01-29-2014 01:57 PM
140 12345 ...
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    As I'm sure you understand, to get into a job that gets me home nightly and with less hours worked would mean an entirely different segment of the industry with similar, but different pay packages (some are going to salary, just fyi). So to do that would mean higher rates to offset the less work. Most of those are also the double/triple trailer drivers, which is a higher paying skill than a regular single trailer. So to directly answer your question, yes it would pay enough, maybe more if I wanted to pull doubles. You just have to keep the pay packages in context.

    To my broader point, I was referring to my annual pay, not so much my pay rate. As I've said in the past, I don't put a ton of weight on how my pay is broken down, so long as that gross amount is one I'm happy with for the work I did.

    And for the record, I'm on a dedicated run and don't go over my 70 hrs limit even if I fudge simply due to weekly home time. I don't do that anyway because it's just not worth it in these days of regulation and tracking ability, and my company is on e-logs. They aren't fudge free and there may be a few minutes here and there a little off, but I'm certainly not able to drive past my limits without dispatch knowing.
    01-23-2014 11:52 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    And for the record, I'm on a dedicated run and don't go over my 70 hrs limit even if I fudge simply due to weekly home time. I don't do that anyway because it's just not worth it in these days of regulation and tracking ability, and my company is on e-logs. They aren't fudge free and there may be a few minutes here and there a little off, but I'm certainly not able to drive past my limits without dispatch knowing.
    Yep, and I'm not saying you're on duty more than 70, but I know there are a lot of things that you do for the job that are not logged on duty (these exist in a lot of jobs) but dedicated accounts especially have to maximize the 14, and so a pre-trip that takes 30 minutes might be 15 on duty, etc. I work primarily on corporate projects, but my office is literally on site in a Target FDC where my carrier runs dedicated for them. We've had Walmart as well, so I'm aware of many of the comparisons to our business, but in many ways dedicated is dedicated. Not to make this too much about trucking, my general point is that you're paid what you're comfortable making because you have the work ethic to do much more work than many people would be able to handle, and certainly much more work than the average person does. More to the point, my feeling is that people should not have to work that much just to be comfortable and that people who do contribute that much should be rewarded with more than people who only work 30-40 hours per week.

    The work-life balance is very important to the health of our society and we have way too many people that are way too far from balanced on both sides. Many don't have the work ethic to be productive and want to live lavishly anyways, and many work too hard for much too little. Generally I agree that the market should dictate wages, but a MAJOR part of that, as a manager, is that if the job I need to hire for does not justify wages that would sustain my employee's family off a reasonable work week, then maybe that job should be automated entirely.
    01-24-2014 12:07 AM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    Does anyone think it's weird that we went from a paradigm where almost everyone thought that one parent should be able to support their family comfortably with one job to where two people working full time, with overtime and sometimes multiple jobs can barely make ends meet?

    As technology advances and things become easier for mankind to accomplish, food, homes and necessary materials become cheaper to accumulate, distances take less time to traverse, etc.... shouldn't the opposite have happened? Why is it getting harder to get by, given the abundance of ability, rather than easier? Our retirement age is going up, rather than down, when we have (or logically ought to have) less demand for human intervention in most processes? When automation caused less demand for manual work, why did that cause an increase in unemployment, rather than just a logical decrease in the amount of hours required by each employee to maintain productivity? We're doing things exactly backwards and then wondering why it isn't working for most of the population.

    Numerically, it wasn't long ago that people expected the family to work between 62,400 and 83,200 hours over the course of their life for a median total, normalized for today's dollars, of between $1.25 and $1.7 million dollars in wages. Now the suggestion is that it should take 2-3 or even 5-6 times that number of hours, rather than 20-30% of those hours. Granted, technologically our standard of living has dramatically increased, but if your family is working 4x as hard for that increase, that seems fairly normal enough... until you really think about how much easier survival should have become.

    It's almost as if we're creating work in order to keep people busy, and not as a necessary function of the market/society. We clearly don't need the majority of jobs that are performed by humans to be performed by humans, which is why we pay so poorly for most of those positions... so why wouldn't we find a way to make those people actually useful?
    Back when upper management didn't make insane amounts of money, banks actually paid good interest on bank accounts, and gas stations were all full service? Vaguely, I recall....And I even have a song that laments right there with you......




    And on a side note, Archie Bunker would've made a GREAT Tea Party-er.....




    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    01-24-2014 05:08 AM
  4. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Back when upper management didn't make insane amounts of money, banks actually paid good interest on bank accounts, and gas stations were all full service? Vaguely, I recall....And I even have a song that laments right there with you......




    And on a side note, Archie Bunker would've made a GREAT Tea Party-er.....




    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    Yes because lower taxes and holding everyone especially those in government more accountable is so clich. Nice archie bunker reference when some of the most racist people in the country are in the Democratic party.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    01-24-2014 05:50 AM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    Lets call it 401% of the poverty line, for the sake of argument. Therefore, it adjusts based on family size and location to an extent, but at a federal level we generally use the following table:

    Household Size 100% 133% 138% 150% 200% 300% 400%
    1 $11,490 $15,282 $15,856 $17,235 $22,980 $34,470 $45,960
    2 15,510 20,628 $21,404 23,265 31,020 46,530 62,040
    3 19,530 25,975 $26,951 29,295 39,060 58,590 78,120
    4 23,550 31,322 $32,499 35,325 47,100 70,650 94,200
    5 27,570 36,668 $38,047 41,355 55,140 82,710 110,280
    6 31,590 42,015 $43,594 47,385 63,180 94,770 126,360
    7 35,610 47,361 $49,142 53,415 71,220 106,830 142,440
    8 39,630 52,708 $54,689 59,445 79,260 118,890 158,520
    For each additional person, add $4,020 $5,347 $5,548 $6,030 $8,040 $12,060 $16,080

    To clarify, these values indicate the line where you are generally not eligible for most state and federal income based assistance programs. If you are making 401% or more, then officially, you're deemed to make enough that responsible behavior will be enough to keep you afloat and reasonably accommodated.
    I'm not exactly sure why someone decided to make me the "Captain of the living wage" on this thread, but I'll go ahead and humor them. IMO (which I'm sure someone will nit-pick and make a straw man argument against---"why is living in a safe neighborhood considered part of a living wage?") a living wage means being able to afford decent housing (whether renting or buying), decently modest transportation (since some people scream when government tries to put mass transit in place even though it's done effectively in other industrialized nations), not having to rely on fast food as a dietary staple, and being able to save a little or invest a little in oneself (college education or job training). I'm not convinced that the minimum wage covers all these expenses, but I think if a person works 40 hours a week, a modest living shouldn't be too much to ask.


    As far as Food Stamps, I think Cory Booker went on Food Stamps to see if he could live off of them, and to no one's surprise, he did find himself hungry throughout the day. Maybe the woman in the OP thought if she had more children she could work the system in her benefit, kind of like a big corporate retailer trying to game the system so they could bring in more tax breaks.
    01-24-2014 06:01 AM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    I'm wanting the people calling for a "living wage" to describe what their ideal is, but your numbers will work for demonstrative purposes.

    The people calling for livable wages also lump in that everyone should be paid at least that for a standard work week. So if we bump the numbers up to what you suggested, that means the lowest paying jobs would be at those rates. Why? Take my career, or that of any skilled job. I'm a trucker and make a pretty decent living at what I do. But it's also a lot of work keeping up with regulatory changes, equipment changes, some pretty bad weather and road conditions, it cost extra to renew my licence, staying away from my family, and on and on. If a burger flipper or cashier, who pretty much does one thing day in and day out, is brought up to a "livable wage," they aren't making much less than me. Suddenly my career is less appealing because I'm not doing much better in wages for all the extra work I do and skills I've gained. To keep people like me driving, my rates would have to go up enough to compensate. So would every other job to keep workers. That means prices go way up to compensate the expenses.

    So the bottom stays at the bottom, the top stays at the top, and the only thing that changed was how much money is counted at payday and the store. No one can define what a living wage is because it's an elusive myth. To put everyone at that wage would only result in the scenario above and the burger flippers and cashiers would still be wanting a higher, mythical, living wage because they are at the bottom and don't want to improve on themselves.
    I drive my car daily, I'm responsible for maintaining it, licensing it, and it takes me away from my family as well (not that that's a bad thing). Thus, why should you be compensated what you're compensated for that "skill"? Once Google has perfected the driver-less vehicle, your skill is going to be moot. I sure hope once your "skill" has been marginalized by corporate America that you don't suddenly decide to flip your position and start to re-evaluate your position.

    If you don't think it can happen, take a look at commercial airline pilots, back a few years ago they were very well compensated for their "skill". Now corporate America has decided that they're nothing but glorified computer operating bus drivers, and their compensation has taken a nose-dive (pardon the pun). The industry is now being scrutinized because too many pilots are reliant on auto-pilot and don't know how to actually fly a plane manually. If I remember the reports, one of the plane crashes that took place within the past couple of years, pilot error was the cause because the pilot didn't have enough experience flying that particular type of plane. Not a very comforting thought if you fly regularly.
    01-24-2014 06:16 AM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    Yes because lower taxes and holding everyone especially those in government more accountable is so clich.
    As opposed to trickle-down economics, which has proven to work SOOO well. Remind me again, what jobs were created by the "Job Creators" after the Bush Tax cuts were put in place?

    Nice archie bunker reference when some of the most racist people in the country are in the Democratic party.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Feel free to provide examples other than, "Well Lincoln was a Republican, and he freed the slaves!! Duh Derp Derp". Also, examples of Democrats pushing for their race to have a place at the table, what I like to call "reactionary racism", can you really blame them for having those ill feelings? Try to use some critical thinking when you provide me with examples and not just "Ummmm he once said 'white debil' and goes to a church with a racist reverend!". Looking forward to your submissions.
    01-24-2014 06:26 AM
  8. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Sense this thread is already kind of derailed...

    I would like someone(anyone) to define what the purpose of minimum wage actually is. Is it meant to support one person? Is it meant to support a family of 4? Is it meant to cap the bottom value of labor in the county?

    Before this discussion can be had, we have to define this. Then we can either debate its purpose or debate the effectiveness of its implementation in accomplishing its purpose.

    For instance, if it is meant to be a "living wage," then where does that leave workers such as high school students that do not actually need to live off the wage? If it is meant to set the minimum value of labor, then are we saying that we as a country do not want to have jobs that are worth less than minimum wage? What about welfare? If we raise the minimum wage above the welfare line, what becomes of it? What about price of goods and global competitiveness?

    Having a minimum wage of any kind, at any level, is both good and bad for many different aspects of a society. The effects of changing it in any way effects a vast number of issues. All of which must be considered or you risk large, unintentional consequences.
    01-24-2014 08:09 AM
  9. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    As opposed to trickle-down economics, which has proven to work SOOO well. Remind me again, what jobs were created by the "Job Creators" after the Bush Tax cuts were put in place?



    Feel free to provide examples other than, "Well Lincoln was a Republican, and he freed the slaves!! Duh Derp Derp". Also, examples of Democrats pushing for their race to have a place at the table, what I like to call "reactionary racism", can you really blame them for having those ill feelings? Try to use some critical thinking when you provide me with examples and not just "Ummmm he once said 'white debil' and goes to a church with a racist reverend!". Looking forward to your submissions.
    Actually I was talking about a few named rev al and jesse Jackson. And im sorry if your boss has more money than you but until you take a risk and start your own business, that's the way it should be. Yes "trickledown" has worked throughout our history through Republicans and Democrats alike.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    01-24-2014 08:31 AM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I drive my car daily, I'm responsible for maintaining it, licensing it, and it takes me away from my family as well (not that that's a bad thing). Thus, why should you be compensated what you're compensated for that "skill"?
    Do you drive your car 600 miles a day? Stay away from home more than a week at a time? An oil change for you is probably $20-30, but can be over $200 in a semi. Your car weighs 3000 lbs, my rig can gross out at 80,000 lbs without a permit. You don't have to worry about making corners with a 75 ft long vehicle without taking out other cars, light poles, fire hydrants, etc. Your car can stop on a dime compared to the distance it takes to stop a rig. You can also maneuver around and avoid obstacles without losing control, whereas many truckers have had no other option but to run themselves off the road (some even being killed from doing so) to avoid a worse accident on the road. You aren't regulated by government on how much you drive, we are. We also are required to do a daily inspection on our rigs. Do you do that before you drive your car to work? Not to mention the myriad of other regulations we have to deal with, and interacting with a general public that doesn't take driving very serious and understand how to share the road.

    This is not to meant to be an "I'm better than you" post, but giving you insight on what some aspects of my job are. Judging by your post, it sounds like you didn't have much of an idea just what our industry involves. It's much more than you driving your car, it's a lifestyle all it's own. It may not be classified by the government as "skilled labor," but to do it right and be safe/accident free for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of miles, takes a lot of skill.

    Yes, I am aware of advancements in automation, and that is years off. Probably decades still for autonomous trucks. Part of the reason is why it takes that skill I mentioned above. Not just from a software reliability standpoint, but pretty much every intersection will have to be re-designed so the computer could navigate it properly. Right now, the driver can judge a corner well before he gets to it and set up properly to swing out if need be so his trailer doesn't off track too far to the inside and take out a pole. That may mean having to take up part of the lane to the left (for a tight right hand turn) to do so safely, but also watching traffic on that side to wait for a hole and not run into someone. For a computer to recognize that same intersection far enough in advance to do that (interpreting obstacles going in and out of sight with traffic flow, mind you) would be impossible in the near future, plus the unpredictability of car drivers. Instead, it'd be easier to widen the corners so the trailer can off track without taking anything out... except maybe the inpatient car driver that tries to duck in where he shouldn't be. It happens. But that would be expensive, and would still require a driver to control when something unpredictable happens.

    The trucking industry is changing, but I plan to adapt and change with it and earn a living as long as it's enjoyable.
    01-24-2014 09:03 AM
  11. SteveISU's Avatar
    No not black and white. But in your world is that way.

    Your post started off thinking most people abuse welfare. It is more the other way around and very few. But omg touch corpate welfare you scream OH NO THE JOBS.
    You started off when that. When ask about corporate welfare you defended it. WHen pointed out that the biggest abuse is walmart.

    Question ask why can Costco pay livable wages offer good insurance and make a health profit yet walmart has to live off corporate welfare? Tell me what is wrong here. Costco is a prime example that walmart could pay livable wages and still make a very healthy profit.

    I started a post off asking the question as to whether there should be rules in place (ie...not reproducing 8 kids while accepting government welfare). Some wanted to turn it around and talk about evil corporate welfare and lets ignore the food stamp baby makers.

    The difference between costco and wal-mart is due to a number of reasons, but everyone just looks at revenue and how much they pay per hour.

    1. The consumer demographic between the stores is grossly different. (uppermiddle class who occasionally buy bulk for cheap vs. lower income who buy their everyday groceries)
    2. They have half as many employees per square foot of store.
    3. They don't charge and annual membership
    4. Profit per employee is about $7500 vs. $10,600
    01-24-2014 09:41 AM
  12. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Sense this thread is already kind of derailed...

    I would like someone(anyone) to define what the purpose of minimum wage actually is. Is it meant to support one person? Is it meant to support a family of 4? Is it meant to cap the bottom value of labor in the county?

    Before this discussion can be had, we have to define this. Then we can either debate its purpose or debate the effectiveness of its implementation in accomplishing its purpose.

    For instance, if it is meant to be a "living wage," then where does that leave workers such as high school students that do not actually need to live off the wage? If it is meant to set the minimum value of labor, then are we saying that we as a country do not want to have jobs that are worth less than minimum wage? What about welfare? If we raise the minimum wage above the welfare line, what becomes of it? What about price of goods and global competitiveness?

    Having a minimum wage of any kind, at any level, is both good and bad for many different aspects of a society. The effects of changing it in any way effects a vast number of issues. All of which must be considered or you risk large, unintentional consequences.

    Personally I never figured minimum wage to be livable wage. It was meant to be the floor of what you can pay and really only meant for well people in High school and college. Not how Walmart and many retailers treat it. I also believe the other mistake was not indexing it against inflation. I would say get it up to $10 per hour then indexing it against inflation from that point forward.

    In terms of boosting the economy it generally does more as it is money injected at the bottom. Money that will be spent. Money at the top you might get 50-60 cents on the dollar spent. Money at the bottom it is 99-100 cents on the dollar. Remember the more you make the less of each additional dollar you get that you would spend.

    Either way minunum wage is the floor and companies should have relatively few of their workers making with in 10-20% of it. So if minimum wage was at $10 most of your companies workforce should be making more than $11-12 per hour. I would even argue that we do start tax penalties on companies that are over 50 people that have at the say if more than 25% of the companies employees are making with in 15% of minimum wage to be penalized for the extra burden on welfare system they place.
    01-24-2014 09:45 AM
  13. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I started a post off asking the question as to whether there should be rules in place (ie...not reproducing 8 kids while accepting government welfare). Some wanted to turn it around and talk about evil corporate welfare and lets ignore the food stamp baby makers.

    The difference between costco and wal-mart is due to a number of reasons, but everyone just looks at revenue and how much they pay per hour.

    1. The consumer demographic between the stores is grossly different. (uppermiddle class who occasionally buy bulk for cheap vs. lower income who buy their everyday groceries)
    2. They have half as many employees per square foot of store.
    3. They don't charge and annual membership
    4. Profit per employee is about $7500 vs. $10,600
    I say both need to be talk about. I attack corporate because that is refused to be addressed by right. Add to it as in my first post that the standard right wing is also actively blocking birth control being paid for by insurance and women's rights. GOP has been all for protecting unborn child but as soon as they are born it is screw them. Your starting argument on the 8+ children part is on that.

    In that one you can not have that type of cut off unless the GOP is ends it anti required birth control stance, anti abortion stance and so on.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-24-2014 09:55 AM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    Do you drive your car 600 miles a day? Stay away from home more than a week at a time? An oil change for you is probably $20-30, but can be over $200 in a semi. Your car weighs 3000 lbs, my rig can gross out at 80,000 lbs without a permit. You don't have to worry about making corners with a 75 ft long vehicle without taking out other cars, light poles, fire hydrants, etc. Your car can stop on a dime compared to the distance it takes to stop a rig. You can also maneuver around and avoid obstacles without losing control, whereas many truckers have had no other option but to run themselves off the road (some even being killed from doing so) to avoid a worse accident on the road. You aren't regulated by government on how much you drive, we are. We also are required to do a daily inspection on our rigs. Do you do that before you drive your car to work? Not to mention the myriad of other regulations we have to deal with, and interacting with a general public that doesn't take driving very serious and understand how to share the road.

    This is not to meant to be an "I'm better than you" post, but giving you insight on what some aspects of my job are. Judging by your post, it sounds like you didn't have much of an idea just what our industry involves. It's much more than you driving your car, it's a lifestyle all it's own. It may not be classified by the government as "skilled labor," but to do it right and be safe/accident free for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of miles, takes a lot of skill.

    Yes, I am aware of advancements in automation, and that is years off. Probably decades still for autonomous trucks. Part of the reason is why it takes that skill I mentioned above. Not just from a software reliability standpoint, but pretty much every intersection will have to be re-designed so the computer could navigate it properly. Right now, the driver can judge a corner well before he gets to it and set up properly to swing out if need be so his trailer doesn't off track too far to the inside and take out a pole. That may mean having to take up part of the lane to the left (for a tight right hand turn) to do so safely, but also watching traffic on that side to wait for a hole and not run into someone. For a computer to recognize that same intersection far enough in advance to do that (interpreting obstacles going in and out of sight with traffic flow, mind you) would be impossible in the near future, plus the unpredictability of car drivers. Instead, it'd be easier to widen the corners so the trailer can off track without taking anything out... except maybe the inpatient car driver that tries to duck in where he shouldn't be. It happens. But that would be expensive, and would still require a driver to control when something unpredictable happens.

    The trucking industry is changing, but I plan to adapt and change with it and earn a living as long as it's enjoyable.
    My point is that because you value your "skill" more than other people's skill doesn't mean that you should look down your nose at someone that's actually working hard for their trade, be it someone that scrubs toilets for a living, someone that cleans after the slobs at the office. Anyone's position and I mean ANYONE'S position can be eliminated by a machine. Does that mean that we should just cast these people aside because we've decided that their skill is less diminished.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    01-24-2014 10:04 AM
  15. SteveISU's Avatar
    I say both need to be talk about. I attack corporate because that is refused to be addressed by right. Add to it as in my first post that the standard right wing is also actively blocking birth control being paid for by insurance and women's rights. GOP has been all for protecting unborn child but as soon as they are born it is screw them. Your starting argument on the 8+ children part is on that.

    In that one you can not have that type of cut off unless the GOP is ends it anti required birth control stance, anti abortion stance and so on.
    As I've pointed out and it's clear as day, the left doles out about as much corporate welfare (but we need to ignore that and keep pinning it on the right because we have some make believe stat that says it's the right). One hands it out to "big bad business" as you like to call it and the other hands it out to a company who will be belly up in 2yrs because their idea of making cars that run on soy patties failed (but we gave them billions in exchange for a 25k a plate fund raising dinner headlined by Streisand). Like I said, try garnering campaign contributions from food stamps.

    The "standard" right wing does not want to block BC, that would be the far right evangelical wing (ie...nutjobs). Which I pay as much attention to as I'm sure you do the socialist Alan Grayson.

    Last I checked BC pills are readily available and abortion is the law of the land (unless your talking about late-term). So we have all those things and still, here we are. To clarify, I am actually pro BC of any kind simply because it seems to be the idiots who keep reproducing and I think if the first line (ie...BC) failed the second line (ie...abortion) is a way to help the situation.
    01-24-2014 10:11 AM
  16. Timelessblur's Avatar
    As I've pointed out and it's clear as day, the left doles out about as much corporate welfare (but we need to ignore that and keep pinning it on the right because we have some make believe stat that says it's the right). One hands it out to "big bad business" as you like to call it and the other hands it out to a company who will be belly up in 2yrs because their idea of making cars that run on soy patties failed (but we gave them billions in exchange for a 25k a plate fund raising dinner headlined by Streisand). Like I said, try garnering campaign contributions from food stamps.

    The "standard" right wing does not want to block BC, that would be the far right evangelical wing (ie...nutjobs). Which I pay as much attention to as I'm sure you do the socialist Alan Grayson.

    Last I checked BC pills are readily available and abortion is the law of the land (unless your talking about late-term). So we have all those things and still, here we are.
    I never said the left didn't do corporate welfare. That is you putting words in my mouth.

    As for the right wing argument saying it is ie only the nut jobs. Tell me why is it those are the ones always winning and why they are becoming the majority of the GOP house and the ones GOP puts up to run.

    If you do not support those nutjob issues you get called a RINO. Until the GOP starts attacking their own and forcing a change in stance as a whole they have earned that reputations.
    01-24-2014 10:16 AM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    I never said the left didn't do corporate welfare. That is you putting words in my mouth.

    As for the right wing argument saying it is ie only the nut jobs. Tell me why is it those are the ones always winning and why they are becoming the majority of the GOP house and the ones GOP puts up to run.

    If you do not support those nutjob issues you get called a RINO. Until the GOP starts attacking their own and forcing a change in stance as a whole they have earned that reputations.

    I'm not the one who is taking about "corporate welfare" and always following it up "the right". The left protect the poor, the right protect the rich (ie...corporations). That's commandment #1 via the liberal talking points.

    I think you should go back and take a look at who you think "keeps winning". The Evangelical ultra-conservative faction is extremely small. If they kept winning, we wouldn't have Boehner as Speaker. We had Bush for 8yrs, we still have BC and abortion. So this BS that the left parades about scaring people on how this candidate or that candidate is going to reverse the Supreme Court ruling on abortion is just nonsense. It's never going to happen.
    01-24-2014 10:51 AM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    My point is that because you value your "skill" more than other people's skill doesn't mean that you should look down your nose at someone that's actually working hard for their trade, be it someone that scrubs toilets for a living, someone that cleans after the slobs at the office. Anyone's position and I mean ANYONE'S position can be eliminated by a machine. Does that mean that we should just cast these people aside because we've decided that their skill is less diminished.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    I'm not looking down my nose at anyone. Yes, I value my skills, but so does the market. As I said in the union thread, the argument isn't about someone's worth as human, but their economic worth in the marketplace. It's simple economics that my type of job requires a lot more skill and training to be good than some of those other jobs, thus it pays more. If it didn't, then there would be less people interested in doing it and shelves would start going bare.
    01-24-2014 10:53 AM
  19. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I'm not the one who is taking about "corporate welfare" and always following it up "the right". The left protect the poor, the right protect the rich (ie...corporations). That's commandment #1 via the liberal talking points.

    I think you should go back and take a look at who you think "keeps winning". The Evangelical ultra-conservative faction is extremely small. If they kept winning, we wouldn't have Boehner as Speaker. We had Bush for 8yrs, we still have BC and abortion. So this BS that the left parades about scaring people on how this candidate or that candidate is going to reverse the Supreme Court ruling on abortion is just nonsense. It's never going to happen.
    The Republic Study committee is one of the more far right groups in the House. It used to for the most part ignored and not to concerned about and was very small and considered crazy. Now it is 170 strong.
    Another group of 48 Tea Party caucus which is crazy right wing is at 48 members.
    So 72% and 20% of the GOP members respectively. So 20% of the people in the House is of the true crazy crew and 70% of pushing crazy right?
    you care to revise your answer. That should tell you something. Tea Party has way to much power.
    01-24-2014 11:39 AM
  20. SteveISU's Avatar
    The Republic Study committee is one of the more far right groups in the House. It used to for the most part ignored and not to concerned about and was very small and considered crazy. Now it is 170 strong.
    Another group of 48 Tea Party caucus which is crazy right wing is at 48 members.
    So 72% and 20% of the GOP members respectively. So 20% of the people in the House is of the true crazy crew and 70% of pushing crazy right?
    you care to revise your answer. That should tell you something. Tea Party has way to much power.

    Being socially and fiscally conservative doesn't make you "far right". Hate to tell you. Ask most independent voters and many believe democrats and republicans are two wings of the same bird. Considering they hold the majority in the House of Representatives, what's that say about the country you live in.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    01-24-2014 01:35 PM
  21. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Being socially and fiscally conservative doesn't make you "far right". Hate to tell you. Ask most independent voters and many believe democrats and republicans are two wings of the same bird. Considering they hold the majority in the House of Representatives, what's that say about the country you live in.
    What it tells me is we have far to many elections decided in the primaries.
    The primaries the crazies from both parties tend to vote more heavily than the general. Far to many of the GOP is scared of their primaries and not worried at all about the general.
    Question would be if we did away with the primaries and moved to instant run off voting or you ranked your choices how things would change.
    Good part of it is our very broken primary system. Any election decided in the primary (aka most of them) is not an open election.

    Simple fact is the GOP is being taken over by the crazies. 20% of GOP house is part of the true crazy crew. Many of them if it was not for the broken primary system never would of gotten into office. 70% are part of what used to be considered the crazy crew. That should tell you something.
    01-24-2014 01:46 PM
  22. SteveISU's Avatar
    What it tells me is we have far to many elections decided in the primaries.
    The primaries the crazies from both parties tend to vote more heavily than the general. Far to many of the GOP is scared of their primaries and not worried at all about the general.
    Question would be if we did away with the primaries and moved to instant run off voting or you ranked your choices how things would change.
    Good part of it is our very broken primary system. Any election decided in the primary (aka most of them) is not an open election.

    Simple fact is the GOP is being taken over by the crazies. 20% of GOP house is part of the true crazy crew. Many of them if it was not for the broken primary system never would of gotten into office. 70% are part of what used to be considered the crazy crew. That should tell you something.
    Sounds to me like you just happen to think anyone who has a differing opinion or doesn't share in your beliefs are part of the "crazy crew". Clearly when you want to categorize 90% of a party.

    Now if what you claim as 20% are part of the crazy crew, down from 70% of what used to be considered the crazy crew as you call them, what's the problem? That's a DECLINE.
    01-24-2014 01:53 PM
  23. Johnly's Avatar
    I'm glad I saw this before I responded to that post. Lol.

    Still wondering what a livable wage is. Maybe it's like Big Foot. Everyone has some general vague idea what it is, but no one can truly define it.
    That is just it, a livable wage is earned not given and the sky is the limit.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    01-24-2014 02:00 PM
  24. llamabreath's Avatar
    That is just it, a livable wage is earned not given and the sky is the limit.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    Now should the definition of "livable wage" be the same for EVERYONE? Or rather, isn't everyone's definition of "livable" quite different?




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-25-2014 12:21 PM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    That is just it, a livable wage is earned not given and the sky is the limit.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    My question then would be should 40 hours of work afford someone a living, even if it were a modest living? When you consider how wide the gap is between some of the lowest paid and some of the highest paid among us, I find it hard to believe that some of you think there's nothing wrong with the system that rewards the few at the cost of many.


    And even though the OP was regarding a woman that's trying to game the system with her reproductive system, I still don't understand why we don't have the same disdain for corporate welfare that we do for the woman in the OP.

    Below is another example of corporate welfare that not many people seem that concerned about except maybe someone like Elizabeth Warren (Someone I wish would run for President, btw).

    JPMorgan Chase recently reached yet another settlement with the U.S. government -- a $13 billion deal with the Department of Justice for peddling deceptive mortgages.

    The banking giant broke the law, recklessly gambled with our economy, and had to pay a record government settlement. Guess what happened next? You guessed right: JPMorgan's CEO Jamie Dimon just got a 74% raise yesterday.

    The New York Times speculates that Dimon got the raise because of his "active role" in negotiating government settlements last year. And as Dimon put it himself, it could have been a lot worse if JPMorgan had been forced to go all the way to a trial instead of just settling.

    So here's my question: If JPMorgan is so happy with their settlements that they are rewarding their CEO with a big raise, do you really think the federal bank regulators were tough enough?

    There are a lot of steps we can take to push the regulators to do their jobs and hold financial institutions fully accountable when they break the law, and I think a good starting place would be by enacting the Truth in Settlements Act.

    This is the bill I recently introduced with Senator Coburn that would require accessible, detailed disclosures about settlement agreements so the public can hold regulators accountable -- no more hiding out behind closed doors and keeping the details secret.
    When I question federal regulators in Banking Committee hearings, they insist that they don't need to take big banks to trial when they break the law. They stand by their claim that settlement agreements are tough enough.

    But if a settlement is so weak that Wall Street is celebrating with pay raises, it's not a good deal for the American people.

    This week Jamie Dimon admitted that the big banks don't want to go to trial, so now there's no doubt: If the regulators were willing to go all the way to a trial, even once in a while, they would have a lot more leverage in the settlement negotiations. And maybe they could get better deals on behalf of consumers and taxpayers.

    This is simple: Bankers on Wall Street need to be held accountable when they break the law, and regulators in Washington need to be held accountable when they enforce the law.

    So sign up now to show your support for the Truth in Settlements Act. It's time for real transparency and accountability.

    Thank you for being a part of this,

    Elizabeth
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    01-25-2014 12:48 PM
140 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Education Reform
    By Darth Spock in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-13-2013, 04:29 PM
  2. Confessions of a reformed OS tweaker
    By LeoRex in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2013, 03:32 PM
  3. Reformed Apple User - Love Android!
    By pwake in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 12:40 PM
  4. reformateing the internal 2G/B memory?
    By Lehocki in forum Verizon Droid Charge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 06:15 PM
  5. Greetings from a reformed geek
    By expatCanuck in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-26-2011, 01:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD