Most people i know who are poor and blue collar -- they hate corporations and the whole environment. They also hate all the successful people like myself. Even the middle class people seem bitter and resent my presence. When i am around my rich friends, the environment is friendly and cohesive and we enjoy life to the fullest ala The Wolf of Wall Street. Stop being jealous and do something with your lives.
The extraordinary is in what we do,not who we are
share8 people hold more wealth than 3.5 billion. If you were in kindergarten and one kid had 400 toys and every other kid had only one... even these children wouldn't be stupid enough to believe that that one child had worked 400 times harder to earn those toys. Capitalism is a myth sold to you by the wealth controlled media to keep you pacified while the rich continue to make more laws, hire more lawyers and media consultants to keep their stranglehold on the money. They tell you fairy tales about how if you work hard enough, you too will become wealthy and flood everyone's minds with rags to riches tales and princess stories about how one day that could be you. Of course occasionally it happens, but most of the time people live lives in the proverbial state of quiet desperation. We all think to ourselves, oh... well I don't want these burdensome tax laws to be in place on the off chance my 1 in a 1000 lotto ticket comes in... so we keep things in place like obedient children. But in general people are fools to believe what the media tells them, because it's all bought and paid for by the rich.
shareWe all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Yes !
Watch Shark Tank occasionally to give you a perspective on what the wealthy are all about.
And what's the purpose of that maniacal accumulation when it's excessive and just going to go to someone else, often with no effort on their part ?
As hinted at before it is not right to rub others' noses in a person's success nor does it make the same person better than everybody else. BUT, to make it an indictment of capitalism is quite extreme. It would be nice to think that everybody would be willing to make a contribution to society without an incentive but that is not the case even today. We are still primal enough to feel we deserve an individual reward for anything we do. Look at the company executive in Seattle somewhat over a year ago who decided all workers were entitled to a 70,000 salary (darn me for not being a part of that). Some workers quit that company and no doubt some of them provided intellectual services that can not easily be replaced. There is no problem in striving to be rich but once you get wealth at least maintain a sense of dignity and respect towards others.
shareI have no problem with people making 2X, 3X, even 10X others...but some of these CEOS are making hundreds of times more than others. I also don't mind people like Gates, Jobs or Musk who innovate and create products that transform the world for the better making billions. But bankers and real estate tycoons who contribute nothing to society other than using their superior resources to game the system can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. The rich constantly blame the poor for economic ills when their net worth continues to rise while everyone else remains stagnant. Trump constantly scapegoats street kids in Chicago for their violence while our country continues to drop thousands of bombs annually on the Middle East in the name of peace and safety. Poor ghetto kids would have to kill people for thousands of years to equal what the Germans did in five... yet for some reason we fear poor African Americans and not the white establishment. Stalin and Mao also killed millions, but we don't have the same fear of Russian or Chinese citizens. My point is no race holds the monopoly on violence, but certain ones are blamed more than others. And don't use the excuse that in some cases it's in the name of war, because when war is waged it is theoretically done by educated people who should know better rather than latch key kids raised like feral children. The system is rigged.
shareDon't look for a solution in Washington DC as the answer does not reside there. If Clinton had been elected she still would have been a turd but of a different stripe than Trump. We have made tremendous progress during the last 100 years technologically now it is time to make progress ethically. We as US citizens will need to set aside our differences and spend significant time with young people whose minds are still open to thought. No, it will not be a matter of brainwashing one political system or the other but taking a first step towards being more compassionate and understanding of others. Will we get there is hard to say and I am pessimistic to this point.
shareClinton is just as bad as Trump... I wanted Sanders to win.
shareYeah, I wanted Sanders as well.
DANG IT!
But then again, I think it was rigged. Most people in the red states were able to change parties in the primaries. They just propped Clinton because they knew she would lose against Trump, at least in their states. I am thinking Sanders would have won.
Usually, people of such wealth could care less about making contact with the common folk such as on this website. The debauchery of alcohol, drugs, and sex seen in TWOWS can be found many rungs down the social ladder from the jet set. In the spirit of JFK what are you doing for others since you are well taken care of as it is? Even Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan found time and money for the betterment of humanity.
share^ This
shareBecause most of the corporate people seem to be born into that lifestyle and they wreck havoc on the middle class. They do not want to pay more taxes because??? Why should it even bother them, if they do? The middle class pays way more taxes than the rich do, just by volume and a percentage of their income. If the rich came to terms with actually helping with the economy, helping the poor, and relieving the middle class; then maybe they would not be disliked so much.
shareWell said!
share"Why are many people jealous of corporate world & its people?"
Flat out truth be told, they act like they're better than everyone else PERIOD
@Dane
Wealth envy. Entitlement mentality. What you've gained by working hard should not be totally yours. These people who decry the wealth of others forget about the jobs created by the wealthy. They forget about the charitable donations by the wealthy. As the saying goes " I've never had a poor man give me a job.".
And maybe that kid with 400 toys vs the kids with one toy each had parents who were more educated or did work harder to achieve those 400 toys. We, who are fortunate enough to live in the US can also achieve those 400 toys. Unless one is ill, not mentally capable or has any other stumbling block, there is NO reason for any of us not to achieve great success. No, I'm not jealous of the wealthy, I wish all could be wealthy.
I could have become a member of the upper crust if I had been wiser in my youth. Either became more educated or worked harder instead of getting married at age 19, having a baby at age 20 and settling into a rut. I know people who made more than the "six figure income". It wasn't given to them. They worked hard and earned what they made. One is a millionaire. How? By working 90 hours a week on the knees laying tile. From that income investments were made. Their wealth grew. Am I jealous? Not in the least! I could be in the same boat, but I didn't have the drive.
Read the history of Jamestown and the decision all would share equally, because all would work in the fields planting. Trouble is people starved to death. Why? Not all worked, therefore the ones who did work could not produce enough to feed everyone!
As Margaret Thatcher said "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Sure, if I work hard enough, I can open a small business and compete with Walmart and Amazon who have billions of dollars to purchase from suppliers against my thousands. Does this make any sense? Oh but my customer service and friendly attitude are superior to that of these huge retailers. Nonsense, it is virtually impossible for anyone to compete with someone with the power to purchase things at a lower price because of their enormous size.
There are lazy people, but statistical fact bears out the truth that the money is not just trickling but pouring into the hands of the rich, while the wealthy owned media perpetuates the narrative that lazy and poor people deserve their fate. Sure there are outliers that manage to defeat the odds, but one shouldn't have to perform the equivalent of a miracle to overcome big business. The fact remains that eight people currently have more wealth than the bottom 3.5 billion.
Don't believe this lie that capitalism is the best solution.
How do you get around the primal need for reward when making an effort? That is capitalism boiled down to its raw elements. The Communists tried the stick instead of the carrot and where did that get them? I doubt there would have been a Communist world back in the 20th Century if there were not Third Reich scientists to be grabbed while the Soviets were closing in on Berlin from the East during 1945. These scientists gave the Soviets jet propulsion and nuclear fusion (bomb) to give Stalin the ability to saber-ratttle the West followed by his successors. Only after the fall of the Soviet system did the West realize how badly we over estimated Soviet technical progress. How poorly managed the collective farms were.
shareSame way we did when we managed to suppress our natural urges to rape and beat people. No one's arguing that our natural directive is to be competitive and greedy... but as you become civilized you sacrifice your primal needs in pursuit of a better society.
shareEasier said than done. Look at the importance of the NFL in many Americans' lives and its display of controlled violence. I am not a viewer of porn but even for somebody that has no real interest can tell from the mainstream entertainment industry that a key attraction is the display of rigid control over others. That BDSM is a widely known term. I wish we were as far down the path of social enlightenment as you think we are but as a society we are not even close.
shareNo one's saying it's easy, but if we follow the current path the majority of the world will be living in hand to mouth conditions medicated by binge watching, video games and internet porn while a small elite continues to monopolize wealth. Since everyone in the future will have been data mined by birth, it will be easy for increasingly more sophisticated algorithms to predict how we will vote and what will be needed to manipulate the votes. Also, we will be programmed by the net to support the status quo, and opposition let alone revolution will become virtually impossible.
Bottom line, don't accept a world where a few people make up rules designed to protect their assets and freedom while they systematically take everything "legally".
Again, I would refer to the post WWII Soviets and their attempt to predict human behavior on a mass scale. One of the reasons their system failed is they failed to take into account the human vulnerability of being fallible. That all the administrators when looked at as a group in a Moscow auditorium seemed able to do their jobs competently and ethically (such as their system prescribes). However, these same administrators once dispatched to the provinces became prone to failings such as greed,sloth, and lust. The Soviet system allowed them to create plausible excuses for failing even if these same excuses were not applicable to their individual situation. They even knew how to turn the blame back towards their superiors in Moscow in that it was the highest of party officials who controlled key aspects of the Soviet economy such as transportation. That an agricultural production goal was "met" only to have the products rot along the rail siding for lack of transportation therefore the products had to be returned to the fields to decay.
share@Sentient Meat
Is retail the only self-employed business out there? I think not. I don't believe Walmart or Amazon, lay tile, install sheet rock, do plumbing, electrical work, etc. In other words...trades. As far as I know, they don't obtain run down homes, repair and flip them. One of the problems in this country is the fact college has been shoved down people's throats. "All young people deserve college. They are "entitled" to it. (btw, government got involved so goes the tuition increase) As a result the expert tradesmen/tradeswomen (good grief PC) are sorely needed. Not all people are college material.
I knew a guy with an eighth grade education. But, he was shrewd and realized there was a need for siding contractors as well as other trades. He was at the forefront when cable was being laid back in the late '70s. He acquired so much wealth his tax advisor advised him to purchase a much more expensive home.
For those who are college material, is there any reason why they couldn't get a degree for a high income profession? It's all what you decide to do with your life. You may have a handicap which precludes you from doing every and all things. But, so many have achieved greatness even with the obstacles in their life.
As I wrote previously, we were in that settled rut going nowhere with another kid. Something had to change. So, one of us held down the full time job followed by four hours of school every night for eighteen months. After acquiring the degree, the other half in the marriage worked nights for four years while the degreed person was home. (no child care fees) In the meanwhile the degreed person got a big promotion, took over the whole department. Are we wealthy? Heck no! But we are far ahead of where we would be if we hadn't made those decisions so long ago. I regret more education was not achieved.
Oh of course there are still many professions where you can make a decent living, and no one's saying that you cannot succeed, especially in skilled trade fields that are not yet threatened by robotics that will eventually supplant other jobs. But the fact of the matter is that most businesses will continue to find ways to streamline operations, whether by technology, outsourcing, automation where the main directive is not the welfare of people but purely profit.
Also, remember that college has been pushed from a more egalitarian institution to an elite one, virtually beyond the grasp of not only the poor but a good section of the middle class... you mention your friend from the 70s, but back then one could easily work as a factory worker and buy a home. Today this is no longer possible. CEO pay has gone up astronomically since the 70s... meanwhile worker pay has barely kept up with the cost of living. Trickle down is a myth. If you don't make rich people pay (and I'm talking super rich... not people making six figures) they will just keep it.
@Sentient Meat
If the entry level job workers keep demanding more than what they are worth, of course automation is going to take over. And yes, due to government demands/regulations, less hiring, outsourcing is inevitable. The labor force will become independent contractors.
The "rich" are paying and why can't they keep it? If they earned it why does anyone have the right to demand they "fork it over"? There are stockholders they are beholden to. Why so much wealth envy? It is possible to buy a home. Low interest rates along with long term mortgages. Back to my personal life when I worked nights for four years. In order for us to buy that first home my whole salary went into savings. I didn't have to pay for childcare. Nowadays we, the taxpayers, pay for everything. If you're struggling in a low paying job take on another.
I recall someone saying "Everytime the government does something, it costs me money!".
Trickle down is not a myth. Disprove Kennedy's statement "A rising tide raises all ships!".
Are entry level workers asking more than they are worth or are they recognizing what it costs to make a living if not living in their parent's basement? My relatives and my wife's relatives lived in a city heavily dependent on manufacturing to support the economy. Back a generation or more ago any raises given to the workers dissipated to the grocer, appliance store, and if you rented then your landlord as well. A year or two after the raise the workers were no better off than they were before the raise. The only solution was to ask for a raise and once granted the whole cycle repeated. Do some people ask for more than they are worth out of greed? Yes. But most are just trying to maintain the level of living they were accustomed to in the past. Something is going to have to change in this respect and most likely it has to do with monetary supply. The genie is out of the bottle of recognizing what the problems are but now we need to realize that a traditional fix is not the answer.
shareThe entry level worker is asking because clearly the factory is not paying enough to allow them to live, even in the area where the factory is located. Look at the case in San Francisco when Yelp was not paying enough. In a first world country, it should be law that entry level wage can buy a house, a car, and food. In this country, it would be like $30,000 a year. It goes to show you what middle level workers should be getting $100,000. The top should be around $1 million.
share@arvin g borkar
I just read on another thread you have lost your job. I now can understand your reasoning in believing the government should provide for you. You seem to be in the depths of despair. I am sorry for anyone who loses their job, the shock and the stress which follows. I don't know your circumstances other than you free lance? Is it possible for you to move? I'm aware you live in the South where you state jobs are not plentiful. It's going to rebound though...it just has to.
Do you have family close by or elsewhere who can be of assistance, not necessarily monetarily, but with groceries? I fed my daughter's family (4) when my son-in-law lost his job due to an injury. I recall once before many years ago, he lost a job just as he was to be tenured. He was devastated! I encouraged him to apply at Wal-Mart part-time while taking on another job doing day labor. Wal-Mart worked around his day job. My daughter obtained a part time job. They made it through the ordeal and later a great paying job opened up for him in his field.
Do you have dependents? If not, that is a good thing. The one state which seems to hold its own is Texas. Low cost of living along with opportunities. Florida...not so good unless you are degreed as it's mostly tourism and retail. But, I understand from family and friends Florida is rebounding mostly in construction. There may be opportunities in GA. AL & MS not so good unless degreed.
I do hope things work out for you and others who are actively looking for work. If not that one special job, two jobs if necessary.
I did, but I rebounded on a part time job, in my career field, that pays the same in gas mileage + hourly as my old full time job did. But yes, that is why I think there should be funds paid into the government, to help for those reasons. Some even say that that is what welfare is for except now it is being abused. We all pay into it, so why not use it?
Now people against, could say, "Well, people should have common sense and save up and maybe they would not need to rely on the government." The only thing is you never know what could happen. In such cases, like KY; businesses are "at will", probably the most horrible way a business could deal with a potential employee. I was never told why I was suppose to be leaving and I won my unemployment case. Yes, for most of the 4 years I have been here, I had a flex full time and I had to freelance my way. I did extra work in movies, brand ambassador work, and production assistant work. When you had said that mostly Florida is tourism and retail; this is the same in KY. About 75% of all the jobs are retail and fast food. There are some healthcare related jobs, but they pay low, lower than what they should be paying. My full time, even after looking at years of experience on my resume, paid me $11.83/hr. Sure, I also was able to get night differential and weekend pay; however, after taxes, I would only be making $16,000 a year. I make that same amount over this part time, but I am not taxed on mileage and I get paid every week.
@arvin g borkar
If you are in KY, not the best place for opportunities) maybe it's time to venture elsewhere. All of my family, now deceased) are from around London, KY. Central Florida is an area where the film industry is growing. Check into it. Maybe there would be an opportunity for you.
All programs provided by us taxpayers are wrought with fraud. Are you eligible for unemployment funds. As far as health ins. COBRA takes all you are drawing. Before Obamacare a young healthy person could purchase a low cost hospital plan to cover the unforeseen. I had one in the past when we couldn't afford spousal coverage. It was good coverage and even covered in office surgery. But, those plans were wiped out when OC became law.
And, you are correct in your reference to saving. Who could save on what you were/are making. Your stated income requires a second job, not becoming dependent on funds from taxpayers. I'm not spinning tales when I state I know people who work two or three jobs. I had a conversation with a young lady, (18 yr if I recall), who not only was working at the fast food place where I was, she had a second job plus going to school. She lived with her grandmother and didn't want to be a burden.
There is so much fraud in the doling out of funds from the government pot.
In the past, those who lost their job were required to show proof they were seeking employment in order to continue receiving benefits. The people in this country have become entitlement dependent. There are those who have been drawing unemployment for years along with getting paid under the table! We live in a state which has casinos. Overheard were statements similar to "I have it made. I've been drawing unemployment for months. I don't have a mortgage, car is paid for, so I'm on an extended vacation!"
I can't stress enough the regulations put on employers are killing jobs. The last place I worked was out regulated so much the owner ceased hiring people as employees. Never again he said as the government caused him to lose his business up north. He went from being a millionaire to just scraping by. As a result we all were independent contractors after he relocated.
Well, actually KY is doing well in film ever since the film incentive program came to Louisville, KY. Can you believe it? KY? This state is so small I would have never thought! In the last week, I was called up by two production companies, each offering $200/day for me to work with them. The only problem is, I am on probation period with my current job and so I am not sure if I can take leave (there is no paid leave for the part time I have).
With working two or three jobs to make a living, there is something wrong there. No one should be working multiple jobs to make ends meet. That is why the economy is so screwed up. Even more so, think about what that is doing. If someone has to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, it is further taking away opportunity from others, who could be working those other two jobs.
But then I wonder, if the government is really messing up big business, why did FDR set up a minimum wage? Why do we have unions that fought for unethical work conditions, breaks, and pay? If the government was pulled all the way back, you would be suffering too! These were things fought for because businesses generally did not care, nor should they, because they are FOR-PROFIT, right? Although, that could also be an excuse they use because businesses should have more than enough money to be for profit and care for their employees. If you do not think businesses should care for their employees, then someone has to pick up the tab. You are going to wear yourself down if you independently care for yourself. It would be modern day slavery. This blindspot is covered by the government, much to the people who hate regulation, because they are suppose to be fighting on behalf of us, to allow a balanced living.
So yes, there are two options. 1.) We deregulate and let jobs come back here for business that want to pay what they want (and remember it does not have to be livable). 2.) We regulate them and they find ways to eliminate jobs of which people could not live off of anyway.
There has to be a point where some good businesses out there are provided incentives because they do all the right things. They pay workers in excess of minimum wage (say 1.5 times) for low end workers and give their employees a good work/life balance. That is what most, yourself included, probably want right?
@arvin g borkar
I agree, unions served their purpose. Florida is a right-to-work state. Many decades ago, I became employed by a large electronics co. which was non union. I recall inquiring as to why because I was from a union/democrat family (Kentuckians). It was explained the co. offered more and also matched anything a union co. offered. I loved working there and advanced as I was a diligent worker. Great benefits! No union was needed. An old timer informed me lay-offs were unheard of as the co. would find something for the employee to do.
As far as the minimum wage goes, I don't believe the government should tell an employer what to pay. Lately it's pricing people out of jobs. When times are good let the market decide. If you are a good worker, an asset, go to the company which pays the most. By inforcing minimum wage the low enders may benefit for awhile, but as a result it also increases the wage for the long timers. Eventually, as costs go up to employ people, less hiring is done or cut backs begin. Also, there are price increases on the product sold. And one of the biggest job killers is automation. The following is an interesting article (there are more): Regret not a direct link...using an Ipad.
http://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2017/01/03/evidence-increasing-minimum-wage-kills-jobs/
Edited to add:http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/minimum-wage-is-racist-kills-jobs-and-doesnt-help-the-poor-apart-from-that-its-a-great-idea/
But actually I have seen the opposite as well, so unions are definitely not like they were. Actually, while I was looking for part times, I came across a trucking company that was union and the manager was non-union (???). She forewarned me that for the first few paychecks I would be paying an initiation union due and then little dues after that. I was like "WHAT?!" Yeah, I forgot that to be in a union, you have to pay dues. The pay was like $12/hr. and with that and taxes, it would not have served a purpose to be hired there.
"By enforcing minimum wage, the low enders may benefit for awhile; but as a result, it also increases the wage for the long timers."
That's a positive.
"Eventually, as costs go up to employ people, less hiring is done or cut backs begin. Also, there are price increases on the product sold."
But then, I would ask you if it would be worth it to even support that business or be employed there? If the business say, cuts back on employing people, then that business was not worth working for in the first place right? It cannot succeed in this country. If they have a set wage and it is barely livable and the business cannot afford to pay more than a low minimum they set, should they even be in business? That business is directly tanking the entire economy because consumers make the economy, not the business. Consumers have the money to invest and put back into the economy. Keep in mind, this is all happening in a first world country.
To put an analogy to it, think of the U.S. as an airplane. In a first class cabin, do you see people fed peanuts or caviar? I would think first world would mean "zero or near zero suffering." Businesses take direct care of their employees, so the government does not have to. Someone has to. If we are all for ourselves, we clearly would not be able to afford it.
Prices would increase and that's a bummer; however, the business does it to themselves. They could choose to absorb the cost. Again, it is easier for a business to do it than the government. If every business could take care of their workers, the government would not have to and we would not have to pay for it.
If businesses paid more than the clear minimum, chances are there would be no minimum. The question is what a good wage would be. When FDR was president, I am betting that many businesses were paying WAY LOWER than the minimum set and this led to struggling. This can be seen by the next point, outsourcing.
Business are also outsourcing and you see how much they pay people in third world countries and they have total disregard for their living conditions. If these are U.S. backed businesses and the U.S. has all these laws that make us first world, why are these businesses continuing sub par standards in other countries? The people, who work for them, should be doing better, living better than people, who work for businesses of their own country. Clearly, we do not see that.
@alvin
You seem to forget most people who are working are working for a small business. It's not a good thing when costs go up more than the small business can absorb. He/she has every right to be in business and make a profit. Sometimes they cannot absorb the costs. So, to stay in business staff are cut and automation moves in. Look at all the self-check outs in stores. Where did all the cashiers go? They lost their jobs!
Three years ago Chili's had an abundance of wait staff. No more! Just that little tablet on the table. If large companies (most are franchised small business owners) are going that route, the mom & pop stores will do whatever they have to in order to stay in business...cutting back from 10 workers to 2 workers giving the remaining more hours or putting in more time themselves. Due to Obamacare hours have been cut. They may have as many or more employees as before, but no one is working full time, therefore no benefits.
But then should they be passing that cost to the employee through lower wages? If they start to automate, which would be the better route for them; it is only a matter of time to how much people will actually want to go there. Well, really, after that; it matters who you are as a person.
I do not frequent Chilis, however, I have been to Applebee's and I saw those tablets you write about. Thing is, I would do my best to boycott as a consumer. This year alone I have started to run through lists of fast food places or restaurants I frequent. Because I had taken a hit, due to my job loss, I can't eat as much as I use to and I am a major foodie. McDonald's, I hardly ever go to. That place is purely unethical by using automation, crap food, and paying their workers low wages (like the Walmart of fast food).
Sooner or later these businesses are going to have to switch back, as the current generation is about entitlement and protesting a higher wage. You will hardly ever see me in a store that uses automation (kind of hard not to do except the Dollar Tree) and if there should be an automated kiosk, I make the effort to go to the human cashier.
@arvin
Boycotting isn't the answer to change things. As I stated most are owned/leased by a small business person. Where would we be if all people felt the way you do? More would be out of work. As it is those tablets, other than being an irritant, have not deterred business. The restaurants are still packed as people have to eat.
We are where we are due to the Free Trade Act, the demand for the higher min. wage, Obamacare, etc. All things being gov. mandates. Businesses are sticking with the 49 employee count. The business could use the extra one or two employees, but the costs are too much.
A small business man was featured on the news. He is a good employer providing fair wages and paid benefits for all his employees. People were happy. Obamacare hit and as a result he had to stop the paid benefits. Why? It was due to what he provided didn't match the mandate. Coverage not needed by his employees. When interviewed he said he just couldn't absorb the costs and keep everyone working. Now, the employees will have to fend for themselves.
Sure, Obamacare is penalizing the young who don't purchase a plan. That's just wonderful! (add sarcasm) Tell that to the 20 somethings who have rent, car pmt, cell pmt, tuition costs, etc. Young adults like my grandson who have a degree, still live at home, and cannot afford the high premium! Yet, a family of four making over $97,000 can get a subsidy! We've never grossed that amount!
I repeat "Everytime the government does something it costs me money!"
Well the only thing we can do is pay with our taxes right? If the businesses cannot change, because the way the government is regulating them, because of how people think the businesses should be run; then we have to foot the bill. All the people are happy that we are footing their welfare and I cannot blame them because I, too, would want a wage to live on, and benefits. I could be and people themselves could also be a small business as well. If we cannot make enough money, we cannot afford insurance neither, nor a home, nor food, and a means to get to that job. So if that is the case, those businesses are not getting my money because I cannot afford those things (real estate lost a consumer, the restaurant lost a consumer, the car dealership lost a consumer, etc.) Of course government comes in because it is elected by the people and peoples' lives are worth saving, or should be worth saving, over a business.
It is doubtful that people still need to eat out because buying food and cooking is a lot cheaper and most people, low income, eat low income food. According to some, beans and rice. This is mostly bought.
One way or another that business is going out of business, either through boycott or by government regulation.
I do not see how it is productive to work multiple jobs just to keep businesses open. If they are not willing to pay a fair wage, there is no reason to work for them. You would be jeopardizing your own life. Not every business is ethical, so for every job you take or someone takes, that is ethical; there are tons of menial jobs that no one wants because you cannot survive off it. Businesses have to learn how to become ethical. And we both agree that we are seeing a ton of people who do not want to work because of it. Some cannot wrap their heads around why a first world country has third world businesses irregardless of what the government does.
@arvin
"I do not see how it is productive to work multiple jobs just to keep businesses open."
A person is working more than one or two jobs to sustain his/her life, not to keep businesses open. Lower paying jobs are usually (or used to be) first jobs for teenagers. With the economy we've had the young have lost out because those jobs have been taken by older people. This is why they are demanding the $15.00 min. wage. No fast food worker is worth that amount! Just because they need it due to their loss of their higher paying job does not justify killing a business with their demands. Or they force the business to automate. Guess what happens then? That employee instead of accepting the $10.50 and taking a second job is now unemployed again!
I read from you that the government (taxpayers) should support one and all...the heck with businesses who are unable to pay what you want. When the small business (less than 50) person fails or doesn't exist, who is left to pay into the gov. entitlement funds?
Do you realize how close you are to Karl Marx's theory of economics, "each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." All property and businesses are publicly owned. That scares the bajeebees out of me. All the blood spilled, the limbs lost through the decades to keep this country and it's peoples free from a tyrannical government.
Franklin's words seem to be lost, "A republic, if you can keep it."
But was that really how it was, lower paying jobs were for teenagers? Or was that something that businesses put out there just so they could use an excuse to not hire someone full time?
The reason they would be offering $15/hr. is because these are part time jobs. If the business is not offering a full time, with even a low wage (still better than a part time with a low wage); then there is a difference that has to be made up.
One cannot force a business to automate, it would gradually come to that. I highly doubt a business has emotion. If their profits are down, they will use automation to make up the difference. Still, I would hate to see my fellow citizen be used and abused for a low wage that is barely having him live.
The taxpayers, including the person who had been working and pays into it, should be entitled to whatever he can get. Remember, you are paying and so is he (unless the individual has never worked in his life.) If the small business fails, it probably will because there are things that make it unsuitable to work for. The wage is low, the business model is such that it cannot compete with bigger businesses.
Karl Marx's theory was "each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs"?
They will be publicly owned if the business does not stack up to what the majority wants. There is always regulation when a business decides to become rogue in ethics (or that is what it seems like.) If people are being paid low and businesses are allowed to get away with it, many people spot the problem. If the living conditions are so dire that the housing market and everything goes up, but the wage is low; no matter how many jobs you take, you will never be able to live. You are screwing yourself over at the expense of the business. The business is making a fortune off you, but I guess it is morality that keeps you thinking that you have to put yourself through that?
@arvin
You don't seem to be grasping the gist of the matter. I believe you are using emotion instead of logic due to your circumstances.
Understand, most people in this country are employed by small businesses, mom & pop, entrepreneurs, franchise owners, etc. These businesses simply don't have the cash flow to pay the wages you deem they should. You would rather a business shut down, go out of business, if they are unable to pay that "living" wage.
Most people who start at the low end don't stay there. If the business sees profits and the employee is an asset the wages rise. The employer needs that person and for the time being one is all he/she can afford to pay. The owner puts many hours into the business to keep it going. A rule of thumb when opening a new business, be prepared to not earn a paycheck for at least a year. The owner has to pay the employee (s) to keep the doors open.
You seem to believe all business owners are wealthy. You forget they have, rent, supplies, payroll to meet, etc. Read again about the businessman who had to drop the benefit plan he offered in order to not lay off any of his employees. I would call him ethical, wouldn't you?
I worked for a small business, total of 5 people. There were times I worked without being paid at the end of the week. I was an independent contractor and his business struggled to keep the doors open, but I knew eventually he would be paid for the product and I would get a hefty check. I knew he needed me along with the others in order to manufacture the product. I worked from home (outsourced). There was one time he had just received a big order, but he didn't know how he could fill it because all his capital would be going for the supplies with nothing left over to pay us. I loved the work, I was working from home (no expenses) so I made the offer for me to continue the build in order to fulfill the order and would wait for pmt. It was accomplished.
And yes to answer your question:"But was that really how it was, lower paying jobs were for teenagers?" Those fast food jobs were entry level jobs for teens. I worked at them. There also was a time when gas stations were NOT self service. You pulled up, the bell would ring and you got service, fill-up, windshield washed, oil check if you needed it. So many of the attendants were teens or men picking up a hourly part time job for whatever reason. The minimum wage demand was the cause and effect of those jobs disappearing. The jobs weren't worth more than the owner could pay and the part timer was willing to accept. A low paying part time job for extra or needed income is better than none at all. These jobs, which are in demand, were what the high schooler, the college student, or the person who was laid off needed to supplement unemployment benefits. Those jobs are few and far between.
Don't you see? The demand for higher wages ($15.00) for entry level fast food or any other entry level job will be the root cause of automation. Again these are owned/franchised by small business people.
We recently had a nice fast food chicken place open. When I went inside to order I noticed the owner had hired many young people. Most were in their teens or young college kids. The older aged manager seems to be on the premises constantly from what I hear. How many of those young people would retain their job if they suddenly decided to demand or the gov. demands they be paid much more than what they are getting? Many entry level kids have ended up in management followed by owning one of the franchises.
What I'm attempting to get you to understand is we have free enterprise in this country. I quote:"Free enterprise is a type of economy where products, prices, and services are determined by the market, not the government. It's capitalism, not communism. Things that are free are unconstrained, and a business is an enterprise. So, free enterprise refers to an economy where businesses are free from government control." If you don't like what you are being paid...move on. But, weigh the benefits of staying. Is there room for advancement, is the company on solid ground (still in business in the next year), etc. I've done just that...moved on. Or, if the economy is bad, look for that second part-time job. Done that also! Small businesses can fail due to gov. regulations and not due to the fault of the owner. There are times when you are correct in bringing ethics into the mix. If there is a large turnover, it's either due to a non-dependable employee, the place down the street is paying more, or the boss is a down right *******! Worked for one and walked out on him! But, this person had better wise up if he wants to stay in business.
If one man has 1 billion dollars and he gains 20% and hundred men have 50,000 and gain nothing... the overall economy has gained roughly 20% even though only 1 person has benefited. On the other hand, if those hundred men gain 20% but the billionaire gains nothing... the economy will seem stagnant yet more people have benefited. Macroeconomists will point to the overall growth of the economy as a misleading sign of health, yet if the vast majority of people gain nothing, the net result is meaningless. This is the problem with income inequality.
shareWell, I have to say that I am definitely doing better than someone who had a baby at age 19. But then again, I never was one to do that and I am not rich yet. It's not all about hard work neither. People in the South, especially, like to think they work hard and they do. The economy here is so bad that most jobs are borderline menial and probably unethical in terms of California regulations (yes, I use their standards to dictate how people should be treated). Still, here they are close to broke and they support the rich, instead of the socialists. Look what it got us. The people in our congress, if you are American, want to take away healthcare from the poor (which makes up almost 75% of the entire American population). You have jobs coming in that pay poverty wages. Everything is out of sync. In an ideal case, everyone should have the chance to move up right? Not when the rich keep it from happening. Lobbying here and keeping other classes in check, the most a middle class or poor can hope for is their savings and it probably will not pass $500,000 in their lifetimes.
share@arvin g borkar
I will preface this by stating I'm from the South and continue to live in the South. That aside, the same opportunities available to those in other parts of the country are available here. Statistics prove if marriages are intact after having children there is less poverty. Having more than one child and not being married will almost guarantee a need for assistance. If you are a woman quit having those babies, get educated while working at that menial job. When I was employed I worked with women who were holding down three jobs, no government (me, you) assistance. The problem with your way of thinking is you think the government has money...it does not. What it does have are taxpayers.
And, good grief! They are not trying to take away HEALTHCARE. Anyone can get healthcare in this country. It's the health INSURANCE they are attempting to rein in costs. BTW, since when did I become responsible for your health insurance? You are essentially saying we have the right to go knock on our neighbor's door, hand them a medical bill, and order them to pay it because we are entitled to it!
Explain to me please, how are we supporting the rich? And, how are the rich preventing us from bettering ourselves? The last time I checked we don't live in a communist country. Nothing or no one is stopping us from taking that first step.
Really? Because the jobs here are so low that I have had to freelance my way for the last four years and do jobs from businesses outside of my state. There is very little, to any, opportunity here.
I am not essentially saying that government has money, but it makes it easier when government has funds to help those in need from time to time.
Whatever way you put it, Healthcare needs to be what it is. People pay into it and the premiums should be lower, not higher nor privatized.
You pay taxes to live the way you do in this country. Once you pay it, it is the government's. We decide how the government should work with it. Sometimes the government does a nice thing or two and gives back to the needy, who never had a chance. There are limited opportunities and a surplus of people. Figure it out.
The middle class is supporting the rich and the poor. That is how it has always been. The middle class is struggling so much, it will soon be poor. The rich, politicians included and supported by the Conservatives, who are known for supporting the wealthy; are keeping the rest of the classes in check. The only way they become rich is by making the classes, underneath them, poor. They also feed you the B.S. that everyone has opportunity that is clearly not there.
This is not a communist country and your connotation of that term does not even come close. We would be more socialist, democratically. Since the U.S. is a republic, it falls under aristocracy. That is what we have now.
I would say that there are LIMITED opportunities for the surplus of people and it is getting harder. If you cannot see that, you may have to further educate or just get back to what you do. I see that and the poor and middle class do too.
@arvin g broker
"I am not essentially saying that government has money, but it makes it easier when government has funds to help those in need from time to time."
That's just it. The government entity has no funds. The funds are ours which we pay into the government for roads, bridges, schools, etc. etc. Those are the only things, the General Wefare things, each citizen expects to have for everyday life. We are not entitled to the other people's wallet, for childcare, for higher education, for health insurance, for any number of "wants".
We have become the entitlement society. We are fast becoming that socialist country where most will feel "Why worry? The "government" will pay for it." Why should we even strive to achieve success if the powers that be just rob from my pocket to put in someone else's pocket. No wonder people are demanding their health be taken care of by someone else. The obesity factor in this country has skyrocketed so along with it comes the many other ailments. It's not my fault people keep stuffing themselves and are unable to push them selves away from the table or drive past the fast food joints.
The rich didn't cause the crisis we are in now. It goes back to the demands of politicians. An employer has to provide all the "wants" of the employee. Did you ever think the reason for lower pay is due to the regulations put on employers? The employer has to keep his workforce under 50 if he/she wants to stay in business, or be able to show a profit for stockholders.
We had good retirement health insurance which we paid into monthly (plus medicare which was forced on the populace way back when, another sore subject for another day!). When Obamacare was shoved down our throats, our insurance premiums went from $1100 monthly to over $2000 monthly! We now had to pay for maternity, which if occurred would be another miracle birth, plus all the other "wants" which we would never use. Of course, we had to drop our retirement plan. We couldn't afford it, but hey, I'm paying for that one over there through subsidies! Due to Obamacare I no longer have drug coverage due to Medicare (sore point) cut backs on Part D (drug plans). I purchased a supplement to my blasted Medicare. But, we now get just a Wellness Check. No yearly physical! Heck, I could be eaten up with cancer, but that's OK because I would be one less Medicare would have to pay their piddly sum to. But, lets not forget Bob or Jane are getting what they need (which is subjective) via subsidies.
'That's just it. The government entity has no funds. The funds are ours which we pay into the government for roads, bridges, schools, etc. etc. Those are the only things, the General Wefare things, each citizen expects to have for everyday life. We are not entitled to the other people's wallet, for childcare, for higher education, for health insurance, for any number of "wants".'
The government has funds that WE PAY into it.
Why pay for roads, bridges, and schools (btw...universities are schools too)? What do you see when we start paying for these things? Let's say every road was a toll and the toll was based on the demand of the people using it. Would it be more or less expensive?
The whole point of why we pay into the government and why people want to expand the government to pay into these things is so it lowers what we each pay. Now of course there are people whom take advantage of it, but there are people who really need it. What happens if someone suffers a job loss and goes unemployed for a great period of time? They apply and apply and apply and there is nothing there? He tries to find ways to make money and it just is not there. He tries to run his own business off his savings (if he has any), but of course gets out competed by bigger businesses? Should he starve? Should he be homeless? I do not think so.
More or less, there are two ways a country can go. They can give back a bear minimum for every individual in the country to survive or we can really be anarchist and assume that only people who are top stay at the top. You even said it yourself. "Why should we even strive to achieve success if the powers that be just rob from my pocket to put in someone else's pocket. "
No country would succeed if they did that. Maybe in short spurts, but then came the 90s when everything went to crap. The ethics wore off. What you are playing into is the top 5%, who hold all the wealth, and you are being left behind (unless you are pretty well off). I still do not get why people think that "everyone for themselves" makes a great country.
I would not be able to say that because a country that takes care of its own, is a country worth living in. Countries that usually have a few people succeed, at the expense of others, are third world. The U.S. is definitely not first world. I would think we are going to decline to third world very soon. Half the states in this country are boonie-ish. We cannot even pay our own a decent wage. Why anyone would want to come here is beyond me. Maybe that's why places like California, New York, and Washington are heavily populated. No one wants to live in the South if they did not have to.
@arvin g bokar
"I would not be able to say that because a country that takes care of its own, is a country worth living in. Countries that usually have a few people succeed, at the expense of others, are third world."
Don't you see? It's not up to "a country" to take of the citizens. It's up to family, places of worship, even friends if they choose to do so. Why do you permit the government entity to take from you to give to others. I'm referring to all the "entitlements" given to individuals. I inquire again, do you go to your neighbor and demand the neighbor pay your bills? I would venture you would not. You prefer the government do the dirty deed.
I also inquire again do you think it's possible we lack more good paying jobs because of that government entity interjecting itself into everyone's life. The result is less employment opportunities with good pay. Another point to consider, the illegal population has increased greatly. They used to be migrants who worked the fields. Now they are the roofers, the plumbers, the painters, all things construction. They also are educated by us, have healthcare, as well as other needs paid by us. The crew who roofed our house could not speak English. Who do I blame? The government, for turning a blind eye and not enforcing immigration laws. The self-employed are unable to compete if they hire legal employees. Yes, we are definitely turning toward being a third world country. But, it's not the fault of the wealthy, the entrepreneurs, etc.
The funds the government demands from us to hand over so easily to others is unconscionable. The government mandates to employers to give employees more (wants) are unconscionable and killing jobs. The government should not "give back a bear [sic] minimum" taken from others.
We Americans as a whole have made our own way...not depended on the government. Again, I suggest reading about Jamestown. It was set up as a socialist society...it did not work. Capitalism is the best economic system where most can succeed if they have the drive.
So tell me how many churches it would take to feed, clothe, and home all of our poor? What do you say they could do? Because not all of them can get jobs.
No, the government is regulating business because businesses are not paying enough. Whatever the businesses do not pay, they are being taxed and that money is going to the employees or the people who need it. The government is redistributing wealth, as they should be or how the majority of the people want. Why doesn't the business just do that in the first place and not have the government down their butt?
Illegals are hard workers and they should become legal. They get paid crap because again, the businesses here pay them crap. They work the fields way better than any 'ol southerner did, back in the day. They are just generally more productive. Can you outshuck a Hispanic? I doubt it. They are fast builders too. In California, it takes these guys maybe a week tops to put down the foundation and roof the entire house, even the construction is done within a week. In Kentucky, Louisville's highway system is still being built and was under construction since 2014. SLOW!!! Some ethnic groups are just better at doing menial work and these guys do not even complain. It motivates me every day to see them work.
The employers should give more because that is what a first world country is. The businesses and these rich actually go to third world countries because they want to be stingy, not the government's fault. To live in the U.S., you need enough to live; and even these rich morons do not get it.
Capitalism may HAVE worked, but it leads to suffering of many people.
The poor will disagree with you and most of the middle class would too. Who are you left with? 5% of the rich who do not make up the majority.
Oh and businesses do not care if you are American or not, that is why FDR had to make the minimum wage. Whether you are Hispanic, American, illegal, or legal; they would still pay you minimum that they could get away with. They are deflecting that the government is letting illegals in and paying them low, to excuse themselves from being ethical. Regardless, it still should not matter. The only thing that would actually be affected is the minimum wage, which applies to all Americans; however, it goes to show you the lengths of what most of these businesses would go to. No minimum wage right? Because they are illegal? They are paid like illegals. That is how we would be paid if there was no minimum wage.
For jobs, without the government intervening, they would have no problem hiring more people because they would pay you less than minimum wage. So they would double the size of their team and pay you half. Remember, unions existed to combat 24 hour shifts of the working man and other unethical atrocities.
@arvin g borkar
I believe we've reached an impasse in our debate subject:Capitalism vs Socialism. You have proven my point when having an intense dialogue with someone, it can be done without anger and profanity (which is a pet peeve of mine). I thank you for your choice of words.
Have a good day/evening and may God Bless
"...and we enjoy life to the fullest ala The Wolf of Wall Street."
I was about to take your post seriously until this. Nice try, troll.
That was actually not a bad movie. The first time I saw it, I was like "The movie is everywhere!" The second time I saw some parts of it, I was like "It was not that bad." Mind you, I still had no idea WTF was going on.
shareRight, but I sincerely doubt, despite having not seen it, that the message of the movie was "rich people are happy and content and live life to the fullest". How do I know? Because a movie with that message wouldn't receive Oscar accolades, it would be shunned for extolling corporate greed. Film critics loooove movies that preach how the rich are secretly unhappy, miserable and pathetic, and those kinds of movies are usually Oscar bait material. So to bring it back to the OP, that's how I know he's a troll.
shareHonestly, I could not see how rich people would not be content though. I mean the financial worry is out of the way, unless debts is what keeps all of us working and in check. Maybe the struggle is better than the well off? Certainly, if one is not rich, they are enjoying life just trying to make enough to get by, day by day.
Hey, I would be happy if I was given enough money to live out the rest of my life. Then again, I could not say it would be something to be content about because at some point, I would want to know what it would be like to actually earn it.
"Honestly, I could not see how rich people would not be content though. I mean the financial worry is out of the way, unless debts is what keeps all of us working and in check."
If we're talking about the productive and innovative rich, they usually are, in a way, never content, in the sense that they're always looking for new venues of productivity that require innovation in order to be successful and profitable. Let's see, who's a big-time capitalist that hasn't been torn down yet by the media? Ah, look at Elon Musk. He founded SpaceX, co-founded Tesla, and was one of the founders of what would become PayPal, among other business ventures. He's worth $14 billion, yet he's always working on multiple big projects, large-scale endeavors meant to change human life.
I'm not saying all rich people are like this by any means, certainly there are plenty of idle rich who no doubt lead pathetic lives (because how can your life not be pathetic if you lack purpose?), I'm just saying that Hollywood doesn't like stories about an Elon Musk type unless they get to show the subject as miserable and pathetic like they did with Steve Jobs. (Yes, I know Jobs was often a real mean S.O.B. behind the scenes, and depicting that is unavoidable in a biopic about him, but the movie seemed to only care about what a jerk Jobs was and not at all about his innovative and productive genius.)