12-12-2014 08:04 AM
350 ... 11121314
tools
  1. A895's Avatar
    Not to the massive scale his suggestion would entail. He's talking about outright banning products for all the big companies who are tax sheltering off shore, of which there are tons doing so
    Not banning, but they can't sell those products directly in the U.S. so they can't make a profit off of people here. If anything the money goes to a third party retailer and not the company itself.
    palandri likes this.
    09-02-2014 08:28 PM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I know a bunch of people that "shot bolts" for 40+ years. After the industry spits them out via retirement, they're lucky if they can still walk out on their own without the need for any medical procedure. If you told any of these people to their face that they shouldn't expect anything and/or that they're overpaid, you'd be lucky if you didn't need medical attention shortly thereafter.

    Let me ask you and Mooncatt a question, are professional athletes overpaid? If you answer yes, then your previous stance is a load of bull. Because they are being paid for their MARKET VALUE. While I don't compare them to some Tom, ****, and Harry out on the job market, it's a good example of how those in power (owners) will manipulate wages. Despite the fact that their respective leagues make BILLIONS of dollars, they put in place a salary cap. The players know how much they're worth because their counterparts have their salaries made available and their performance is easily tracked. Because of all this, it's easier for a player to command good salaries. In order to combat that form of "Free capitalism", the owners have put in a cap to prevent these players from making the money that their demand has generated. So, if you are all for lower wages in the name of "Capitalism" then you should also be against salary caps. Although I'm willing to bet that you, like a lot of people believe that professional athletes are overpaid.
    There is an entire generation of people that has made careers out of skill less labor because that labor was not considered skill less when they started. It had a much higher value. Now that is no longer the case.

    We will have to phase out the current generation of workers as automation takes over. The newer generations will be forced to become more skillful/knowledgeable or have no financial future. We must instill the value of education and training into our children so that they are competing for more valuable jobs then we have as options ourselves.

    And sports stars pay what their employers pay them. I don't pay them, so I don't care too much. Do I think they deserve their pay? Probably not, but the market disagrees with me.
    09-02-2014 08:29 PM
  3. A895's Avatar
    Just pointing out that someone to pay for all this environmental regulation. 99 times out of a hundred it is the little guy that is burdened. There is a balance to be struck, but I have never heard an environmental proponent say anything about balance...
    Who is the little guy exactly, that definition keeps changing a lot around here. Is it the lower class? Or the low-middle? Or is the upper-middle? Or is it just the middle? In any of those cases, I bet money none of those people would mind pocket change coming out their weekly/biweekly/monthly checks going to keeping the air clean so their kids don't have to be part of the plot of Wall-E (planet is trashed so bad, people live in space for hundreds of years).
    09-02-2014 08:32 PM
  4. A895's Avatar
    There is an entire generation of people that has made careers out of skill less labor because that labor was not considered skill less when they started. It had a much higher value. Now that is no longer the case.

    We will have to phase out the current generation of workers as automation takes over. The newer generations will be forced to become more skillful/knowledgeable or have no financial future. We must instill the value of education and training into our children so that they are competing for more valuable jobs then we have as options ourselves.

    And sports stars pay what their employers pay them. I don't pay them, so I don't care too much. Do I think they deserve their pay? Probably not, but the market disagrees with me.
    One thing I always hated about entertainment is that they are grossly overpaid. I can see business men and women, but actors? Hell no shoudl they paid 5+ million to be cast in a movie. That is obscene. I mean I love some actors and that is only because they don't act like the world is beneath them. I bet a farm that the money entertainers/producers/directors in music, movies and tv were halved for the past 2 years alone, we could probably raise minimum wage at least 25 cents or more. Iron Man 3 made over a billion dollars last year and is the highest grossing movie of the past year or so. I am ranting, sorry.

    /rant
    09-02-2014 08:37 PM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    Not to the massive scale his suggestion would entail. He's talking about outright banning products for all the big companies who are tax sheltering off shore, of which there are tons doing so
    I'm talking about Customs screening certain products.
    09-02-2014 09:28 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    Here's my new suggestion. We increase the territories of the US of A to include all land, air, sea and space within a 2AU radius of the Sun, at any given point in time. All citizens of and corporations within that new expanded country are subject to US laws, taxes, freedoms, etc. Commence simplification of tax codes.
    A895 likes this.
    09-02-2014 09:31 PM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    We will have to phase out the current generation of workers as automation takes over. The newer generations will be forced to become more skillful/knowledgeable or have no financial future. We must instill the value of education and training into our children so that they are competing for more valuable jobs then we have as options ourselves.
    Training tends to happen OJT. Education in the U.S. is for the most part a farce when it comes to teaching the workforce marketable skills. I have a science degree, a few semiconductor certifications, and some training certificates under my belt. None of those items even apply to my current field. What's funny is in my field you always see someone come along that claims to have all applicable certificates to my trade and then when you ask them to do something as simple as add a computer to a domain, they just give you a blank stare.
    09-02-2014 10:00 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Sure, lets loosen regulation because the trucking industry has such a spotless record of safety violations...lets see in my city alone in the past year, we've had several truck driving crashes where either the driver was asleep (driving more hours than they're supposed to, forging logs, etc), they've had blow outs (sure I guess they're keeping up with their maintenance), or just flat out negligence, but sure lets make it easier for the truck driver to do business without regard for ANYONE else's safety or well being. This is typical of the red koolaid drinkers' mentality, "To hell with everyone else, just let me get rich at the cost of everyone else's safety). You'll get no sympathy from me on your regulations, in fact, I think you need more and they need to be better enforced.
    There are some bad apples in every industry, but let's put this into perspective. When you look at who's causing accidents between cars and trucks, the car driver is the one at fault 75-80% of the time, depending on which study you look at. Also of note is truck involved wrecks are their lowest point in history. Not just as a ratio of miles driven, but the raw numbers. Yet we'll never hear calls for more car driver regulations, even though they are the ones causing the vast majority of accidents. Maybe a regulation for standard transmission cars that they can't shift while crossing a railroad track would help?

    That isn't drinking MSM Koolaid. That's paying attention to what's actually happening in industry news.

    Is that a fact or is this just the old government is at fault line?

    You sound like you are just nitpicking, lol

    The thing is debt is what keeps our country moving. The government had the best credit rating for a while until the recession hit. But even still we mange to pay people and run our country, it is the natter of how much debt is acceptable to have and that is what the issue is.

    For me personally I will have debt when I graduate college because of student loams, but as far as credit debt and other debts? I have none, no credit card for me. But I am different like that.

    It is a fact that most startups fail within the first three years. When you look at how existing businesses only have to modify to comply with new regulations and startups have to immediately comply with all of them, it only stands to reason that increased government regulation is a contributor to their failure (not to mention the ones that never even started due to that) .

    It's not nitpicking. You said you think we're one of the most business friendly countries and I just pointed out one thorough example of just how systemic our problems are with a segment I know. Would you prefer I roll out my Fair Tax arguments to point out the punishing nature of our tax code too? It's not as if the rest of government will be much better when I point out major issues with just a couple agencies.

    In terms of credit, some people can use it without much harm, like paying off the balance each month. Most people using credit can't. What's different about our government is that they can arbitrarily increase their own debt limit. That would be like one of us calling a credit card company and telling them we decided to up our limit a few thousand, but with nothing to show for it. In fact, this video explains it perfectly.



    If I were rating our country's credit, it would have been going down long ago. Spending more than you take in as part of a normal course of business is a sure fire way to go bankrupt.

    I do applaud you on not having credit cards yourself.

    Sounds like you just have beef with the EPA.
    As I said earlier, that was just one example. I could point out problems with our hours of service requirements, "safety" technology, mandated electronic logging proposals, etc. Take your pick if you really feel the need for more discussion on this.

    So what you're saying is to hell with our environment because it's costing you money? Exactly why I have no sympathy for the imposed regulations of big business.
    I've got a truck that belches out a smelly white smoke screen for a half mile at the start of every day that would say these new regulations aren't really saving the environment much. There's countless other trucks with other problems that would say the same. You basically have a 50/50 shot right now buying a new rig and not have it nearly put you out of business due to down time. There's also the waste from replacing part after part after part.

    But judging by your post, where would you draw the line? Would you be ok if trucking companies all had to loose $300k/yr on every truck like that one guy? I'm all for protecting the environment. What I'm not for is government forcing early adoption mandates of unproven technology that is causing everyone problems. Even if it's covered under warranty, someone has to pay for the parts and labor, and the driver is still out his normal wages.
    09-02-2014 10:58 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Let me ask you and Mooncatt a question, are professional athletes overpaid? If you answer yes, then your previous stance is a load of bull. Because they are being paid for their MARKET VALUE. While I don't compare them to some Tom, ****, and Harry out on the job market, it's a good example of how those in power (owners) will manipulate wages. Despite the fact that their respective leagues make BILLIONS of dollars, they put in place a salary cap. The players know how much they're worth because their counterparts have their salaries made available and their performance is easily tracked. Because of all this, it's easier for a player to command good salaries. In order to combat that form of "Free capitalism", the owners have put in a cap to prevent these players from making the money that their demand has generated. So, if you are all for lower wages in the name of "Capitalism" then you should also be against salary caps. Although I'm willing to bet that you, like a lot of people believe that professional athletes are overpaid.
    I have a video for you too.



    I don't think major athletes and entertainers are over paid. I'm also generally not in their market, so their market value means little to me. And since I don't follow sports, I don't know enough about salary caps to have an opinion. Again, not my chosen form of entertainment, so no need to care. If other people feel they are getting their money's worth by going to game, movie, cover, etc, then there's no problem. What I do have a problem with is when liberals cry about overpaid CEO's but give celebrities a free pass. If a CEO does bad, the company could go under. If an actor does bad, they are easily replaced without bringing down the entire production. Liberals talk about the CEO's holding down the average worker, but the entertainers produce nothing of lasting material value. It's the hypocrisy that's the problem, not the money involved.

    Not banning, but they can't sell those products directly in the U.S. so they can't make a profit off of people here. If anything the money goes to a third party retailer and not the company itself.
    You do realize that any time a foreign company sells an item with an end user here, they are profiting off us, right? The middle men are just extra costs added in between manufacturer and consumer.

    Who is the little guy exactly, that definition keeps changing a lot around here. Is it the lower class? Or the low-middle? Or is the upper-middle? Or is it just the middle?
    This is why I use the term "end consumer/user." Or on occasion, the workers and shareholders when new costs can't be purely transferred to higher prices. Then again, the same argument could be had about the term "living wage."
    09-02-2014 11:21 PM
  10. palandri's Avatar
    You realize that if this actually became a regularly enforced policy how much that would end up costing to enforce in today's order online market for every single product category? You'd end up having to massively increase the size and scope and infrastructure of border enforcement agencies, postal services, etc etc.

    Not to mention the employees of those agencies. If I was a customs officer and you told me I have to screen for banned company merchandise on TOP of drugs, illegal immigration, prohibited items, etc I'd be like "yeah... you're not paying me nearly enough to care if this guy has a pair of Levi's buddy. Take it up with my union".
    It would cost no more than products already banned from import. Have you ever crossed the border to Mexico and looked at the list of things you can't bring back?
    A895 likes this.
    09-03-2014 12:07 AM
  11. palandri's Avatar
    Just pointing out that someone to pay for all this environmental regulation. 99 times out of a hundred it is the little guy that is burdened. There is a balance to be struck, but I have never heard an environmental proponent say anything about balance...
    No, it comes down to people vs profits. That's what you can't see.
    A895 likes this.
    09-03-2014 12:12 AM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    I have a video for you too.



    I don't think major athletes and entertainers are over paid. I'm also generally not in their market, so their market value means little to me. And since I don't follow sports, I don't know enough about salary caps to have an opinion. Again, not my chosen form of entertainment, so no need to care. If other people feel they are getting their money's worth by going to game, movie, cover, etc, then there's no problem. What I do have a problem with is when liberals cry about overpaid CEO's but give celebrities a free pass. If a CEO does bad, the company could go under. If an actor does bad, they are easily replaced without bringing down the entire production. Liberals talk about the CEO's holding down the average worker, but the entertainers produce nothing of lasting material value. It's the hypocrisy that's the problem, not the money involved.


    You do realize that any time a foreign company sells an item with an end user here, they are profiting off us, right? The middle men are just extra costs added in between manufacturer and consumer.



    This is why I use the term "end consumer/user." Or on occasion, the workers and shareholders when new costs can't be purely transferred to higher prices. Then again, the same argument could be had about the term "living wage."
    A couple of reasons I am perfectly fine with insisting an actor/professional athlete's salary is not nearly as inflated as a CEO's:

    1) The entertainer/professional athlete is being paid what someone else thinks their draw/appeal is worth. Sometimes those gambles don't pay off. Do you know WHY an executive does NOT tie an actor's salary to a movie's success? It's because the movie will still be profitable after it's gone through the wash. You have distribution of DVDs/Blurays, cable and broadcast TV rights, then there's merchandising. A movie executive can be so greedy that they'd rather pay an actor some outlandish price than to have to pay that actor based on how well the movie does. There are some movies out there that were released decades ago that are still paying out.

    2) an actor's/entertainer's/professional athlete's performance is plainly visible to the public. We have an active role in deciding what players/actors/entertainers we pay to see. A CEO, on the other hand, their performance is typically hidden from the public unless there's outright gross mismanagement or stellar performance so we don't have as much input in deciding if that CEO is profitable, thus the CEO isn't nearly as accountable to the public as an actor/entertainer/professional athlete.

    3) When an actor's/entertainer's/professional athlete's career is starting to fade, their salaries shortly follow. Sure sometimes they hang on a little too long, but it eventually ends. A CEO's career spans a few decades longer than the average. And in that time there is no discernible way for the public to gauge if the CEO is still maintaining a high level of performance. Once they're in power, they tend to try to hold onto it as much as possible and there's a high level of cronyism involved. It's not like any other system out there.

    4) If/When an actor/athlete/entertainer is relieved of their service, there is no golden parachute given to them. They don't walk away with several millions of dollars after they're released. A CEO on the other hand, their company could have the absolute WORST performance in the company's history, but they will generally get paid before any other entity is paid in that company. Hell, they'll even get paid while the employee retirement accounts are written off into bankruptcy. That's not how ANY OTHER entity operates. Typically when you fail at something, you don't stand to gain millions of dollars. It's just not how things are supposed to work, but for CEOs, that's pretty common.
    09-03-2014 03:44 AM
  13. rews's Avatar
    It would cost no more than products already banned from import. Have you ever crossed the border to Mexico and looked at the list of things you can't bring back?
    Except now you're talking about adding thousands upon thousands of product brands to that list. Pretty sure the list ain't that big right now.
    09-03-2014 04:05 AM
  14. NoYankees44's Avatar
    No, it comes down to people vs profits. That's what you can't see.
    What you can't see is that it is not that simple. A company does not just take a loss in profits. It spreads the cost out however it can. That means products costing more. That means less investments in people/equipment. That means that their workers may see less of a raise this year. The business will do whatever it has to to maintain a high level of profitability. It will always pass the cost on to others as much as it can.
    09-03-2014 05:57 AM
  15. A895's Avatar
    Except now you're talking about adding thousands upon thousands of product brands to that list. Pretty sure the list ain't that big right now.
    So for someone like Levi for example, we would be banning the sale of Levi shoes, pants, shirts, and jackets. Hundreds of products. But is it manageable? Yes. Will everyone like it? No. But they won't profit off of a country they won't support. It is also irony considering Levis started in the U.S. all those decades ago.
    09-03-2014 09:35 AM
  16. Timelessblur's Avatar
    On thing that would help for fair wages is make it easier to share wages. Hell I would say that public companies have to make public wages and position maybe even mix with years.
    Have min max, avg and meridian for each position.

    They do not have to link it with names but say software developer 2 years of experience well guess what that I can find out on a public company. Basically make it harder to suppresses wages.

    It helps level the playing field between knowledge on what employees and employers

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    09-03-2014 01:29 PM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    So for someone like Levi for example, we would be banning the sale of Levi shoes, pants, shirts, and jackets. Hundreds of products. But is it manageable? Yes. Will everyone like it? No. But they won't profit off of a country they won't support. It is also irony considering Levis started in the U.S. all those decades ago.
    So what if Levi's decides "hey, let's create a new company that uses our designs and sell them to the U.S. instead." In some foreign markets, it's extremely hard for us to follow the money state side and know to block something like that. Just look at all the clone items that come from China, looking like the name brand items.

    On thing that would help for fair wages is make it easier to share wages. Hell I would say that public companies have to make public wages and position maybe even mix with years.
    Have min max, avg and meridian for each position.

    They do not have to link it with names but say software developer 2 years of experience well guess what that I can find out on a public company. Basically make it harder to suppresses wages.

    It helps level the playing field between knowledge on what employees and employers

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    They pretty much have that kind of service already if you do some simple internet searching. Even if it's not as exact by company, but many give info right down to a local level. Like a national average, state average, and regional average. Same with the ranges of wages. If you're interviewing with a company, you can now use that for negotiation.
    09-03-2014 01:58 PM
  18. Timelessblur's Avatar

    They pretty much have that kind of service already if you do some simple internet searching. Even if it's not as exact by company, but many give info right down to a local level. Like a national average, state average, and regional average. Same with the ranges of wages. If you're interviewing with a company, you can now use that for negotiation.
    In theory those works but they relay on people filling out the info. Making it public like that yes would make discrimination easier to prove and harder for companies to bury and people know.

    Also make it illegal for companies to ban talking about wages.


    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    09-03-2014 02:43 PM
  19. A895's Avatar
    So what if Levi's decides "hey, let's create a new company that uses our designs and sell them to the U.S. instead." In some foreign markets, it's extremely hard for us to follow the money state side and know to block something like that. Just look at all the clone items that come from China, looking like the name brand items.
    Then that would be illegal it is pretty easy to find out if a company is a shell company. You can't just up and say I want to sell jeans.
    09-03-2014 02:58 PM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Then that would be illegal it is pretty easy to find out if a company is a shell company. You can't just up and say I want to sell jeans.
    If the foreign preparer trail is blocked from our view, then it would be pretty tough, if not impossible to follow.
    09-03-2014 03:48 PM
  21. SteveISU's Avatar
    To stop businesses from shipping jobs overseas is so simply, just cut them off from the U.S. marketplace.

    When Levi left the U.S. they should have banned the import of all Levi jeans. Don't even allow them to have a corporate headquarters here. Give them the boot and make sure the door hits them on the way out. It not isolationism, there are plenty of other companies that make jeans.
    This is a fast track way to crashing our economy. There isn't an economist in this world that suggests protectionist policies lead to economic growth. We have foreign money in our stock market to the tune of $4.4 trillion dollars and a policy like you suggest would cause them to yank it and our market would crash.
    09-04-2014 11:57 AM
  22. A895's Avatar
    This is a fast track way to crashing our economy. There isn't an economist in this world that suggests protectionist policies lead to economic growth. We have foreign money in our stock market to the tune of $4.4 trillion dollars and a policy like you suggest would cause them to yank it and our market would crash.

    Because we ban Levis our economy will crash? Unlikely story.
    09-04-2014 12:06 PM
  23. SteveISU's Avatar
    Because we ban Levis our economy will crash? Unlikely story.

    Re-read what I had quoted:

    To stop businesses from shipping jobs overseas is so simply, just cut them off from the U.S. marketplace.

    When Levi left the U.S. they should have banned the import of all Levi jeans. Don't even allow them to have a corporate headquarters here. Give them the boot and make sure the door hits them on the way out. It not isolationism, there are plenty of other companies that make jeans.
    Pretty sure the bolded is speaking of ALL companies.
    09-04-2014 12:10 PM
  24. A895's Avatar
    Re-read what I had quoted:



    Pretty sure the bolded is speaking of ALL companies.
    He is talking about business who move their labor from the U.S. to other countries and the company themselves would have been HQed in the States. So that makes your objection flawed.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-04-2014 01:32 PM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    I hate to say it, but I think we're already there..... I highlighted a couple relevant to this thread.

    Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt:

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

    4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

    5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

    7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

    14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
    09-04-2014 02:11 PM
350 ... 11121314

Similar Threads

  1. How do I transfer pix from my Mac to this thing?
    By thebignewt in forum Verizon HTC One
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:16 AM
  2. How to relock the boot loader and unroot the galaxy nexus.
    By Ridgerunner20 in forum Verizon Galaxy Nexus Rooting, ROM's, and Hack's
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-21-2014, 05:25 AM
  3. Possibly Switching from Verizon to T-Mobile
    By wodehousefan1 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 01:58 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 02:33 PM
  5. Galaxy Note 3 "Unable to connect to proxy server"
    By Jelly Belly in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 03:00 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD