(12-05-2013 07:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  People can cook their own fries. There's a price most are willing to pay for the convenience of having someone else cook them. I'd pay some kid 10 bucks to mow my yard but I'd never pay some man 40.

10 bucks? I would have have laughed in your face when I was mowing yards as a kid...20 or it's not worth my time...want never to rake? 5 bucks a bag.

and that was like 99-2000

3 bucks when I was a kid. But gas could be had for 15 cents a gal. But that was like 30 years before you.

(12-05-2013 08:13 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 07:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  People can cook their own fries. There's a price most are willing to pay for the convenience of having someone else cook them. I'd pay some kid 10 bucks to mow my yard but I'd never pay some man 40.

10 bucks? I would have have laughed in your face when I was mowing yards as a kid...20 or it's not worth my time...want never to rake? 5 bucks a bag.

and that was like 99-2000

3 bucks when I was a kid. But gas could be had for 15 cents a gal. But that was like 30 years before you.

Honestly, the Mexicans drove up prices...the services all wanted 40 bucks to mow...10 bucks a bag...made my prices reasonable.

(12-05-2013 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:11 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I just feel that there needs to be a redress economically.

The market is not some divine thing that makes and creates values for certain things. We place value on certain things and the market reinforces those. A good example is sports, which is of zero productive value itself, yet the market puts a lot of cash into it. Think about it, the act of cooking fries or stocking shelves is more beneficial to the economy than swinging a bat or running a ball. We, the folks, have decided otherwise.

It's about time that we, the folks, started to put value where value deserves to be, in work, wherever that may be.

Now you get into the whole, moral collapse aspect and I think we all know where that ends up.

If people are willing to pay to watch sports, buy their collectables, pony up to see the games in person or subscribe to pay TV to watch their favorite team play, that is a decision that those folks have made. While it may rankle people that sports stars or actors get paid $millions, while some teacher or firefighter doesn't, the market will decide. No business is going to pay more than the market will bear unless they want to go out of business.

I understand your angst about value where it 'deserves to be' but that is not the way things work. If we want to pay people what their labor is worth, then many fields and/or industries need to ditch collective bargaining, where the worst gets paid the same as the best. If that teacher is really one of the best out there and could negotiate his/her own salary, I'm sure the compensation might be better.

As to your comment on moral collapse, is this a reference to your point from earlier in the thread? If not, what are you referring to?

You proved my point right there. Thanks.

The "market price" is about choice.

So, you can't ignore the working poor and use the "market price" as a backstop for doing so. Why? Because in reality all the "market price" is really is your choice not to place in value in the work those people do. That makes it a moral issue on a societal level.

But you know what road your argument is going down. You are effectively saying that people are making the wrong market choices. That we as a society value the incorrect things.

I'll never forget the economic analysis surrounding the demise of Eastern. The baggage handlers had negotiated a salary between $45-60/hr. While that is great work for them, it raise the economic floor of the company. All those positions that felt they had more marketable skills than the baggage handlers, wanted a salary that reflected that hierarchy. From Gate Agent to Flight Attendants, mechanics on all the way to pilots. That floor destroyed Easterns' bottom line and tanked the company.

That is why I feel the best compromise I can't think of is to just offer a tax free gov't stipend of $33K to everyone from the ages of 18-65 who make less than $90K a year. IMO socialism is inevitable in a democracy and if you are going to have it voted in by the people, then at least create a system that still allows capitalism to still exist.

(12-06-2013 12:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:11 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I just feel that there needs to be a redress economically.

The market is not some divine thing that makes and creates values for certain things. We place value on certain things and the market reinforces those. A good example is sports, which is of zero productive value itself, yet the market puts a lot of cash into it. Think about it, the act of cooking fries or stocking shelves is more beneficial to the economy than swinging a bat or running a ball. We, the folks, have decided otherwise.

It's about time that we, the folks, started to put value where value deserves to be, in work, wherever that may be.

Now you get into the whole, moral collapse aspect and I think we all know where that ends up.

If people are willing to pay to watch sports, buy their collectables, pony up to see the games in person or subscribe to pay TV to watch their favorite team play, that is a decision that those folks have made. While it may rankle people that sports stars or actors get paid $millions, while some teacher or firefighter doesn't, the market will decide. No business is going to pay more than the market will bear unless they want to go out of business.

I understand your angst about value where it 'deserves to be' but that is not the way things work. If we want to pay people what their labor is worth, then many fields and/or industries need to ditch collective bargaining, where the worst gets paid the same as the best. If that teacher is really one of the best out there and could negotiate his/her own salary, I'm sure the compensation might be better.

As to your comment on moral collapse, is this a reference to your point from earlier in the thread? If not, what are you referring to?

You proved my point right there. Thanks.

The "market price" is about choice.

So, you can't ignore the working poor and use the "market price" as a backstop for doing so. Why? Because in reality all the "market price" is really is your choice not to place in value in the work those people do. That makes it a moral issue on a societal level.

But you know what road your argument is going down. You are effectively saying that people are making the wrong market choices. That we as a society value the incorrect things.

I'll never forget the economic analysis surrounding the demise of Eastern. The baggage handlers had negotiated a salary between $45-60/hr. While that is great work for them, it raise the economic floor of the company. All those positions that felt they had more marketable skills than the baggage handlers, wanted a salary that reflected that hierarchy. From Gate Agent to Flight Attendants, mechanics on all the way to pilots. That floor destroyed Easterns' bottom line and tanked the company.

That is why I feel the best compromise I can't think of is to just offer a tax free gov't stipend of $33K to everyone from the ages of 18-65 who make less than $90K a year. IMO socialism is inevitable in a democracy and if you are going to have it voted in by the people, then at least create a system that still allows capitalism to still exist.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

A market can only exist in a moral and moderate in all things type of society. A decadent and immoral society will eventually pervert the very system that feed the system to the point that it throws society as a whole out of balance. It's happened countless times the ought history. The mis allocation of capital and assigning value to things with a net negative value will destroy a system as it inevitably alienates the core of society.

I think that's where we are heading.

Moderation is the key.

News this morning said most strikers in this area:
Did not work at the McDonalds where they were protesting, or
Did not have jobs at all, or
We're told not to talk.

One person was interviewed said she couldn't support her two kids on $8.25/hr, and wasn't that her responsibility? No mention of the father, or her responsibility to get married, find a responsible husband/father, etc.

(12-06-2013 12:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  That is why I feel the best compromise I can't think of is to just offer a tax free gov't stipend of $33K to everyone from the ages of 18-65 who make less than $90K a year.

If that ever happens I'm retiring the next day, taking the stipend, and moving to some South American country where I could live like a king.

(12-06-2013 08:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  News this morning said most strikers in this area:
Did not work at the McDonalds where they were protesting, or
Did not have jobs at all, or
We're told not to talk.

One person was interviewed said she couldn't support her two kids on $8.25/hr, and wasn't that her responsibility? No mention of the father, or her responsibility to get married, find a responsible husband/father, etc.

There is no responsibility to marry...

(12-06-2013 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  News this morning said most strikers in this area:
Did not work at the McDonalds where they were protesting, or
Did not have jobs at all, or
We're told not to talk.

One person was interviewed said she couldn't support her two kids on $8.25/hr, and wasn't that her responsibility? No mention of the father, or her responsibility to get married, find a responsible husband/father, etc.

There is no responsibility to marry...

There is a responsibilty to not have kids though if conditions do not lend themselves to properly care for said kids.

(12-06-2013 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  News this morning said most strikers in this area:
Did not work at the McDonalds where they were protesting, or
Did not have jobs at all, or
We're told not to talk.

One person was interviewed said she couldn't support her two kids on $8.25/hr, and wasn't that her responsibility? No mention of the father, or her responsibility to get married, find a responsible husband/father, etc.

There is no responsibility to marry...

And this right here is the very embodiment of the sickness that pervades our society. smh

(12-06-2013 01:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  News this morning said most strikers in this area:
Did not work at the McDonalds where they were protesting, or
Did not have jobs at all, or
We're told not to talk.

One person was interviewed said she couldn't support her two kids on $8.25/hr, and wasn't that her responsibility? No mention of the father, or her responsibility to get married, find a responsible husband/father, etc.

There is no responsibility to marry...

And this right here is the very embodiment of the sickness that pervades our society. smh

Some people prefer to raise their kids without entering into a government contract that ties all their assets together.

Again, it's just so darn cute how all you guys think marriage is some religious thing...it's a contract with the State.

Yea, just pump out them kids, let someone else be responsible for raising them.

Why should the rest of normal society care about that? What possible harm could millions of fatherless homes cause...

and who brought up religion? You did. Have a JOP do the deed, what do I care.

(12-06-2013 01:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  News this morning said most strikers in this area:
Did not work at the McDonalds where they were protesting, or
Did not have jobs at all, or
We're told not to talk.

One person was interviewed said she couldn't support her two kids on $8.25/hr, and wasn't that her responsibility? No mention of the father, or her responsibility to get married, find a responsible husband/father, etc.

There is no responsibility to marry...

And this right here is the very embodiment of the sickness that pervades our society. smh

Some people prefer to raise their kids without entering into a government contract that ties all their assets together.

Again, it's just so darn cute how all you guys think marriage is some religious thing...it's a contract with the State.

Your ignorance on all things is showing again.

No marriage? That subjects the children and society to harsher circumstances. Since she is looking for a handout from society, she has a responsibility to that society.

QED

Now run along to your $8.25/hr job.

(12-06-2013 01:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  News this morning said most strikers in this area:
Did not work at the McDonalds where they were protesting, or
Did not have jobs at all, or
We're told not to talk.

One person was interviewed said she couldn't support her two kids on $8.25/hr, and wasn't that her responsibility? No mention of the father, or her responsibility to get married, find a responsible husband/father, etc.

There is no responsibility to marry...

And this right here is the very embodiment of the sickness that pervades our society. smh

Some people prefer to raise their kids without entering into a government contract that ties all their assets together.

Again, it's just so darn cute how all you guys think marriage is some religious thing...it's a contract with the State.

Your ignorance on all things is showing again.

No marriage? That subjects the children and society to harsher circumstances. Since she is looking for a handout from society, she has a responsibility to that society.

QED

Now run along to your $8.25/hr job.

2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

I don't make 8.25

(12-06-2013 01:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

And that happens how often?

Quote:Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

Straw man

Quote:I don't make 8.25

I don't care. Your liberal tripe has no basis in reality. So why do libs hate science and empiricism?

(12-06-2013 01:56 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

And that happens how often?

Quote:Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

Straw man

Quote:I don't make 8.25

I don't care. Your liberal tripe has no basis in reality. So why do libs hate science and empiricism?

I don't like tripe...and I don't see how an animal stomach could be classified as liberal.

(12-06-2013 01:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:08 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  There is no responsibility to marry...

And this right here is the very embodiment of the sickness that pervades our society. smh

Some people prefer to raise their kids without entering into a government contract that ties all their assets together.

Again, it's just so darn cute how all you guys think marriage is some religious thing...it's a contract with the State.

Your ignorance on all things is showing again.

No marriage? That subjects the children and society to harsher circumstances. Since she is looking for a handout from society, she has a responsibility to that society.

QED

Now run along to your $8.25/hr job.

2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

I don't make 8.25

They can, but by and large they don't.

No, but it goes a long way to making the children's problems go away. I don't really give a schit about the irresponsible "parents" problems. They're already pretty apparent.

The minimum wage is less where you live?

(12-06-2013 02:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  And this right here is the very embodiment of the sickness that pervades our society. smh

Some people prefer to raise their kids without entering into a government contract that ties all their assets together.

Again, it's just so darn cute how all you guys think marriage is some religious thing...it's a contract with the State.

Your ignorance on all things is showing again.

No marriage? That subjects the children and society to harsher circumstances. Since she is looking for a handout from society, she has a responsibility to that society.

QED

Now run along to your $8.25/hr job.

2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

I don't make 8.25

They can, but by and large they don't.

No, but it goes a long way to making the children's problems go away. I don't really give a schit about the irresponsible "parents" problems. They're already pretty apparent.

The minimum wage is less where you live?

Minimum wage is 7.25 nationwide unless you are in a state that doesn't hate the poor...TN is GOP controlled...and we all know republicans hate the poor.

(12-06-2013 02:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Some people prefer to raise their kids without entering into a government contract that ties all their assets together.

Again, it's just so darn cute how all you guys think marriage is some religious thing...it's a contract with the State.

Your ignorance on all things is showing again.

No marriage? That subjects the children and society to harsher circumstances. Since she is looking for a handout from society, she has a responsibility to that society.

QED

Now run along to your $8.25/hr job.

2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

I don't make 8.25

They can, but by and large they don't.

No, but it goes a long way to making the children's problems go away. I don't really give a schit about the irresponsible "parents" problems. They're already pretty apparent.

The minimum wage is less where you live?

Minimum wage is 7.25 nationwide unless you are in a state that doesn't hate the poor...TN is GOP controlled...and we all know republicans hate the poor.

Speak for yourself, dude. you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

It does fit your MO however.

(12-06-2013 01:56 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

And that happens how often?

Quote:Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

Straw man

Quote:I don't make 8.25

I don't care. Your liberal tripe has no basis in reality. So why do libs hate science and empiricism?

DT, there is NO rationalizing with the irrational. Give it up.

(12-06-2013 02:14 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Your ignorance on all things is showing again.

No marriage? That subjects the children and society to harsher circumstances. Since she is looking for a handout from society, she has a responsibility to that society.

QED

Now run along to your $8.25/hr job.

2 people can live together and raise their kids without ever entering into a government contract.

Getting married doesn't make your problems go away.

I don't make 8.25

They can, but by and large they don't.

No, but it goes a long way to making the children's problems go away. I don't really give a schit about the irresponsible "parents" problems. They're already pretty apparent.

The minimum wage is less where you live?

Minimum wage is 7.25 nationwide unless you are in a state that doesn't hate the poor...TN is GOP controlled...and we all know republicans hate the poor.

Speak for yourself, dude. you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

It does fit your MO however.

I only speak for myself...as does everyone on this board.