(10-28-2013 08:24 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Same opportunity if you're competing against people of the same SES.

I guarantee you if put in your 100 hour weeks, live at the office, and lead a pretty miserable life without family and work-life balance, you will some day be that officer. You need to decide first if it is worth it. Me? I'd rather make my $65k, work my 40-50 hours and have my nights and weekends with my family. I don't envy anyone making so much momey because I see how they live and prioritize. I also dont feel I deserve it. Not the life for me.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

We're not talking about people who make decent money. We're talking about people who make 15k a year at minimum wage. They weren't necessarily blessed with the same education that some of us got.

So? Neither was my friend the elevator repair guy.

He learned a trade and went to work everyday, starting exactly one weekend after High School was over. Barely 18. Now? Brings home somewhere around a hundred and a half or more, has a lovely wife, 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs.

Oh, and a cat. Can't forget the cat.

As is clearly illustrated here every day- this formal "higher" education stuff can be vastly overrated.

That's cool and all, but for every success story, there are dozens of people who go nowhere.

(10-28-2013 08:23 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I guarantee you if put in your 100 hour weeks, live at the office, and lead a pretty miserable life without family and work-life balance, you will some day be that officer. You need to decide first if it is worth it. Me? I'd rather make my $65k, work my 40-50 hours and have my nights and weekends with my family. I don't envy anyone making so much momey because I see how they live and prioritize. I also dont feel I deserve it. Not the life for me.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

We're not talking about people who make decent money. We're talking about people who make 15k a year at minimum wage. They weren't necessarily blessed with the same education that some of us got.

So? Neither was my friend the elevator repair guy.

He learned a trade and went to work everyday, starting exactly one weekend after High School was over. Barely 18. Now? Brings home somewhere around a hundred and a half or more, has a lovely wife, 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs.

Oh, and a cat. Can't forget the cat.

As is clearly illustrated here every day- this formal "higher" education stuff can be vastly overrated.

If you finish high school (even at a bad high school), you will have a high school diploma. With a high school diploma you can go to community college or join the military. If you are even reasonably motivated at community college or in the military, you will have a marketable skill set.

Everyone (rich, poor, urban, rural) has those opportunities. Arguing otherwise is a lie.

You are making excuses for people who don't value education, don't work hard at it and make poor life decisions.

How many inner city children are finishing high school?

Whose fault is that? Theirs. You can't make people who didn't value education stay in high school. Students who drop out are making choices that will land them in dead end low paying jobs.

And you know what...if those same drop outs do start at low paying jobs if they show up every day and bust their butts they won't be making $8 for very long. They will be rewarded for their hard work.

If they have problems with absenteeism, show up late, talk on their cellphone when they should be working, goof off, etc. they will be stuck at minimum forever.

No one is stuck at minimum if they show up and work hard.

(10-28-2013 08:38 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What happens when you are on the other side of the equation and have no options? It's not so simple and that attitude has alienated millions of Americans from the Republican Party, which, believe it or not, was not founded on the ideals of greed and rampant abuse. Believe it or not, the party was founded on the idea that an honest day's work deserves an honest day's pay.

What options does Wal-Mart have?

The person making $8/hour is there because $8/hour is an honest day's pay for what that worker can do. He/she lacks the skills to do an honest day's work worth more than that. Is Wal-Mart supposed to pay people what those people are worth, or is it somehow supposed to pay them vastly more than they are worth, in order that some artificially imposed "honest day's pay" standard can be met?

This is what is wrong with the left. The left does not think through the implications of their pet policies on the suppliers/providers of the world.

Interestingly enough Henry Ford himself would most likely agree with me.

The goal should be to pay the employees as much as you can.

Henry Ford would've laughed at "pay employees as much as you can." Henry Ford paid what he did to keep employees from leaving and to reduce absenteeism because turnover was bad. To run a production line people had to have your assembly line workers actually show up. The pay increase had nothing to do with benevolence or so that they could buy his cars. That's a myth embraced by the left.

In Ford's plants to get the sum total of $5 a day you had to abide by very strict rules (show up on time, work all day, and not miss work). a portion of a worker's $5 a day was only earned if they followed the rules. If tey didn't comply with the rules they didn't get the bonus.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/tim...100016570/

You're misinformed. Ford created an economic theory that became known as Fordism which stressed the equitable relationship between employer and employee. A theory that has been in decline as the numbers of working poor have grown dramatically.

Ford, a symbol of capitalism, was not brought about through the system used today.

(10-28-2013 08:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:38 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 04:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What happens when you are on the other side of the equation and have no options? It's not so simple and that attitude has alienated millions of Americans from the Republican Party, which, believe it or not, was not founded on the ideals of greed and rampant abuse. Believe it or not, the party was founded on the idea that an honest day's work deserves an honest day's pay.

What options does Wal-Mart have?

The person making $8/hour is there because $8/hour is an honest day's pay for what that worker can do. He/she lacks the skills to do an honest day's work worth more than that. Is Wal-Mart supposed to pay people what those people are worth, or is it somehow supposed to pay them vastly more than they are worth, in order that some artificially imposed "honest day's pay" standard can be met?

This is what is wrong with the left. The left does not think through the implications of their pet policies on the suppliers/providers of the world.

Interestingly enough Henry Ford himself would most likely agree with me.

The goal should be to pay the employees as much as you can.

Henry Ford would've laughed at "pay employees as much as you can." Henry Ford paid what he did to keep employees from leaving and to reduce absenteeism because turnover was bad. To run a production line people had to have your assembly line workers actually show up. The pay increase had nothing to do with benevolence or so that they could buy his cars. That's a myth embraced by the left.

In Ford's plants to get the sum total of $5 a day you had to abide by very strict rules (show up on time, work all day, and not miss work). a portion of a worker's $5 a day was only earned if they followed the rules. If tey didn't comply with the rules they didn't get the bonus.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/tim...100016570/

You're misinformed. Ford created an economic theory that became known as Fordism which stressed the equitable relationship between employer and employee. A theory that has been in decline as the numbers of working poor have grown dramatically.

don't think so...

Are you going to argue with Ford's own website?
http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/pr...llar-a-day

"While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high…"

another link supporting what I stated:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...you-think/

supports me again:
http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/summ...page3.html
"Workers who didn't comply risked being payed half as much for performing the same work as their co-workers, and could eventually lose their jobs."

Supports me too:
"…Ford had to deal with costly problems of high turnover and absenteeism.� Dissatisfied workers were less efficient, so in his quest for efficiency, Ford tried something new and, among fellow businessmen, controversial."
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppenn...larDay.htm

(10-28-2013 08:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:38 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What options does Wal-Mart have?

The person making $8/hour is there because $8/hour is an honest day's pay for what that worker can do. He/she lacks the skills to do an honest day's work worth more than that. Is Wal-Mart supposed to pay people what those people are worth, or is it somehow supposed to pay them vastly more than they are worth, in order that some artificially imposed "honest day's pay" standard can be met?

This is what is wrong with the left. The left does not think through the implications of their pet policies on the suppliers/providers of the world.

Interestingly enough Henry Ford himself would most likely agree with me.

The goal should be to pay the employees as much as you can.

Henry Ford would've laughed at "pay employees as much as you can." Henry Ford paid what he did to keep employees from leaving and to reduce absenteeism because turnover was bad. To run a production line people had to have your assembly line workers actually show up. The pay increase had nothing to do with benevolence or so that they could buy his cars. That's a myth embraced by the left.

In Ford's plants to get the sum total of $5 a day you had to abide by very strict rules (show up on time, work all day, and not miss work). a portion of a worker's $5 a day was only earned if they followed the rules. If tey didn't comply with the rules they didn't get the bonus.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/tim...100016570/

You're misinformed. Ford created an economic theory that became known as Fordism which stressed the equitable relationship between employer and employee. A theory that has been in decline as the numbers of working poor have grown dramatically.

don't think so...

Are you going to argue with Ford's own website?
http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/pr...llar-a-day

"While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high…"

another link supporting what I stated:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...you-think/

supports me again:
http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/summ...page3.html
"Workers who didn't comply risked being payed half as much for performing the same work as their co-workers, and could eventually lose their jobs."

Supports me too:
"…Ford had to deal with costly problems of high turnover and absenteeism.� Dissatisfied workers were less efficient, so in his quest for efficiency, Ford tried something new and, among fellow businessmen, controversial."
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppenn...larDay.htm

I'm sorry but none of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

I hate to use Wikipedia because it is a joke but here is a basic rundown of what the theory is. Fordism

Fordism is an economic theory.

I do not envy those that have risen to make great fortunes from their business acumen, but I truly loathe those that are net recipients from society, with nothing more than minimum-wage skills, complaining how this country denied them a chance to sieze the same brass ring.

THe problem is not the rich, that pay a widely disproportionate amount of taxes, but rather the poor, who are lazy, entitled, and subsidized.

(10-28-2013 08:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:38 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Interestingly enough Henry Ford himself would most likely agree with me.

The goal should be to pay the employees as much as you can.

Henry Ford would've laughed at "pay employees as much as you can." Henry Ford paid what he did to keep employees from leaving and to reduce absenteeism because turnover was bad. To run a production line people had to have your assembly line workers actually show up. The pay increase had nothing to do with benevolence or so that they could buy his cars. That's a myth embraced by the left.

In Ford's plants to get the sum total of $5 a day you had to abide by very strict rules (show up on time, work all day, and not miss work). a portion of a worker's $5 a day was only earned if they followed the rules. If tey didn't comply with the rules they didn't get the bonus.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/tim...100016570/

You're misinformed. Ford created an economic theory that became known as Fordism which stressed the equitable relationship between employer and employee. A theory that has been in decline as the numbers of working poor have grown dramatically.

don't think so...

Are you going to argue with Ford's own website?
http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/pr...llar-a-day

"While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high…"

another link supporting what I stated:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...you-think/

supports me again:
http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/summ...page3.html
"Workers who didn't comply risked being payed half as much for performing the same work as their co-workers, and could eventually lose their jobs."

Supports me too:
"…Ford had to deal with costly problems of high turnover and absenteeism.� Dissatisfied workers were less efficient, so in his quest for efficiency, Ford tried something new and, among fellow businessmen, controversial."
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppenn...larDay.htm

I'm sorry but none of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

I hate to use Wikipedia because it is a joke but here is a basic rundown of what the theory is. Fordism

Fordism is an economic theory.

You said Ford would agree with you that "you should pay employees all that you can." Ford's own website states that he paid what he had to so that they would show up to stem absenteeism and turnover. He didn't pay them all that he could.

Ford never called the $5 a day pay plan Fordism. That name was a development out of academia trying to paint Ford's assembly line and pay plan as something other than what it was. Ford was pragmatic. He wasn't being benevolent. He needed workers to show up to run his assembly line and did what he had to get them to do so.

You are right Wikipedia is a horrible source.

It gets really boring debating with ourselves, Dixie. You are full of platitudes but won't address the reality of the situation. We're now debating what Henry Ford would or would not have done rather than you simply answering the question about where Wal-Mart would get the money to pay their employees more.

There are stores who pay much better than Wal-Mart, and many people frequent those stores. It is a very different shopping experience. I HATE Wal-mart and will pay more to have a better experience, but there are millions and millions of people who will put up with crappy service to save 4 cents on toilet paper.... and a HUGE advantage to being huge in order to drive down costs.

Simple question... and please stop with the platitudes... what would happen to their prices if their costs went up? and how would that impact their customers? Hint... they have FAR more customers than they do employees.

(10-28-2013 09:09 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:38 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Henry Ford would've laughed at "pay employees as much as you can." Henry Ford paid what he did to keep employees from leaving and to reduce absenteeism because turnover was bad. To run a production line people had to have your assembly line workers actually show up. The pay increase had nothing to do with benevolence or so that they could buy his cars. That's a myth embraced by the left.

In Ford's plants to get the sum total of $5 a day you had to abide by very strict rules (show up on time, work all day, and not miss work). a portion of a worker's $5 a day was only earned if they followed the rules. If tey didn't comply with the rules they didn't get the bonus.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/tim...100016570/

You're misinformed. Ford created an economic theory that became known as Fordism which stressed the equitable relationship between employer and employee. A theory that has been in decline as the numbers of working poor have grown dramatically.

don't think so...

Are you going to argue with Ford's own website?
http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/pr...llar-a-day

"While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high…"

another link supporting what I stated:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...you-think/

supports me again:
http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/summ...page3.html
"Workers who didn't comply risked being payed half as much for performing the same work as their co-workers, and could eventually lose their jobs."

Supports me too:
"…Ford had to deal with costly problems of high turnover and absenteeism.� Dissatisfied workers were less efficient, so in his quest for efficiency, Ford tried something new and, among fellow businessmen, controversial."
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppenn...larDay.htm

I'm sorry but none of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

I hate to use Wikipedia because it is a joke but here is a basic rundown of what the theory is. Fordism

Fordism is an economic theory.

You said Ford would agree with you that "you should pay employees all that you can." Ford's own website states that he paid what he had to so that they would show up to stem absenteeism and turnover. He didn't pay them all that he could.

Ford never called the $5 a day pay plan Fordism. That name was a development out of academia trying to paint Ford's assembly line and pay plan as something other than what it was. Ford was pragmatic. He wasn't being benevolent. He needed workers to show up to run his assembly line and did what he had to get them to do so.

You are right Wikipedia is a horrible source.

"Profits made out of the distress of the people are always much smaller than profits made out of the most lavish service of the people at the lowest prices that competent management can make possible"

"Paying good wages is not charity at all-it is the best kind of business."

'"A low wage business is always insecure."

"[B]ecause people would not have the leisure, the desire, or the means to consume the goods produced"

'"Cutting wages is not the way to recovery. Raise wages and improve the product."

'No one loses anything by raising wages as soon as he is able. It has always paid us. Low wages are the most costly any employer can pay"

That's a snapshot of how Henry himself felt.

(10-28-2013 09:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It gets really boring debating with ourselves, Dixie. You are full of platitudes but won't address the reality of the situation. We're now debating what Henry Ford would or would not have done rather than you simply answering the question about where Wal-Mart would get the money to pay their employees more.

There are stores who pay much better than Wal-Mart, and many people frequent those stores. It is a very different shopping experience. I HATE Wal-mart and will pay more to have a better experience, but there are millions and millions of people who will put up with crappy service to save 4 cents on toilet paper.... and a HUGE advantage to being huge in order to drive down costs.

Simple question... and please stop with the platitudes... what would happen to their prices if their costs went up? and how would that impact their customers? Hint... they have FAR more customers than they do employees.

Where? $3.78 billion in quarterly profits.

I have no problem with the making as much money as possible. I do have a problem when they do so while the tax payer picks up part of the labour costs.

The rest of your comment is inconsequential to the discussion. I'm sorry you didn't grasp the demonstrative value, or the purpose of, the Ford/Fordism reference.

(10-28-2013 09:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Where? $3.78 billion in quarterly profits.

I have no problem with the making as much money as possible. I do have a problem when they do so while the tax payer picks up part of the labour costs.

The rest of your comment is inconsequential to the discussion. I'm sorry you didn't grasp the demonstrative value, or the purpose of, the Ford/Fordism reference.

So you don't believe in ceo caps, but you do believe in caps on corporate earnings?

Obviously you DO have a problem with them making as much money as possible, and you ignore that they pay taxes on their earnings, as do their more highly compensated employees.

My comments aren't inconsequential to the discussion... Opinions about what Henry Ford would have espoused or how reliable Wikipedia is are immaterial to the discussion. The only demonstrative value of the references to Fordism are an immaterial debate as to what Ford would have preferred. Henry Ford was not Jesus... nobody wears a WWHD bracelet. Ford was never a leader of a political party. Sam Walton obviously disagrees. The Chic-Fil-A and In&Out and Nordstrom's certainly have different business models and pay "better" than Wal-Mart, but they are also almost without exception more expensive.

As to taking advantage of the government... Wal-Mart didn't decide on the minimum wage, nor did they decide that people needed more. Further, and most important, Wal-Mart doesn't drive the national employment picture nor did they decide that someone whose skills only warrant a minimum wage job should have a family.

The best way to make Wal-Mart pay more for employees is for the economy to be strong enough so that they can't hire enough people at minimum wage to run their business... and people shop at Target or Nordstrom's rather than Wal-Mart because they don't need to put up with crappy service to save 4 cents on peanut butter.

The government and certain people have decided that $8/hr isn't enough... not Wal-Mart. $8/hr for 40 hours for 4.3 weeks a month is about $1300/month, and that person wouldn't have a tax liability.... so they get a room mate and share a $1,000/month apartment (and you can do far far better than that in most places)... If they're responsible, they pay $350 (or less as I've seen cars for as little as $149/mo) for a Kia and insurance (my 20yr old son pays $100 for low deductible full coverage in California)... or how about a bus pass and a bike? $300 more for food... leaving $150/month... with ZERO assistance from anyone for anything. No overtime. No extra hours.

MINIMUM WAGE shouldn't be designed to support a family or a "high" standard of living. Wal-Mart isn't taking advantage of the government. They are obeying the rules the government has set before them and are playing the "supply/demand" game just like everyone else.

You CONTINUE to ignore that "making as much as they can" means controlling costs, particularly in that their business model is clearly to be the low price leader... and labor is a cost. Why should they pay more just because they can? When you go into Wal-Mart, do you pay more than they ask merely because you can? When you buy a car, do you pay more than they ask? Of course you don't. Why not?

Instead you focus on their earnings... which are clearly a function of very low margins on very large volume. If they were more expensive, they would have far less volume... because nobody shops at Wal-Mart because of their clean stores and quality customer service.

(10-28-2013 08:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:24 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I guarantee you if put in your 100 hour weeks, live at the office, and lead a pretty miserable life without family and work-life balance, you will some day be that officer. You need to decide first if it is worth it. Me? I'd rather make my $65k, work my 40-50 hours and have my nights and weekends with my family. I don't envy anyone making so much momey because I see how they live and prioritize. I also dont feel I deserve it. Not the life for me.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

We're not talking about people who make decent money. We're talking about people who make 15k a year at minimum wage. They weren't necessarily blessed with the same education that some of us got.

So? Neither was my friend the elevator repair guy.

He learned a trade and went to work everyday, starting exactly one weekend after High School was over. Barely 18. Now? Brings home somewhere around a hundred and a half or more, has a lovely wife, 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs.

Oh, and a cat. Can't forget the cat.

As is clearly illustrated here every day- this formal "higher" education stuff can be vastly overrated.

That's cool and all, but for every success story, there are dozens of people who go nowhere.

(10-28-2013 08:23 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  We're not talking about people who make decent money. We're talking about people who make 15k a year at minimum wage. They weren't necessarily blessed with the same education that some of us got.

So? Neither was my friend the elevator repair guy.

He learned a trade and went to work everyday, starting exactly one weekend after High School was over. Barely 18. Now? Brings home somewhere around a hundred and a half or more, has a lovely wife, 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs.

Oh, and a cat. Can't forget the cat.

As is clearly illustrated here every day- this formal "higher" education stuff can be vastly overrated.

If you finish high school (even at a bad high school), you will have a high school diploma. With a high school diploma you can go to community college or join the military. If you are even reasonably motivated at community college or in the military, you will have a marketable skill set.

Everyone (rich, poor, urban, rural) has those opportunities. Arguing otherwise is a lie.

You are making excuses for people who don't value education, don't work hard at it and make poor life decisions.

How many inner city children are finishing high school?

Whose fault is that? Theirs. You can't make people who didn't value education stay in high school. Students who drop out are making choices that will land them in dead end low paying jobs.

And you know what...if those same drop outs do start at low paying jobs if they show up every day and bust their butts they won't be making $8 for very long. They will be rewarded for their hard work.

If they have problems with absenteeism, show up late, talk on their cellphone when they should be working, goof off, etc. they will be stuck at minimum forever.

No one is stuck at minimum if they show up and work hard.

You have never worked at a minimum wage job have you?

(10-29-2013 01:52 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:24 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:09 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  We're not talking about people who make decent money. We're talking about people who make 15k a year at minimum wage. They weren't necessarily blessed with the same education that some of us got.

So? Neither was my friend the elevator repair guy.

He learned a trade and went to work everyday, starting exactly one weekend after High School was over. Barely 18. Now? Brings home somewhere around a hundred and a half or more, has a lovely wife, 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs.

Oh, and a cat. Can't forget the cat.

As is clearly illustrated here every day- this formal "higher" education stuff can be vastly overrated.

That's cool and all, but for every success story, there are dozens of people who go nowhere.

(10-28-2013 08:23 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So? Neither was my friend the elevator repair guy.

He learned a trade and went to work everyday, starting exactly one weekend after High School was over. Barely 18. Now? Brings home somewhere around a hundred and a half or more, has a lovely wife, 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs.

Oh, and a cat. Can't forget the cat.

As is clearly illustrated here every day- this formal "higher" education stuff can be vastly overrated.

If you finish high school (even at a bad high school), you will have a high school diploma. With a high school diploma you can go to community college or join the military. If you are even reasonably motivated at community college or in the military, you will have a marketable skill set.

Everyone (rich, poor, urban, rural) has those opportunities. Arguing otherwise is a lie.

You are making excuses for people who don't value education, don't work hard at it and make poor life decisions.

How many inner city children are finishing high school?

Whose fault is that? Theirs. You can't make people who didn't value education stay in high school. Students who drop out are making choices that will land them in dead end low paying jobs.

And you know what...if those same drop outs do start at low paying jobs if they show up every day and bust their butts they won't be making $8 for very long. They will be rewarded for their hard work.

If they have problems with absenteeism, show up late, talk on their cellphone when they should be working, goof off, etc. they will be stuck at minimum forever.

No one is stuck at minimum if they show up and work hard.

You have never worked at a minimum wage job have you?

That's exactly where many of us started, I know I did. Of course that was high school and I, like people are supposed to do, moved on to more lucrative jobs.

(10-27-2013 10:18 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:11 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 10:06 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So you think there are the same amount of low paid CEOs as there are mega buck CEOs? Really?

How about if we go with the mean CEO salary and see what we come up with?

Average = mean.

Nope. Not even close.

"In colloquial language average usually means the sum of a list of numbers divided by the size of the list, in other words the arithmetic mean."

Mean = the middle number.

If we have 100 CEOs making $100k and 99 CEOs making $50,000,000, the mean number is the 100th CEO who makes $100k.

Nope. That's the median number.

(10-29-2013 11:26 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 01:52 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:24 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:15 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So? Neither was my friend the elevator repair guy.

He learned a trade and went to work everyday, starting exactly one weekend after High School was over. Barely 18. Now? Brings home somewhere around a hundred and a half or more, has a lovely wife, 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs.

Oh, and a cat. Can't forget the cat.

As is clearly illustrated here every day- this formal "higher" education stuff can be vastly overrated.

That's cool and all, but for every success story, there are dozens of people who go nowhere.

(10-28-2013 08:23 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  If you finish high school (even at a bad high school), you will have a high school diploma. With a high school diploma you can go to community college or join the military. If you are even reasonably motivated at community college or in the military, you will have a marketable skill set.

Everyone (rich, poor, urban, rural) has those opportunities. Arguing otherwise is a lie.

You are making excuses for people who don't value education, don't work hard at it and make poor life decisions.

How many inner city children are finishing high school?

Whose fault is that? Theirs. You can't make people who didn't value education stay in high school. Students who drop out are making choices that will land them in dead end low paying jobs.

And you know what...if those same drop outs do start at low paying jobs if they show up every day and bust their butts they won't be making $8 for very long. They will be rewarded for their hard work.

If they have problems with absenteeism, show up late, talk on their cellphone when they should be working, goof off, etc. they will be stuck at minimum forever.

No one is stuck at minimum if they show up and work hard.

You have never worked at a minimum wage job have you?

That's exactly where many of us started, I know I did. Of course that was high school and I, like people are supposed to do, moved on to more lucrative jobs.

Me too.
Cut grass, trimmed hedges, painted swimming pools, for a local landlord at 14 for two years. Worked at the Golden Arches at 16. After two years at the Golden Arches I got a job as a waiting tables because I could earn tips in college. Graduated college and have been gainfully employed since. No one has given me anything. No scholarships, no family connections, no network.

At each and every job since 14 I showed up on time, worked my whole shift, didn't miss work "sick", didn't goof off, worked overtime if needed, took extra shifts if available. When I was at work I worked hard because it's the right thing to do.

Every person's circumstances are different and we shouldn't judge a person's success against ours. Just because you got to where you are with hard work doesn't mean that everyone else should be able too as well.

I know plenty of hard working people who never got rich and I know plenty of rich people who never lifted a finger to get what they have.

(10-29-2013 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Every person's circumstances are different and we shouldn't judge a person's success against ours. Just because you got to where you are with hard work doesn't mean that everyone else should be able too as well.

I know plenty of hard working people who never got rich and I know plenty of rich people who never lifted a finger to get what they have.

when did I say I was rich? I'm not.
I said I worked hard and didn't stay at min wage.

who said life was fair? so what if rich people get a leg up?
I can envy and whine about the leg up they got or I can go out and do what I can to better myself and my family.

My point was that if you start at the bottom, show up and work hard every day, you won't stay at the bottom and anyone who argues otherwise is lying.

(10-29-2013 12:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Every person's circumstances are different and we shouldn't judge a person's success against ours. Just because you got to where you are with hard work doesn't mean that everyone else should be able too as well.

I know plenty of hard working people who never got rich and I know plenty of rich people who never lifted a finger to get what they have.

when did I say I was rich? I'm not.
I said I worked hard and didn't stay at min wage.

who said life was fair? so what if rich people get a leg up?
I can envy and whine about the leg up they got or I can go out and do what I can to better myself and my family.

My point was that if you start at the bottom, show up and work hard every day, you won't stay at the bottom and anyone who argues otherwise is lying.

I disagree. Sometimes you can work hard and do everything right and still end up a the bottom. Life isn't fair. It doesn't mean that you did anything wrong but it can happen to everyone.

No one is emmune to hard times whether you are a hard worker or not.

(10-29-2013 12:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Every person's circumstances are different and we shouldn't judge a person's success against ours. Just because you got to where you are with hard work doesn't mean that everyone else should be able too as well.

I know plenty of hard working people who never got rich and I know plenty of rich people who never lifted a finger to get what they have.

when did I say I was rich? I'm not.
I said I worked hard and didn't stay at min wage.

who said life was fair? so what if rich people get a leg up?
I can envy and whine about the leg up they got or I can go out and do what I can to better myself and my family.

My point was that if you start at the bottom, show up and work hard every day, you won't stay at the bottom and anyone who argues otherwise is lying.

If by bottom, you mean minimum wage, then obviously you won't be there forever. If bottom means lower class, that's different. Not everyone is bestowed with the ability to make it to college, and not everyone that goes has the mental resources to get a major in something solid. I don't think these people should be condemned and called lazy just because they weren't educated or skilled enough to achieve the American dream.

(10-29-2013 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Every person's circumstances are different and we shouldn't judge a person's success against ours. Just because you got to where you are with hard work doesn't mean that everyone else should be able too as well.

I know plenty of hard working people who never got rich and I know plenty of rich people who never lifted a finger to get what they have.

SOMEBODY certainly lifted a finger to get the money. The fact that someone's grandfather or whomever worked hard or smart enough to make it so that his grandchild didn't have to work hard should be lauded... not looked down upon. If for no other reason but that person would have still had the benefits of the best education money could buy and connections... and likely taken a job from someone who "worked hard" for their position. I'd much rather he be lazy and HIRE people like me.

You guys love to keep this line blurred when it is really pretty simple.

Not one person I know of doesn't believe in giving hard working people a hand up because they deserve it because of their efforts or a hand out if/when they need it. What they don't believe in is giving a hand up to someone who hasn't earned it or a hand out to someone who doesn't need it. While the definitions of "hard work" and "need" may be blurry, the concept is incredibly clear.

(10-29-2013 12:44 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 12:00 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 11:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Every person's circumstances are different and we shouldn't judge a person's success against ours. Just because you got to where you are with hard work doesn't mean that everyone else should be able too as well.

I know plenty of hard working people who never got rich and I know plenty of rich people who never lifted a finger to get what they have.

when did I say I was rich? I'm not.
I said I worked hard and didn't stay at min wage.

who said life was fair? so what if rich people get a leg up?
I can envy and whine about the leg up they got or I can go out and do what I can to better myself and my family.

My point was that if you start at the bottom, show up and work hard every day, you won't stay at the bottom and anyone who argues otherwise is lying.

If by bottom, you mean minimum wage, then obviously you won't be there forever. If bottom means lower class, that's different. Not everyone is bestowed with the ability to make it to college, and not everyone that goes has the mental resources to get a major in something solid. I don't think these people should be condemned and called lazy just because they weren't educated or skilled enough to achieve the American dream.

Ok, then why are you doing it?

It's the left that starts this populist class warfare. This thread is a tiny example of that.

It's you dmac, that are insulting people who don't achieve "the American dream."