Got to love Bernie...

No dumbass, labor-saving technologies are NOT the same as outsourcing. Outsourcing just reduces the cost of labor input, not the quantity needed per unit of output. Ooops, I'm speaking economics again! Find a translator to explain it to you, sewer rat. Smart labor-saving techniques can even allow US companies to keep their production at home - unless their unions refuse to cooperate in reaping the resulting productivity gains.

It's the free-market conservatives who drive change and churning and innovation in our economy. If the status quo-loving libtard unions had their way, our productivity would never get off the ground.

You're laughably delusional in understanding what makes the economy tick.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

It all comes down to profit. You know it and I know it. You can continue to flounder around but the bottom line is what matters and it's driven by greed, like it always has been. You and your ilk aren't interested in changing anything. Innovation? Pushing forward? How about you innovate a way to get the little guy his share, huh? You only care about those at the top.

You're disgustingly delusional in thinking it has to remain a certain way in order to work.

It all comes down to profit. You know it and I know it. You can continue to flounder around but the bottom line is what matters and it's driven by greed, like it always has been. You and your ilk aren't interested in changing anything.... Originally Posted by WombRaider

Your ignorance knows no bounds. No, it doesn't all come down to profit. Often it comes down to simple survival. The survival instinct is driven by fear, not greed. You don't understand capitalism. It means constant change and upheaval. When companies fail to keep up, the competition eats their lunch. Free and open markets foster change. Conservatives embrace it. Libtards and so-called progressives like you want to meddle and interfere and shore up obsolete crony industries because you are corrupt and fear change and want to slow down capitalism's inevitable forward progress. Progressives fighting progress - isn't that rich?

.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. No, it doesn't all come down to profit. Sometimes it comes down to simple survival. The survival instinct is driven by fear, not greed. You don''t understand capitalism. It means constant change and upheaval. When companies fail to keep up, the competition eats their lunch. Free and open markets foster change. Conservatives embrace it. Libtards and so-called progressives like you want to meddle and interfere and shore up obsolete crony industries because you fear change and want to slow down capitalism's inevitable forward progress. Progressives fighting progress - isn't that rich?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

And how do you survive... by making a what? A profit. You just needed to take it that one last step. Conservatives do not embrace change. By its very definition, it means the exact opposite. You can try and spin it as many ways as you'd like, but that fact remains.

That's just it, they are NOT paid based on what they bring. The fact you don't see this is mind boggling. How is this value determined? Please, expound. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Of course they are. Do you honestly think a janitor brings enough to the table to make $100K a year? That's the great thing about the market, if you feel you are not being properly compensated then you can shop around for a better paying job. If your job is paying XX at every other company and you are only making X then change jobs.

Here is an example from my experience owning a construction company. If carpenters are making $10 PH around town and I only want to pay $8 PH then I will not have any carpenters or I will only have the ones that have limited skills and a poor work history. On the other hand if I decide to pay all my carpenters $15 PH I will have plenty of high quality carpenters on my payroll but I won't be able to compete in the bidding process so I will not have much work. So my $15 PH carpenters will only be working 20 hours per week.

When the government steps in and tells all contractors that they must pay all carpenters $20 PH then all bids increase accordingly. Extrapolate this over the entire project and what was once a $100,000 dollar project is now a $200,000 dollar project. The added cost is passed on to the consumer so even though the poor may be making more money they are still in the same financial shape as before. Whether you like it or not businesses are in business to make money. I never hire someone because I like them. I hire them because I have a need to fill. For the life of me I can't understand why you can't grasp this concept.

It all comes down to profit. You know it and I know it. You can continue to flounder around but the bottom line is what matters and it's driven by greed, like it always has been. You and your ilk aren't interested in changing anything. Innovation? Pushing forward? How about you innovate a way to get the little guy his share, huh? You only care about those at the top.

You're disgustingly delusional in thinking it has to remain a certain way in order to work. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Of course it comes down to profit. If companies can't make a profit they no longer exist. You say profit like it's a dirty word and we should be ashamed of making money. If we could all print money like the government then it wouldn't matter. Unlike the government our capital is limited and is based solely on profit or the potential to make a profit. Banks don't lend money because we want to hire as many people as possible and pay them twice what the market is paying regardless of the profit margin. They lend money based on our potential to make money and pay them back. You really are a simpleton.

I'll ask you again. What is a "living wage" in dollars? What do you think the minimum wage should be?

And how do you survive... by making a what? A profit. You just needed to take it that one last step. Conservatives do not embrace change. By its very definition, it means the exact opposite. You can try and spin it as many ways as you'd like, but that fact remains. Originally Posted by WombRaider

From an interview in December 1975 with economist Milton Friedman on PBS’s “The Open Mind”:

Friedman: One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions. The people who go around talking about their soft heart... I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately it very often extends to their head as well. Because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have...

Take the minimum-wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors—there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors, there are the well-meaning sponsors, and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as frontmen. You almost always, when you have bad programs, have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interests. The minimum-wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions. The monopolistic craft trade unions in particular. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than two dollars an hour, or $2.50 an hour, or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. It is no accident that the teenage unemployment rate—the unemployment rate among teenagers in this country—is over twice as high as the overall unemployment rate.

.

Of course they are. Do you honestly think a janitor brings enough to the table to make $100K a year? That's the great thing about the market, if you feel you are not being properly compensated then you can shop around for a better paying job. If your job is paying XX at every other company and you are only making X then change jobs.

Here is an example from my experience owning a construction company. If carpenters are making $10 PH around town and I only want to pay $8 PH then I will not have any carpenters or I will only have the ones that have limited skills and a poor work history. On the other hand if I decide to pay all my carpenters $15 PH I will have plenty of high quality carpenters on my payroll but I won't be able to compete in the bidding process so I will not have much work. So my $15 PH carpenters will only be working 20 hours per week.

When the government steps in and tells all contractors that they must pay all carpenters $20 PH then all bids increase accordingly. Extrapolate this over the entire project and what was once a $100,000 dollar project is now a $200,000 dollar project. The added cost is passed on to the consumer so even though the poor may be making more money they are still in the same financial shape as before. Whether you like it or not businesses are in business to make money. I never hire someone because I like them. I hire them because I have a need to fill. For the life of me I can't understand why you can't grasp this concept. Originally Posted by Budman

We aren't talking about janitors.

We aren't talking about janitors. Originally Posted by WombRaider

So what are you talking about? You seemed concerned with the lower paid employees. Are we now talking middle management? Try and stay on topic.

So what are you talking about? You seemed concerned with the lower paid employees. Are we now talking middle management? Try and stay on topic. Originally Posted by Budman

You're getting the two things conflated. The CEO topic is not about janitors and that isn't what the stat of 475 to 1 is referencing. It's referencing the lowest paid OFFICE employee, dumbass.

As for a living wage, that is addressing fast food workers, etc.

I'm concerned with anyone who is not being paid accordingly. Do you think the workers in the industrial revolution were being paid accordingly, as they broke their backs to build the capitalist system you now enjoy? Were they just getting their fair share?

You're getting the two things conflated. The CEO topic is not about janitors and that isn't what the stat of 475 to 1 is referencing. It's referencing the lowest paid OFFICE employee, dumbass.

As for a living wage, that is addressing fast food workers, etc.

I'm concerned with anyone who is not being paid accordingly. Do you think the workers in the industrial revolution were being paid accordingly, as they broke their backs to build the capitalist system you now enjoy? Were they just getting their fair share? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're crawfishing again.

So a living wage is only for fast food workers. Is that what you're saying? Why is that? Don't the ditch diggers deserve a living wage. You still haven't defined what exactly constitutes a "living wage". Now is your chance.

You refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of employees in this country are working for small businesses. As I've told you before the CEO making 475 times what his lowest paid employee makes is rare. Most are much more fiscally responsible.

You're crawfishing again.

So a living wage is only for fast food workers. Is that what you're saying? Why is that? Don't the ditch diggers deserve a living wage. You still haven't defined what exactly constitutes a "living wage". Now is your chance.

You refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of employees in this country are working for small businesses. As I've told you before the CEO making 475 times what his lowest paid employee makes is rare. Most are much more fiscally responsible. Originally Posted by Budman

he is a crayfish. and he has the posts to prove it.