CEO raises minimum wage to $70000, takes $70000 wage himself until profits are met.

[Deleted member 848]

CEO raises minimum wage to $70000, takes $70000 wage himself until profits ar...

Did you recently enroll in a debate course? You've become a complete joke and not worth talking with. You don't realize how childish you sound. Act a little more know-it-all mmmmkay. Someday you'll grow up and learn to have dialogue again.

No, but I know a de-rail when I see one.

Feel free to respond to these posts when you grow up and/or figure out how to respond to them. Clearly you seem to be befuddled at this point in time

Me and Peeks seem to be doing just fine, despite us being polar opposites on this spectrum.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I've had one. I've had one non stop since I was 14. And I think I agree with most of what Dalamon is saying.

But I think we need to address the "larger government could solve" situation. Being an ambiguous statement in general, I think it's safe to say that most of the immediate hate will be from Propaganda and half truths that we in the US(and many other countries like us) have instilled in us. Buzz words socialism and communism were just as bad for older generations as Terrorism is today.

But forget all that... check it at the door. Lets move on to the meat and potatoes. Let's prove that big government always fails it's people. Example; The United States. We give our government up to 30% of every dollar earned(more if you are the sole proprietor of a business) to do what? Foul up everything from social security, to medicaid, to our national defense(how many people were killed during training in a war we were deceived into?), and all the way up to paying a group of people to make laws that can't manage to make the right, healthy choice for America because someone in their party might lose their seat.

Using the US as a guide, Big Government is an utter failure.

But are we the only big government out there?

As soon as you point out examples of other big governments succeeding, all you get is either a) your measure of success is bogus! And b) they aren't the U.S. so the comparison is USELESS!! (On grounds of population, culture, whatever).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 848]

Yep, ideas are great until they end up ****ing you.

Well I wouldn't even be in college right now if it weren't for 'big government' so I'm not sure how these ideas are "****ing me".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RandyForRubio]

You don't know a ****ing thing about me, nor do you know how much perspective I have. Quit making assumptions on someone you literally do not know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lulz. I wasn't even talking about you specifically. It was a generalization on those in academia. But I do know a thing or two about you.

I suppose I shouldn't point out the irony of you making assumptions of a country you've been to 3 times in your life though, right?

 

[Deleted member 848]

I've had one. I've had one non stop since I was 14. And I think I agree with most of what Dalamon is saying.

But I think we need to address the "larger government could solve" situation. Being an ambiguous statement in general, I think it's safe to say that most of the immediate hate will be from Propaganda and half truths that we in the US(and many other countries like us) have instilled in us. Buzz words socialism and communism were just as bad for older generations as Terrorism is today.

But forget all that... check it at the door. Lets move on to the meat and potatoes. Let's prove that big government always fails it's people. Example; The United States. We give our government up to 30% of every dollar earned(more if you are the sole proprietor of a business) to do what? Foul up everything from social security, to medicaid, to our national defense(how many people were killed during training in a war we were deceived into?), and all the way up to paying a group of people to make laws that can't manage to make the right, healthy choice for America because someone in their party might lose their seat.

Using the US as a guide, Big Government is an utter failure.

But are we the only big government out there?

It's awesome when you play the exercise of "who in the world pays the most on health-care?" vs. "Which countries give their citizens free health care?".

No nation on this planet does big government worse than the states-- maybe non-free countries like North Korea & China?

 

[NAOS]

We can agree to disagree.

I'm not sure we can... because I have higher standards for what a real disagreement is. I hear you promoting what is essentially a magic, one-size-fits-all fix: smaller, localized governing bodies. It's as if they have a functional adaptability that will tailor itself to the given situation. It's almost like some nostalgic throwback to a tribal politics: if only we'd be left alone on our land, then we'd reach some sort of homeostatic balance with it. It's romantic rubbish.

We'd be having a more productive disagreement if we were addressing the same phenomena with our analyses. That's why I offered up states' environmental record. And, by the way, that's not some outlying issue: I'm saying that states are incredibly poor judges of the true cost of production; it's a condemnation of the way that states have conducted business, through and through.

That point is clear enough throughout US History, but it's just screamingly clear in any place west of Chicago after the civil war. There was a tidal wave of US-backed capital which extracted from the west pretty much at the fastest rate possible (a rate that was set more by the technology for extracting things than it was by any regulatory do-gooding). Bundy fits into this history sooo easily. He's the offspring of a genealogy which was corrupted by a cattle industry bent on over-grazing the land out west after the central plains were closed in by fences and industrial-agriculture. They wanted free grazing on publicly held land and where they ran into problems they bitched about federalism and demanded local representation (which they were busy taking over by other means). The people who had controlling interests in the huge cattle industry were also invested in mining, etc. They were literally in the business of extracting; cattle were just one way they were sapping the west of its resources.

Anyway, it's a low standard for "disagreement" you're setting.

 

[NAOS]

wtf is Howard? Rather, who was he? tia

 

[RandyForRubio]

wtf is Howard? Rather, who was he? tia

Hi! I'm Howard!

 

[franklin]

You're off on the wrong foot with regulations if you're measuring quantitatively. I think you probably know that and are just being 'cute'. Regulations will be judged by history according qualitative criteria: were they the right ones? were unnecessary/cloudy ones removed, or had they become ossified in a legal process which was out of touch?

The rest of your argument is too easy and isn't supported by the facts on the ground. It's too easy to rally against big government and federalism, pointing to them as if they are the problem. It's more complex. For example, in US history, the states have terrible environmental records. Literally 100% of them have proven that they will sell out the environment for short-term profit/development (and that probably because state politics are easier to infiltrate with the capitalist bulls that want to relax certain regulations and help prevent regulatory bodies from forming). Believing in states like you do feeds directly into the ******** that Bundy spouts, which why you got sucked in..... which reminds me, I'm still laughing my asss off about that!

I think more localized governments is a good idea on paper. I wish it were closer to reality, but, generally speaking, local governments are even more corrupted and corruptible than larger bodies.

You've popped the easy hole in Dr.'s side of the coin. Your blind side is a failure to recognize cumbersome over-regulation that's rained down upon us by big government. I'm no fan of the state controlling certain things (your land development point is a huge pet peeve of mine) but there definitely needs to be some moderation the other way as well. I enforce EPA regulations and can go on all day long about how bat **** crazy many of our bureaucratic regulations have become. We need balance.

 

[Jamezz]

You've popped the easy hole in Dr.'s side of the coin. Your blind side is a failure to recognize cumbersome over-regulation that's rained down upon us by big government. I'm no fan of the state controlling certain things (your land development point is a huge pet peeve of mine) but there definitely needs to be some moderation the other way as well. I enforce EPA regulations and can go on all day long about how bat **** crazy many of our bureaucratic regulations have become. We need balance.

I agree, there needs to be some degree of govt, otherwise it would be anarchy, but the least amount of govt possible would be nice, avoid unnecessary bureaucratic processes that make our life miserable some days.

 

[b_line]

Statements like these are so blah-- instead of addressing what I said being wrong, you bring attention to who I am as a person.

If the fact that I go to college renders me as unable to coherently share any ideas, then so be it. Otherwise, work with what I'm saying & try to rebuttle, instead of joining in that group-think "welllllll UR just A AKADEMIK! Fact-checker!" Nonsense that really helps zero ppl in the long run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem here is not that people are not having a conversation with you, it's that you are having a different conversation than they are. That's the problem with a forum like this. People respond on their phones, or want to have a casual conversation, and then the guy who is doing research responds from his laptop while taking a break from reading papers about the state of the american healthcare system.

Its not that you are more intelligent or more well versed than others on any type of subject (granted, you seem to be a well read young man), but the conversations you get into on this forum are one sided because you are engaging in an academic manner with non academic types. The way western academia is set up is inherently argumentative, and that's the way your posts come off. You are using the persuasive writing type that so many college students have been taught will get them far in life. The trouble is that normal conversations in the real world don't happen the same way that academic conversations do.

You can say this is a lazy excuse, or that its beside the point, and give more reasons to refute others points about regulation, but the point is that people who have been in their fields for a few years have very different critical thinking and communication skills than a kid who has been reading and writing academic papers. And that is why I say the conversations are different.

 

[Jamezz]

The problem here is not that people are not having a conversation with you, it's that you are having a different conversation than they are. That's the problem with a forum like this. People respond on their phones, or want to have a casual conversation, and then the guy who is doing research responds from his laptop while taking a break from reading papers about the state of the american healthcare system.

Its not that you are more intelligent or more well versed than others on any type of subject (granted, you seem to be a well read young man), but the conversations you get into on this forum are one sided because you are engaging in an academic manner with non academic types. The way western academia is set up is inherently argumentative, and that's the way your posts come off. You are using the persuasive writing type that so many college students have been taught will get them far in life. The trouble is that normal conversations in the real world don't happen the same way that academic conversations do.

You can say this is a lazy excuse, or that its beside the point, and give more reasons to refute others points about regulation, but the point is that people who have been in their fields for a few years have very different critical thinking and communication skills than a kid who has been reading and writing academic papers. And that is why I say the conversations are different.

Reminds me of the work I get told to do sometimes from the engineer and I have to literally re-do his schemes because he/she is clueless about how the system actually works, so I decide to jump over them and work straight with the customer.

#SelfTaught

 

[franklin]

No, but I know a de-rail when I see one.

Feel free to respond to these posts when you grow up and/or figure out how to respond to them. Clearly you seem to be befuddled at this point in time

Me and Peeks seem to be doing just fine, despite us being polar opposites on this spectrum.

I agree you are civil and rational with PKM.

I've had one. I've had one non stop since I was 14. And I think I agree with most of what Dalamon is saying.

But I think we need to address the "larger government could solve" situation. Being an ambiguous statement in general, I think it's safe to say that most of the immediate hate will be from Propaganda and half truths that we in the US(and many other countries like us) have instilled in us. Buzz words socialism and communism were just as bad for older generations as Terrorism is today.

But forget all that... check it at the door. Lets move on to the meat and potatoes. Let's prove that big government always fails it's people. Example; The United States. We give our government up to 30% of every dollar earned(more if you are the sole proprietor of a business) to do what? Foul up everything from social security, to medicaid, to our national defense(how many people were killed during training in a war we were deceived into?), and all the way up to paying a group of people to make laws that can't manage to make the right, healthy choice for America because someone in their party might lose their seat.

Using the US as a guide, Big Government is an utter failure.

But are we the only big government out there?

You're a farmer. You should realize the economic benefit of all these profligate programs. Waste isn't always wasteful. It's fun to bitch about the downside but it's not in our nature to praise the unseen upsides. I'm the same way, but dammit what a waste of time it is complaining about stuff that benefits me in one way or another.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Roach is a farmer?

 

[franklin]

No, but I know a de-rail when I see one.

Feel free to respond to these posts when you grow up and/or figure out how to respond to them. Clearly you seem to be befuddled at this point in time

Me and Peeks seem to be doing just fine, despite us being polar opposites on this spectrum.

It's awesome when you play the exercise of "who in the world pays the most on health-care?" vs. "Which countries give their citizens free health care?".

No nation on this planet does big government worse than the states-- maybe non-free countries like North Korea & China?

Show me a non-biased study that doesn't have a built in 'US penalty' for not having socialized medicine (even though effectively do and have for decades). Preferably one, unbiased, that shows our health care system isn't elite at keeping people alive.

"who in the world pays the most on health-care?"

Another example of academia failing to recognize the positive effects of the US economic engine pulling the world up by their bootstraps. We subsidize world healthcare and drug research with our relatively high drug costs. Can you explain to me how this is a bad thing that needs to be eliminated in the name of fairness and equality?

 

[franklin]

Roach is a farmer?

He sucks milk out of cow **** and ****s Florida shaped chocolates for a living. Elf doesn't even need a milking stool to stool.

 

[Jamezz]

Roach is a farmer?

He doesn't have to be lonely though...

 

[NAOS]

You've popped the easy hole in Dr.'s side of the coin. Your blind side is a failure to recognize cumbersome over-regulation that's rained down upon us by big government. I'm no fan of the state controlling certain things (your land development point is a huge pet peeve of mine) but there definitely needs to be some moderation the other way as well. I enforce EPA regulations and can go on all day long about how bat **** crazy many of our bureaucratic regulations have become. We need balance.

I would never disagree with any of this. I had hoped that my points strongly implied that what you've wrote here is entirely consistent with my position.

One runs into problems any time he/she tries to justify regulations on strictly economic terms... because that is the language of business, and thus calls forth all the tendencies toward mass-production and accumulation which the business community embodies. But non-economic arguments for regulation are met with a deaf ear (look at what has happened to Aboriginal Australian land in our lifetimes): they're either seen as wildly "liberal" (in a complete blasphemy of the term) or written of as mere noise (again, look at Australian politics). So, we're forced to use economic terms.

Usually when I seem imbalanced in these conversations it's because I've weakly dismissed the noneconomic terms in order to just get to the calculations with the neoliberals (PKM, for example). The imbalance you've pointed out here is just due to a lack of verbiage from me at this point... it isn't really there.

Good to see you, btw.

 

[Jamezz]

He sucks milk out of cow **** and ****s Florida shaped chocolates for a living. Elf doesn't even need a milking stool to stool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAi1005K71g

 

[Harambe]

He sucks milk out of cow **** and ****s Florida shaped chocolates for a living. Elf doesn't even need a milking stool to stool.

It's true. I suck milk out of franklin's mom and get paid to have intercourse with Florida shaped chocolates.

I've been doing it so long the stool has become part of me.