[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If some one is hired to do a job the person should be able to live in his environment unassisted by my tax dollar .
[/quote]
Pitt thinks this guy:
deserves to actually get paid more than he does for his work.
This?
This deserves a “livable wage”?
No, this deserves a pay reduction.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Amen
Pitt thinks the guy holding the gun probably should not be there and also Pitt thinks the Military should be a high paying career but a hell of a lot smaller , Pitt also thinks thinks these Vets that come home fucked up ought to be taken care of for as long as it takes and that could for the rest of the person’s life , including housing food stamps and even (OH MY GAWD) Welfare .
Pitt also thinks any one that works for a living deserves to be compensated at a level that is at least bare minimum
See CJS you don’t know Jack about Pitt
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Pitt also thinks any one that works for a living deserves to be compensated at a level that is at least bare minimum
[/quote]
What is wrong with paying them what their skills are worth?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Pitt also thinks any one that works for a living deserves to be compensated at a level that is at least bare minimum
[/quote]
What is wrong with paying them what their skills are worth?
[/quote]
It makes to much sense to pay based on skill?
I don’t deserve to make as much as Peyton Manning. He is not overpaid. He is probably vastly underpaid to be honest.
My sister is almost done with med school and will be a doctor. I do NOT want to live in a world where she makes less than me. It wouldn’t be fair. It wouldn’t be better. That’s what people DON’T realize.
They honestly think it would be a lot better. It really wouldn’t. Things in the economy would get better with LESS government and we’d see some of the crazy inequality go down with less crony capitalism. Free markets work. We just don’t give them a chance to enough.
A doctor should make more than a janitor. The work is more valuable. The skills are more valuable. One job is tougher than the other. “Fairness” is so subjective anyways.
I think beans should give me all his damn accounting money anyways. Stop spending it on yourself and your family you selfish asshole and give it to me. Don’t you want to be fair?! It’s only FAIR!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Pitt also thinks any one that works for a living deserves to be compensated at a level that is at least bare minimum
[/quote]
What is wrong with paying them what their skills are worth?
[/quote]
You ask that question as though there were a simple answer.
I am not smart enough nor do I have the time and energy to argue the points .
I will how ever try and explain why.
Let’s call labor a commodity and this commodity has an endless supply .
This particular commodity’s (IF THE SAFETY NET WERE REMOVED) price plummet in a totally open market wages like India , Vietnam and the like .Labor would border worthlessness
This particular commodity is not like corn, lumber or pork bellies . It is live stock and some people consider this live stock to be sacred 
or at least until it is born:) and if it did not work it would not eat .
WE at present DO HAVE a safety net . And it is expensive to maintain this safety net. I personally also would not want to live in a country that did not have this net .
But there is a segment of our society, That lives in a society where there is relative safety , security , infrastructure and all the things that money can buy and not only not pay their fair share but leach off the working class by severely underpaying their their employees and they will not have to worry about their employees , starving , dying of disease and just wondering off because that built in infrastructure will suffice the needs of their employees.
Like I say this is a complex subject with many facets . I will not waste much time on it . I will try and answer any seriously framed questions about my opinion but one at a time not a slice and dice post
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You ask that question as though there were a simple answer.
I am not smart enough nor do I have the time and energy to argue the points .
I will how ever try and explain why.
Let’s call labor a commodity and this commodity has an endless supply .
This particular commodity’s (IF THE SAFETY NET WERE REMOVED) price plummet in a totally open market wages like India , Vietnam and the like .Labor would border worthlessness
This particular commodity is not like corn, lumber or pork bellies . It is live stock and some people consider this live stock to be sacred or at least until it is born:) and if it did not work it would not eat .
WE at present DO HAVE a safety net . And it is expensive to maintain this safety net. I personally also would not want to live in a country that did not have this net .
But there is a segment of our society, That lives in a society where there is relative safety , security , infrastructure and all the things that money can buy and not only not pay their fair share but leach off the working class by severely underpaying their their employees and they will not have to worry about their employees , starving , dying of disease and just wondering off because that built in infrastructure will suffice the needs of their employees.
Like I say this is a complex subject with many facets . I will not waste much time on it . I will try and answer any seriously framed questions about my opinion but one at a time not a slice and dice post
[/quote]
Pittbulll, let me ask you two questions: Are the Indian people better off with the jobs that U.S. businesses have outsourced? If not, why do they accept them?
Well, I guess I have one more question: How is labor an endless commodity?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You ask that question as though there were a simple answer.
I am not smart enough nor do I have the time and energy to argue the points .
I will how ever try and explain why.
Let’s call labor a commodity and this commodity has an endless supply .
This particular commodity’s (IF THE SAFETY NET WERE REMOVED) price plummet in a totally open market wages like India , Vietnam and the like .Labor would border worthlessness
This particular commodity is not like corn, lumber or pork bellies . It is live stock and some people consider this live stock to be sacred or at least until it is born:) and if it did not work it would not eat .
WE at present DO HAVE a safety net . And it is expensive to maintain this safety net. I personally also would not want to live in a country that did not have this net .
But there is a segment of our society, That lives in a society where there is relative safety , security , infrastructure and all the things that money can buy and not only not pay their fair share but leach off the working class by severely underpaying their their employees and they will not have to worry about their employees , starving , dying of disease and just wondering off because that built in infrastructure will suffice the needs of their employees.
Like I say this is a complex subject with many facets . I will not waste much time on it . I will try and answer any seriously framed questions about my opinion but one at a time not a slice and dice post
[/quote]
Pittbulll, let me ask you two questions: Are the Indian people better off with the jobs that U.S. businesses have outsourced? If not, why do they accept them?
Well, I guess I have one more question: How is labor an endless commodity?[/quote]
yes they are better off , but they do not have a safety net.
There are more jobs than people , You will do the lob for $5 , I will do it for $4 ,you will do it for $3 and so on . People have to eat
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You ask that question as though there were a simple answer.
I am not smart enough nor do I have the time and energy to argue the points .
I will how ever try and explain why.
Let’s call labor a commodity and this commodity has an endless supply .
This particular commodity’s (IF THE SAFETY NET WERE REMOVED) price plummet in a totally open market wages like India , Vietnam and the like .Labor would border worthlessness
This particular commodity is not like corn, lumber or pork bellies . It is live stock and some people consider this live stock to be sacred or at least until it is born:) and if it did not work it would not eat .
WE at present DO HAVE a safety net . And it is expensive to maintain this safety net. I personally also would not want to live in a country that did not have this net .
But there is a segment of our society, That lives in a society where there is relative safety , security , infrastructure and all the things that money can buy and not only not pay their fair share but leach off the working class by severely underpaying their their employees and they will not have to worry about their employees , starving , dying of disease and just wondering off because that built in infrastructure will suffice the needs of their employees.
Like I say this is a complex subject with many facets . I will not waste much time on it . I will try and answer any seriously framed questions about my opinion but one at a time not a slice and dice post
[/quote]
Pittbulll, let me ask you two questions: Are the Indian people better off with the jobs that U.S. businesses have outsourced? If not, why do they accept them?
Well, I guess I have one more question: How is labor an endless commodity?[/quote]
You picture is clearly your political views , you still have failed to tell me one place on earth that Nickyville exists .
I personally think you are no Libertarian , I think you are an Accidental Anarchist
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
yes they are better off , but they do not have a safety net.
There are more jobs than people , You will do the lob for $5 , I will do it for $4 ,you will do it for $3 and so on . People have to eat
[/quote]
Who will do the job for less than it takes to feed himself? You admit they are better off, so the next question is: is America worse off without those jobs?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You picture is clearly your political views , you still have failed to tell me one place on earth that Nickyville exists .
I personally think you are no Libertarian , I think you are an Accidental Anarchist
[/quote]
If I knew of one place freedom exists, I would be there.
In no way do my views put the cart before the horse. You repeat your belief in that scenario almost every time you post-you believe a “safety net” creates prosperity.
You believe the junk little kids are “taught” in school. I remember “learning” about the evil entrepreneurs of the industrial revolution. I remember “learning” how the government had to save the working class from the evil entrepreneurs. If I stopped learning when I left school, I would believe that. I would have compared the living conditions of the working class of that time period to the working class of today, and then concluded that government is the messiah I was taught to believe it is. I would never have wondered, “Hmm, I wonder how the living conditions of the working/poor class were prior to the industrial revolution? Why would they voluntarily do those jobs?”
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You picture is clearly your political views , you still have failed to tell me one place on earth that Nickyville exists .
I personally think you are no Libertarian , I think you are an Accidental Anarchist
[/quote]
If I knew of one place freedom exists, I would be there.
In no way do my views put the cart before the horse. You repeat your belief in that scenario almost every time you post-you believe a “safety net” creates prosperity.
You believe the junk little kids are “taught” in school. I remember “learning” about the evil entrepreneurs of the industrial revolution. I remember “learning” how the government had to save the working class from the evil entrepreneurs. If I stopped learning when I left school, I would believe that. I would have compared the living conditions of the working class of that time period to the working class of today, and then concluded that government is the messiah I was taught to believe it is. I would never have wondered, “Hmm, I wonder how the living condition of the working/poor class was prior to the industrial revolution? Why would they voluntarily do those jobs?”[/quote]
Meaning No Disrespect Nick but IMO Nickyville would have such a power vacuum that your only hope would be that some one as kind as Pitt would take it over because there are a hell of a lots worse alternatives
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Pitt also thinks any one that works for a living deserves to be compensated at a level that is at least bare minimum
[/quote]
What is wrong with paying them what their skills are worth?
[/quote]
It makes to much sense to pay based on skill?
I don’t deserve to make as much as Peyton Manning. He is not overpaid. He is probably vastly underpaid to be honest.
My sister is almost done with med school and will be a doctor. I do NOT want to live in a world where she makes less than me. It wouldn’t be fair. It wouldn’t be better. That’s what people DON’T realize.
They honestly think it would be a lot better. It really wouldn’t. Things in the economy would get better with LESS government and we’d see some of the crazy inequality go down with less crony capitalism. Free markets work. We just don’t give them a chance to enough.
A doctor should make more than a janitor. The work is more valuable. The skills are more valuable. One job is tougher than the other. “Fairness” is so subjective anyways.
I think beans should give me all his damn accounting money anyways. Stop spending it on yourself and your family you selfish asshole and give it to me. Don’t you want to be fair?! It’s only FAIR![/quote]
Good post H.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Let’s call labor a commodity and this commodity has an endless supply . [/quote]
This is not true, skills will always determine the labor supply.
Can just about any able bodied person dig a ditch or flip a burger? Yup. Therefore the wage you earn for it, or ringing at a retail register, are low, because just about anyone can do it.
Now, are the wages earned by a plumber equally low? No. Why not? Because of the skill involved in being a good plumber. Because the labor supply is very much limited by the skills needed to be a plumber, which exceed the skill needed to be a greeter at Wal_mart.
This continues on and on until you get to the most valued (highest paid) earners in an economic system.
Probably because deep down you understand how unfounded your point of view on the topic is.
Basic economics: if you want less of something, raise the cost.
So, here we are in an arguable depression, with crappy labor force participation, and some “genius” wants to raise the cost of employing the most marginal workers.
Brilliant!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Pitt also thinks any one that works for a living deserves to be compensated at a level that is at least bare minimum
[/quote]
What is wrong with paying them what their skills are worth?
[/quote]
How dare you say we are not all equal?
Except for Michele Obama, who is more equal, of course. Which is why taxpayers bought her a $12,000 dress. And closed the Aspen airport for her. And flew her special from Hawaii. Etc.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
deep down you understand[/quote]
Beans, I think you’re wrong here.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
deep down you understand[/quote]
Beans, I think you’re wrong here.[/quote]
Nah, Pitt is certainly center/left without question, however I think he plays it up around here to spark interest and ruffle feathers. Trying to be the “voice of reason” or so it would seem.
I would gamble that on a macro level, he and I agree on more than it appears here, we just disagree on how to get there, a lot.