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

[RandyForRubio]

We need government. We need regulations. Without them people abuse the system, that's proven. Unfortunately, the government abuses the power it has as well. I don't think simply adding more regulations/money for the government is going to solve more problems than it creates. We have to remember we're dealing with people here, and well, people are always going to screw something up.

What I've often seen with the govt is that it's people who have no clue what they're impacting or talking about that are making laws concerning many things. Why should I trust them to fix it? We need a complete overhaul on many things, but I think the idea that just adding more regulations or laws is a pretty poor one. Very idealistic.

 

[Harambe]

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.

Darn tootin.

 

[Harambe]

What I've often seen with the govt is that it's people who have no clue what they're impacting or talking about that are making laws concerning many things. Why should I trust them to fix it? We need a complete overhaul on many things, but I think the idea that just adding more regulations or laws is a pretty poor one. Very idealistic.

Thank you. This is fair.

Do you mean "more regulations or laws" in general, or "more regulations or laws from people that don't know where franklin starts and PKM ends"?

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

LOLOL, this is a very selective measure on how to appraise the health of a nation-- care to elaborate as to why you chose this to be your criteria? Why not choose life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates (whether acute, chronic, etc.)?

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?

The US/Big Pharmaceutical engine that spends most pharmaceutical dollars re-developing drugs that already exist so they can cash in on the latest treatable 'disease' (that might not even exist for that matter)-- or providing 'cutting-edge' treatment that ends up bankrupting 30% of the amount of people who file for bankruptcy on an annual basis. Gosh, I haven't the slightest clue as to how any of this could be a bad thing.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I admit my views are biased by my successes within the status quo. For me it works well.
I will also admit that although I am fairly confident on my positions, I am also lazy toward the topic and not as passionate about it all as I once was.

My apologies if that has resulted in somewhat reckless statements and, similar to NAOS said, I just don't feel like writing a book to explain it all in the detail required for someone to truly understand my points of view.

 

[Jamezz]

I admit my views are biased by my successes within the status quo. For me it works well.
I will also admit that although I am fairly confident on my positions, I am also lazy toward the topic and not as passionate about it all as I once was.

My apologies if that has resulted in somewhat reckless statements and, similar to NAOS said, I just don't feel like writing a book to explain it all in the detail required for someone to truly understand my points of view.

*yawns

 

[Dr. Jones]

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.

Actually, you're right. We aren't agreeing to anything at all. In order to have any real debate I would have to read what you wrote. Perhaps not fair as this is a different thread than the others, but I have learned your only contributions have been to say stupid things with a sharp slant to the demeaning.

I liked it better when you were PM'ing me whining about how I make your experience on the board almost unbearable because others pile on you when I do. Lulz..
As if it's me being persuasive rather than your tired dick schtik that people tire of.

You've maybe been better in this thread, but benefit of the doubt is denied.

 

[NAOS]

Actually, you're right. We aren't agreeing to anything at all. In order to have any real debate I would have to read what you wrote. Perhaps not fair as this is a different thread than the others, but I have learned your only contributions have been to say stupid things with a sharp slant to the demeaning.

I liked it better when you were PM'ing me whining about how I make your experience on the board almost unbearable because others pile on you when I do. Lulz..
As if it's me being persuasive rather than your tired dick schtik that people tire of.

You've maybe been better in this thread, but benefit of the doubt is denied.

^what a ****ing bitch^

 

[Harambe]

^what a ****ing bitch^

Troutbum takes a break...

Jazzfanz.com subs in Dr. Jones!

 

[franklin]

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.

I agree, and saying blind side was inaccurate and lazy on my part. Getting to the meat of things, I want the economic argument to center on trade-offs that work for both parties. If we're going to spend the money then let's make it easy and effective. We're too stupid to make the easy choices that give everyone what they want.

LOLOL, this is a very selective measure on how to appraise the health of a nation-- care to elaborate as to why you chose this to be your criteria? Why not choose life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates (whether acute, chronic, etc.)?

Sure. Infant mortality rates are highly culturallylinked. The US gets a bump from our Latin immigrants and a drag from our African descendants.
Disease rates are linked to culture and climate. Americans are fat and lazy but we don't have much of a harmful climate. Neither does Europe for that matter. Life expectancy is also culturally linked.

The US/Big Pharmaceutical engine that spends most pharmaceutical dollars re-developing drugs that already exist so they can cash in on the latest treatable 'disease' (that might not even exist for that matter)-- or providing 'cutting-edge' treatment that ends up bankrupting 30% of the amount of people who file for bankruptcy on an annual basis. Gosh, I haven't the slightest clue as to how any of this could be a bad thing.

Plucking on heart strings while avoiding the economic issues of drug development. We bitch and moan in this country about the skyrocketing cost of healthcare but you'll be hard pressed to find many who are grateful that they'll live comfortable lives in old age because of it, or who appreciate the economic growth the health industry has provided and thus fuels welfare programs, retirement payments, etc. In fact, US liberals are so damn stupid that they've tried to curtail the growth of the health industry, the fastest growing sector of the US for a decade plus.

 

[franklin]

You've maybe been better in this thread, but benefit of the doubt is denied.

I used to feel the same way about One Brow, NAOS, Sir Kicky, Cy, and GVC.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Sure. Infant mortality rates are highly culturallylinked. The US gets a bump from our Latin immigrants and a drag from our African descendants.

Umm, what? Infant Mortality rates between White non-Hispanic & Hispanic Americans are approximately equal. So you're wrong there (which makes sense as to why, again, there hasn't been any justification behind your claims)

Now I'm curious as to what precisely in Black culture is causing parents to have children with higher infant mortality? You keep chalking things up to 'culture', which is incredibly vague.

Disease rates are linked to culture and climate. Americans are fat and lazy but we don't have much of a harmful climate. Neither does Europe for that matter. Life expectancy is also culturally linked.

Nothing intrinsic to American biology makes them lazy. Lazy people exist all over the world in equal proportions. However, lazy behaviour is exploited in different ways from nation to nation, depending on environments, societies, government, and culture. Life expectancy is culturally-linked, of course-- but it is NOT culturally explained, which your post is implying. America ranks among last in almost any meaningful nation-wide health measure (among developed nations), and to chalk it up to 'culture' is incredibly narrow-minded, and solves zero solutions of a rather big problem. But sure, keep on keepin on brother.

Plucking on heart strings while avoiding the economic issues of drug development.

More like pointing out basic facts.

We bitch and moan in this country about the skyrocketing cost of healthcare but you'll be hard pressed to find many who are grateful that they'll live comfortable lives in old age because of it, or who appreciate the economic growth the health industry has provided and thus fuels welfare programs, retirement payments, etc.

America bitches and moans about healthcare because they spend more money on it than any other nation in the world, yet they're the only developed nation in the world who doesn't have free health-care for all citizens. I'd be bitching and moaning front and centre.

In fact, US liberals are so damn stupid that they've tried to curtail the growth of the health industry, the fastest growing sector of the US for a decade plus.

Who gives a **** about the growth of an industry if a minority is reaping the rewards while the majority is left in the dust?

 

[franklin]

Umm, what? Infant Mortality rates between White non-Hispanic & Hispanic Americans are approximately equal. So you're wrong there (which makes sense as to why, again, there hasn't been any justification behind your claims)

Now I'm curious as to what precisely in Black culture is causing parents to have children with higher infant mortality? You keep chalking things up to 'culture', which is incredibly vague.



Nothing intrinsic to American biology makes them lazy. Lazy people exist all over the world in equal proportions. However, lazy behaviour is exploited in different ways from nation to nation, depending on environments, societies, government, and culture. Life expectancy is culturally-linked, of course-- but it is NOT culturally explained, which your post is implying. America ranks among last in almost any meaningful nation-wide health measure (among developed nations), and to chalk it up to 'culture' is incredibly narrow-minded, and solves zero solutions of a rather big problem. But sure, keep on keepin on brother.









More like pointing out basic facts.



America bitches and moans about healthcare because they spend more money on it than any other nation in the world, yet they're the only developed nation in the world who doesn't have free health-care for all citizens. I'd be bitching and moaning front and centre.



Who gives a **** about the growth of an industry if a minority is reaping the rewards while the majority is left in the dust?

Garbage.

Your hard on for me is amusing. Do more research and get back at me when you've lost your boner.

 

[VINYLONE]

More qualified applicants will apply for the jobs and the current type of employee that works there now, instead of having a $40k job, will be out of a job.

Why would the employer fire employees only to have to train new ones? Makes no sense.

 

[VINYLONE]

Yep. I think this guy in the video views it this way as well. He cited a study that said around $70,000 a year alleviates a lot of the other stresses of life. He must see it in a light of better paid employees are better motivated.

It's the concept of "self interest rightly understood." A concept heralded by Alexis du Tocqueville. As an individual who believes 100% in capitalism, it's this concept that allows me to mitigate the greed of man.

For those interested in reading more about this:

https://www.brtom.org/sjc/sjc4.html

 

[Dr. Jones]

@Dalamon

In answer to your question in your rep, yes.

I'm sure I could make it just fine on $150,000 per year and be happy. However, there is a difference between finding happiness and finding peace in financial security, knowing your kids will get an education without the burden of student loans, finding a joy in having the ability to help others in their pursuits.

It's funny, as I was first making a lot of money, I loaded up on luxury cars, Rolex watches by the dozens, and a closet full of the best of everything. Now I drive a truck, only wear my wedding ring, and wear shorts and t-shirts. And I don't really need anything at all. A fairly simple life and nothing to prove.

So I don't need more money to be happy, but I would probably have a little less joy if I couldn't help make other's lives a little more promising.

 

[VINYLONE]

@Dalamon

In answer to your question in your rep, yes.

I'm sure I could make it just fine on $150,000 per year and be happy. However, there is a difference between finding happiness and finding peace in financial security, knowing your kids will get an education without the burden of student loans, finding a joy in having the ability to help others in their pursuits.

It's funny, as I was first making a lot of money, I loaded up on luxury cars, Rolex watches by the dozens, and a closet full of the best of everything. Now I drive a truck, only wear my wedding ring, and wear shorts and t-shirts. And I don't really need anything at all. A fairly simple life and nothing to prove.

So I don't need more money to be happy, but I would probably have a little less joy if I couldn't help make other's lives a little more promising.

Great answer, sir.

 

[Deleted member 848]

@Dalamon

In answer to your question in your rep, yes.

I'm sure I could make it just fine on $150,000 per year and be happy. However, there is a difference between finding happiness and finding peace in financial security, knowing your kids will get an education without the burden of student loans, finding a joy in having the ability to help others in their pursuits.

I forget how expensive school is down there. Here if a parent makes that much they can pay for their kids' school with ease.

I do understand the helping others thing too. And I feel it. I feel similarly-- I may not be able to do it financially over the course of my life, but ill try to do it somehow.

It's funny, as I was first making a lot of money, I loaded up on luxury cars, Rolex watches by the dozens, and a closet full of the best of everything. Now I drive a truck, only wear my wedding ring, and wear shorts and t-shirts. And I don't really need anything at all. A fairly simple life and nothing to prove.

Ya I still like cars and clothing. Still gotta complete my metamorphosis.

So I don't need more money to be happy, but I would probably have a little less joy if I couldn't help make other's lives a little more promising.[/QUOTE]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harambe]

@Dalamon

In answer to your question in your rep, yes.

I'm sure I could make it just fine on $150,000 per year and be happy. However, there is a difference between finding happiness and finding peace in financial security, knowing your kids will get an education without the burden of student loans, finding a joy in having the ability to help others in their pursuits.

It's funny, as I was first making a lot of money, I loaded up on luxury cars, Rolex watches by the dozens, and a closet full of the best of everything. Now I drive a truck, only wear my wedding ring, and wear shorts and t-shirts. And I don't really need anything at all. A fairly simple life and nothing to prove.

So I don't need more money to be happy, but I would probably have a little less joy if I couldn't help make other's lives a little more promising.

If only there was a working social model provided by a society that could provide this for every child, not just the children of those who've made it. After all, why should a child have to pay for their parents mistakes?

Perhaps we'd need a robust organizational system that has the tools to make this available....

 

[Dr. Jones]

Lol