greeter get's his /her 12.00 an hour) won't increase the cost to consumers, but that doesn't make is so. Common sense has to prevail at some point.


The other point which JMS made and cannot be argued, is the manner in which this untethered (to steal a phrase from Piketty) capitalism in a global economy has now subverted any manner in which to control it.
You have lawmakers who are influenced by corporate interests (though a variety of methods, most notably by going to work for them as lobbyists after their terms expire) - it is so pervasive that they don't even bother trying to hide it. Why else would someone spend 7 million dollars running for a Congressional seat - a job that pays $174,000 a year?
They make millions upon millions influencing laws that line the pockets of corporations through the very same tax breaks that the public pays for - to supposedly "offset the cost of employing Americans".

And the peons continue to blame each other for the mess, as they try to grab the diminishing crumbs.

It's mind-numbing.


So Dell is correct, and so is JMS - just about two completely different things.

[Danzig]

minimum wage, and other wages stagnating, is a result of the changes that have occurred.
it's not a cure all, but is one of many things that needs changing. i know some are advocating a move to 15/hour, i advocate 10 tp 10.50, since that's what it should be currently.
as sen. warren said last night on the daily show, things have got to change, with much of the power in the hands of very few, very rich and powerful people. else the rest of us will continue to lose ground and slide further downhill.

and i still fail to understand how bringing people out of poverty would result in economic collapse. more money means more spending, not less.

also, rude, what parameters do you use to differentiate between a 'study' and a study?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I'll try, but don't hold me to it.

My initial point was in response to the original post / Thread starter which contained a link to a Forbes Article the pronounced:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

To which led to an immediate discourse about how the culprit for all of this is that the minimum wage is too low, thus Walmart workers require 6.2 billion in public assistance to make ends meet. A fairly elementary conclusion, be it however ill-informed.

The conversation then took another turn into the abyss of wealth concentration and middle class wage stagnation, which is where I took chimed in. The issues with the top 1% getting exponentially more money than their counterparts even 15 years ago, and the way it has coincided with the exponential shrinking of the middle class, is due to a myriad of complex circumstances, none of which have a single thing to do with the minimum wage.

But that is the way the media has programmed it's viewership. Straw man - pit the have-nots against the have-alot-less-than-they-used-tos in the hopes of keeping the smokescreen veiling the continued thievery of our economy, at any and all cost.

So on one hand, I agree fully with Dell in that I do not believe that there is any value at all, and actually potential economic collapse, in artificially propping up the lower class by imposing huge increases in the minimum wage as it only serves 2 purposes:

1. to devalue the entire economy
2. impose even further degradation of what is left of the middle class by exponential hyper-inflation. People can cite "studies" that shows that increasing the cost of bringing products to market (from the Port intake to Distribution to Warehousing, to however many other steps it takes before your Greeter get's his /her 12.00 an hour) won't increase the cost to consumers, but that doesn't make is so. Common sense has to prevail at some point.


The other point which JMS made and cannot be argued, is the manner in which this untethered (to steal a phrase from Piketty) capitalism in a global economy has now subverted any manner in which to control it.
You have lawmakers who are influenced by corporate interests (though a variety of methods, most notably by going to work for them as lobbyists after their terms expire) - it is so pervasive that they don't even bother trying to hide it. Why else would someone spend 7 million dollars running for a Congressional seat - a job that pays $174,000 a year?
They make millions upon millions influencing laws that line the pockets of corporations through the very same tax breaks that the public pays for - to supposedly "offset the cost of employing Americans".

And the peons continue to blame each other for the mess, as they try to grab the diminishing crumbs.

It's mind-numbing.


So Dell is correct, and so is JMS - just about two completely different things.

Really awesome job with that. And again my comparison to why we are becoming like a third world countries is that in third world countries you have uber rich buying influence from the government to further their wealth. The winners are the uber rich and those that work in government. Not a hard concept to understand.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by jms62

Really awesome job with that. And again my comparison to why we are becoming like a third world countries is that in third world countries you have uber rich buying influence from the government to further their wealth. The winners are the uber rich and those that work in government. Not a hard concept to understand.

It's not - but you're trying to convince someone who also believes that global warming isn't taking place.

[Pants II]

Bring people out of poverty?

GUFFAW

This is about corporations wanting robots instead of humans.

Hook, line, and sinker.

[Pants II]

Yep. Politicians, especially democrats, want to bring their sheeple out of poverty.

And the gubmint also really cares about a desert tortoise. The land grabs aren't about Agenda 21, solar companies, battery companies, etc.

With QE you don't necessarily need a working population. You can maintain the illusion for decades.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Pants II

Bring people out of poverty?

GUFFAW

This is about corporations wanting robots instead of humans.

Hook, line, and sinker.

true, and many already only have robots. they use programmed fork trucks now out here, to go along with the remote vehicles that take stock from one part of the mill to another.