Posted on 10/26/2019 3:54:32 PM PDT by GuavaCheesePuff
I was pretty wrong as I was thinking more about the older generation of entrepreneurs who I think still cared about the country. More and more the CEOs are more interested in their yearly $$$ than keeping American workers employed. That being the case they will still more likely move as much of their operation out of the country rather than pay the taxes the Democrats say they want. By the way, I wonder if the Democrats would really tax the wealthy as much as they claim because many of them are Democratic donors or do like Obama did and try to tax the middle class out of existence.
They despise people who organize the production and distribution of goods and services.That is, they take the production of goods and services as a fixed given, which they take for granted.
Everything about socialism discourages production and encourages unlimited demand. Nothing can be expected of such a philosophy but shortages - shortages and waiting in line for rationed goods.
Worse, socialism prevents progress. Socialism compares dreadfully poorly in the long run with the prosperity of the capitalism it replaced - the comparison between the prosperity of capitalism following a generation of capitalist progress and the want which will be observed if the same society instead turned socialist is even more stark.
Ah, it’s my fault you’re being a jerk, my “complete ignorance” that “forces” YOU to fail at reading comprehension, which was actually what instigated your original attack on me.
You attacked what you thought I said, not what I actually said.
And your response revealed your ignorance of basic economics vis a vis employee skill levels, and an apparent inability to distinguish between tax policy and wages.
LOL. My reading comprehension is just fine, and so is my understanding of economics. I repeat...nobody is forcing anyone to work for the companies these folks have founded.
It is YOU that want to basically play Robin Hood (as do all socialists) with other people’s money. Sorry...not buying it. Bye!
Unfortunately, Guidance Counselors don't present this as a highly desirable path to a college education that leaves all doors open. They tend to help students find a way to accrue debt.
I was very fortunate, in that my HS guidance counselor (who doubled as the Vocational Agriculture teacher) knew all the ins and outs of self-financing a college degree (he had to...he had half a dozen boys to put through). Cheapest dorms, student jobs, scholarships, etc. etc. I couldn't have done it without him. And this was at a 300 students in twelve grades podunk rural high-school in deepest rural south Louisiana among some of the poorest of folks (including my parents).
Today's counselors in the consolidated mega-high-schools are seriously lacking if they allow or encourage a student to take on debt to go to Harvard and major in basket weaving.
Reading comprehension— fail.
I’m no socialist.
I’m advocating for a DIRECT fair & living wage for a fair day’s work in free market capitalism, WITHOUT government subsidies being factored in to make up any shortfalls between wages & living expenses.
I’m NOT advocating that “the rich” be taxed till they bleed to pay for more programs and an ever larger army of bureaucrats, to take money from here and redistribute it there.
At no time did I suggest the poor get free stuff, or that your money should be taken away by the government to give anyone free stuff.
But if you have employees, you need to pay them a living wage. A living wage pays them enough —after taxes— to pay for their own housing & food, without government assistance.
Subsidies for food & housing are de facto subsidies for fat cat employers, enabling them to keep that portion of employees’ wages in their own pocket while shifting them onto the taxpayers at large.
Subsidies enable fat cats to kick back $$ to politicians to keep the poverty train rolling.
I love capitalism. It’s the best. I don’t like those who abuse it.
Saying employees at a lower pay level should just go elsewhere doesnt make you a conservative, it makes you an elitist jerk who thinks people beneath you on the income scale don’t deserve higher pay or even any respect.
It also places you squarely on the side of the poverty pimps who are enriched by government subsidies.
I’m in favor of a complete return to free market capitalism and a weaning off from the subsidized economy entirely.
So as I said, if you think that makes me a socialist, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
You actually seem prone to knee jerk responses and stereotyping people you don’t understand or consider beneath you, which is how I’ve been told the DU people are, so maybe that’s where you belong.
You, in your infinite wisdom, know and want to tell other people what to do with their earned money...that is the bottom line. I have no such desire.
Keep on.
You’re obviously defeated and are reduced to your last spurt of hot air.
I’m not the one telling other people what they should do with THEIR money. That would be you. The only way to get your desire is by the coercive action of government, as “free market capitalism” means that “he who earned the money decides how it is used”....not ANY other party.
An employee, unsatisfied with his wages, has two choices...convince the person who pays his salary that he is worth more and negotiate a raise, or quit and go elsewhere. Those are the ONLY TWO CHOICES available under “free market capitalism”.
“convince the person who pays his salary that he is worth more and negotiate a raise, or ...” walk out.
Leave that workplace INDIVIDUALLY, or AS AN ORGANIZED GROUP.
THATS WHAT I SAID, IN MY FIRST POST AND SUBSEQUENT POSTS.
NEGOTIATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEE(S) AND EMPLOYER >>>>
***WITHOUT***
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, SUBSIDIES, REGULATION of wages etc.
you friggin moron.
Like I said....
Reading comprehension. Work on it.
Define “rich”.
Individually. Union coercion is organized thuggery. You’re a flipping idiot. We’re done.
All employees are not in organized unions, but all individual employees absolutely DO have the right to join together and organize to negotiate collectively.
Sometimes they do so on a one time, one issue basis, within an individual workplace, without necessarily incorporating as a permanent union.
And *you* do not have any right to tell them they can’t.
I’ll agree that union *bosses* —nowadays especially— operate in their own interests and, often as not, are in cahoots with management and politicians, with little regard for the employees they’re elected to represent.
What you may not understand is that unions now have gone so far left, they’re representing the “internationale” instead of American employees.
One such union in my region conspired with management to buy out the entire workforce & move the plant to Mexico, which crashed the local economy.
I’ve worked in a big city Union shop where the union sold us out by making absurd demands for more paid vacation, sick leave, plastic surgery, AIDS coverage, etc.
NO employer can stay in business paying 250 staffers NOT to work 2 months per year, while having to hire temps to come in and work in their absence.
What we needed were moderate cost of living increases— which management agreed to!! But “our” union “negotiated” us right out of our jobs!!
So I’ll agree with you up to a point, some unions are rotten. But not always. The basic idea, when correctly implemented, is a good one.
I’ve also worked in rural areas where the entire local economy is dependent on one major non-union facility whose owner hires & compensates “at his leisure” and regards any request for a pay raise as a firing offense, since an army of unemployed waits in line.
The wages are typically around $300-400 a week — at best.
The housing is cheap relative to major cities, but still requires half to 2/3 a month’s pay.
This equation is acceptable to the illegal aliens who are being mainstreamed into the economy, encouraged to remain illegal indefinitely, hired by the employer who gets richer off their cheaper labor— and they are given priority for subsidized housing.
So— no, you don’t understand economics and you are an elitist who looks down your nose and blames and stereotypes the hardest working & least rewarded Americans as bums who are too stupid & lazy to do any better, and “thugs” if they try.
Furthermore, employees are expressly forbidden to discuss their wages with coworkers; that’s also a firing offense.
The employer I’m referring to routinely pays his under 30 y.o. unmarried friends higher wages than divorced women with children, married men & women over 40, and blacks.
This situation is all too common in certain areas of the country.
Your first response is, nobody’s forcing them to stay there-
when in fact that’s where their families and mortgages are, and the local wages are so low overall, they cannot possibly sell their homes.
*You* tell them to beat it. Go get another job— when there aren’t any more in that town, and any payraise in the next town will be wiped out by the commute costs.
Then you concede grudgingly perhaps *you* might allow them to ask for a raise, but only individually, and when they’re fired anyway for asking, suck it up.
*You* won’t allow any employees comparing notes, or getting together telling *you* what to do with *your* money.
Funny how you keep insisting the employer’s money is your money, while at the same time you keep confusing employees with the government that is conspiring to deprive you of it.
Funny how you accusing me of telling others what to do, while you’re telling everybody else what you wont allow— because you think they’re the government.
You’re a wacky guy. LOL.
Here’s a clue: without employees, an employer would not have a dime. It’s their labor that produces the wealth, and it’s their excess labor that produces the profits.
Please reread, and try to comprehend, the previous paragraph. Now hold that thought, then try to plug the square pegs into the square holes in the following analogy:
Your overall argument is essentially akin to hollering the serfs have no right to challenge a politician. ‘Cause it’s the politician’s hard earned money, to do with as he pleases, eh?
Here’s more reiteration you may continue failing to comprehend:
When all of the employees in a given workplace are forced to choose between unemployment or starvation wages + foodstamps,
And-—
when subgroups within that workplace are forced to accept arbitrary discrimination in order to have any employment at all, while the employer accrues *additional* unearned wealth from doling out unequal wages that he forbids employees even to talk about,...
those employees ABSOLUTELY have the right to discuss their wages with one another, and to negotiate as a group, to walk out, to impress upon the employer that without their labor he cannot prosper.
They absolutely DO have the right to form a union if they choose to do so —and I am NOT telling anyone they MUST do so, nor am I remotely suggesting I’ll do it for them.
I’m saying slaves need to get off their butts and act on their own behalf instead of expecting the government or white people or Warthog to help them.
Just as it is the citizens’ right to redress against an unjust government.
And *you* don’t have the right to tell them they can’t.
But I’m sure these things will be totally misrepresented by you, due to that reading comprehension thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.