[quote]whatever2k wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also middle class American don’t works for minimum wage.
[/quote]
True, but I remember reading somewhere that the average americans wages have been stagnant since the 70s adjusted for inflation. Pretty much everything has gone to the richest. That has got to become a problem at some point.
[/quote]
Read this.
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
Stumbled across this article over on Politicalforum.com and was staggered by some of the figures.
Just wanted peoples thoughts on this, especially americans. Is it really as bad as this article makes it seem? That people are drowning in debt and basically working slave labor.
A minimum wage of 7.25 while certain CEOs rakes in 11k an hour seems extreme.
Is there social mobility left in the US for the poor and lower middle class?[/quote]
Opportunity exists everywhere.
It’s hard for people staring with nothing and that is something that has always been true and always will be.
There is no such thing as social mobility. There is only individual mobility.
The biggest problem on the left is that they are always talking about raising the minimum wage as if it is a wage a person was meant to earn for the rest of his life.
If one is still only earning minimum wage after years in the work force then the problem isn’t that the minimum wage is too low.
I would call that a problem of motivation.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The biggest problem on the left is that they are always talking about raising the minimum wage as if it is a wage a person was meant to earn for the rest of his life.
If one is still only earning minimum wage after years in the work force then the problem isn’t that the minimum wage is too low.
I would call that a problem of motivation.[/quote]
Bingo. We have a winner.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.[/quote]
but but cost of living is so high in America. You see it’s all relative. You know you’re poor if you make $35K and live in NY city. Life just isn’t fair.
(This is sarcasm by the way)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
^^Good posts H factor. Wiping out the middle class will have consequenses. I think the occupy movement may have been an early warning sign, albeit poorly led and organized.
[/quote]
Occupy is/was beyond fucked up. They missed the mark in so many ways their relevance beyond putting people in neat little % boxes is zero. [/quote]
I was in journalism school in NYC during Occupy and I covered it freelance in my spare time. It was the most impressive collection of idiots and vagrants I’ve ever seen in my entire life, and I’ve spent time in Indian slums.
There were conspiracy theorists (the kind that can make JayPierce seem like a reasonable person), drug addicts, felons, sexual assailants, and all manner of belligerent anti-establishment goons with bad teeth and malignant body odor. And a guy who told me he came all the way from Arkansas “for the tang” and then pulled a rat out of his pocket and fed it part of his burrito.
When the big events happened–the march across the bridge and etc.–you had thousands of run-of-the-mill NY liberals, people with kids and showers and jobs and all that. But the “Occupy” movement itself–the people sleeping in the park–they were something else.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.[/quote]
Obviously true. I just said I used it for convenience(it’s also a term that is thrown around enough in America that most everyone knows what is usually meant by it when it’s used).
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.[/quote]
Obviously true. I just said I used it for convenience(it’s also a term that is thrown around enough in America that most everyone knows what is usually meant by it when it’s used).[/quote]
I don’t think America actually know what Poor is, but it helps bleeding heart liberals feel good about themselves, and sticking it to the man.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I don’t think America actually know what Poor is, but it helps bleeding heart liberals feel good about themselves, and sticking it to the man.[/quote]
Wealthy liberals that cry about poverty and at the same time support American empire need to be airdropped from a C-130 into Afghanistan.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.[/quote]
Obviously true. I just said I used it for convenience(it’s also a term that is thrown around enough in America that most everyone knows what is usually meant by it when it’s used).[/quote]
I don’t think America actually know what Poor is, but it helps bleeding heart liberals feel good about themselves, and sticking it to the man.[/quote]
Oh come on of course we do. We’ve all seen the commercials of the starving kids in Africa. Even the “poor” in America see them on their 73" TV 
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.[/quote]
Obviously true. I just said I used it for convenience(it’s also a term that is thrown around enough in America that most everyone knows what is usually meant by it when it’s used).[/quote]
I don’t think America actually know what Poor is, but it helps bleeding heart liberals feel good about themselves, and sticking it to the man.[/quote]
Oh come on of course we do. We’ve all seen the commercials of the starving kids in Africa. Even the “poor” in America see them on their 73" TV [/quote]
I wish I had a 73" TV. I wish I had a Cadillac Escalade to drive. I guess my priorities are feeding, sheltering, and clothing my family, and making sure I do not have to eat Alpo when I retire.
By the way to all the liberals on this site, I back up what I preach on helping the poor. I give a lot of money to charities that actually help the poor. I gave away more money than I paid in taxes last year. I actually want to help people, not make them dependent on the gubernment.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.[/quote]
Obviously true. I just said I used it for convenience(it’s also a term that is thrown around enough in America that most everyone knows what is usually meant by it when it’s used).[/quote]
I don’t think America actually know what Poor is, but it helps bleeding heart liberals feel good about themselves, and sticking it to the man.[/quote]
Oh come on of course we do. We’ve all seen the commercials of the starving kids in Africa. Even the “poor” in America see them on their 73" TV [/quote]
I wish I had a 73" TV. I wish I had a Cadillac Escalade to drive. I guess my priorities are feeding, sheltering, and clothing my family, and making sure I do not have to eat Alpo when I retire.[/quote]
Shit man, that’s what the governments for.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?[/quote]
The poor in America are not poor. They still have more stuff and food than 90% of the worlds population.[/quote]
That was my point. It’s just easier to write “poor” than “minimum-wage worker” or something.[/quote]
No, it is a way for a particular party to make a certain socio-economic individual to think they have been given the short end of the stick, and they need to stick it to the Man. Whoever the man is. It is always greener on the other side.[/quote]
Obviously true. I just said I used it for convenience(it’s also a term that is thrown around enough in America that most everyone knows what is usually meant by it when it’s used).[/quote]
I don’t think America actually know what Poor is, but it helps bleeding heart liberals feel good about themselves, and sticking it to the man.[/quote]
Oh come on of course we do. We’ve all seen the commercials of the starving kids in Africa. Even the “poor” in America see them on their 73" TV [/quote]
I wish I had a 73" TV. I wish I had a Cadillac Escalade to drive. I guess my priorities are feeding, sheltering, and clothing my family, and making sure I do not have to eat Alpo when I retire.[/quote]
Shit man, that’s what the governments for. [/quote]
Making sure you eat Alpo when you retire? Come to think of it. Yes it is. I am thinking of writing a book called “101 ways to prepare Alpo, and LIKE IT.” Thank you Dave Ramsey for the idea.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Making sure you eat Alpo when you retire? Come to think of it. Yes it is. I am thinking of writing a book called “101 ways to prepare Alpo, and LIKE IT.” Thank you Dave Ramsey for the idea.[/quote]
I work for a publishing company, maybe we can cut a deal
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I suck at multi-quote, but I WAS asking him. As to your second point why in the hell would you think it would rapidly diminish? Do you think the national debt will rapidly diminish if something doesn’t change because it has been rising rapdily? Why would you think it would? Are you not aware of the data on income inequality over the last 30 some odd years? How could you come to the conclusion it will magically change or that it is just as likely to change? That’s being irrational.
[/quote]
Okay, you were asking him. I didn’t say I THOUGHT it would rapidly diminsish, I asked based on your line of reasoning, if it’s possible.
This is why we have an issue, I’m not being irrational because I never took a stance either way. I asked a series of question. You, like with Beans, have infered things about me that may or may not be true. I don’t believe the debt nor the wage gap will just decrease, I was simply asking a question based on your line of reasoning.
That’s fine. I never said it wasn’t worth discussing.
I was trying to figure out his stance. Your entire absolutely worthless post was aimed at putting down my questioning and thinking towards beans. Which apparently HE had no problem with as he didn’t bring it up.
You don’t HAVE to follow the order, but where I come from if you’re going to interject in a conversation it SHOULD probably be with something of value. You jumped in essentially attacking me based on a discussion I was attempting to have with beans to learn where he’s coming from and to help hammer home WHAT I THINK about the subject.
You want to talk about integrity as if I did something wrong in the process. I didn’t do anything of the sort. Nor did beans.
I guess where I come from we call it a major annoyance when someone interrupts two people attempting to talk without adding anything of value to what those two are talking about.
I guess that’s not always the case. I have no idea what your purpose was with the post.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I suck at multi-quote, but I WAS asking him. As to your second point why in the hell would you think it would rapidly diminish? Do you think the national debt will rapidly diminish if something doesn’t change because it has been rising rapdily? Why would you think it would? Are you not aware of the data on income inequality over the last 30 some odd years? How could you come to the conclusion it will magically change or that it is just as likely to change? That’s being irrational.
[/quote]
Okay, you were asking him. I didn’t say I THOUGHT it would rapidly diminsish, I asked based on your line of reasoning, if it’s possible.
This is why we have an issue, I’m not being irrational because I never took a stance either way. I asked a series of question. You, like with Beans, have infered things about me that may or may not be true. I don’t believe the debt nor the wage gap will just decrease, I was simply asking a question based on your line of reasoning.
That’s fine. I never said it wasn’t worth discussing.
I was trying to figure out his stance. Your entire absolutely worthless post was aimed at putting down my questioning and thinking towards beans. Which apparently HE had no problem with as he didn’t bring it up.
You don’t HAVE to follow the order, but where I come from if you’re going to interject in a conversation it SHOULD probably be with something of value. You jumped in essentially attacking me based on a discussion I was attempting to have with beans to learn where he’s coming from and to help hammer home WHAT I THINK about the subject.
You want to talk about integrity as if I did something wrong in the process. I didn’t do anything of the sort. Nor did beans.
I guess where I come from we call it a major annoyance when someone interrupts two people attempting to talk without adding anything of value to what those two are talking about.
I guess that’s not always the case. I have no idea what your purpose was with the post.
[/quote]
What are you guys talking about? I want in.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I suck at multi-quote, but I WAS asking him. As to your second point why in the hell would you think it would rapidly diminish? Do you think the national debt will rapidly diminish if something doesn’t change because it has been rising rapdily? Why would you think it would? Are you not aware of the data on income inequality over the last 30 some odd years? How could you come to the conclusion it will magically change or that it is just as likely to change? That’s being irrational.
[/quote]
Okay, you were asking him. I didn’t say I THOUGHT it would rapidly diminsish, I asked based on your line of reasoning, if it’s possible.
This is why we have an issue, I’m not being irrational because I never took a stance either way. I asked a series of question. You, like with Beans, have infered things about me that may or may not be true. I don’t believe the debt nor the wage gap will just decrease, I was simply asking a question based on your line of reasoning.
That’s fine. I never said it wasn’t worth discussing.
I was trying to figure out his stance. Your entire absolutely worthless post was aimed at putting down my questioning and thinking towards beans. You don’t HAVE to follow the order, but where I come from if you’re going to interject in a conversation it SHOULD probably be with something of value. You jumped in essentially attacking me based on a discussion I was attempting to have with beans to learn where he’s coming from and to help hammer home WHAT I THINK about the subject.
You want to talk about integrity as if I did something wrong in the process. I didn’t do anything of the sort. Nor did beans.
I guess where I come from we call it a major annoyance when someone interrupts two people attempting to talk without adding anything of value to what those two are talking about.
I guess that’s not always the case.
[/quote]
Someone needs to relax. I didn’t interrupt you because this is the internet. You could of just ignored the post. It’s not like I walked in between the two of you and start shouting. Get a grip. Every quesiton I asked had value. Like usual you just ignored it because it didn’t fit into your current dialogue.
You attacked Beans first. You might not see it that way, but that’s how it came across. So I defend him by, ASKING QUESTIONS, because I think he’s a stand up guy. Instead of just answering the questions you got pissy. If you don’t like that well fuck you.
Dude you are a no name no face avatar on a fitness websites political forum. The fact that you think I’m an annoyance matters about as much to me as what time the President took a shit today. Just to be clear that would be zero.