(12-06-2013 02:17 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(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.

I agree...no point in trying to work with the looney Tea Party...they are completely irrational.

(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.

Indeed! We want them all to strive to be well off. Why would anyone want to embrace being poor? Rising tide lifts all boats! Jump in, no one stopping you but yourself.

(12-06-2013 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:17 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(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.

I agree...no point in trying to work with the looney Tea Party...they are completely irrational.

You're so effing cute. Why don't you try your quips out for real... go to law school and join the litigators. You might make a better living that way.

The references in the prior reply was directed at YOU... IDIOT.

(12-06-2013 02:24 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:17 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(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.

I agree...no point in trying to work with the looney Tea Party...they are completely irrational.

You're so effing cute. Why don't you try your quips out for real... go to law school and join the litigators. You might make a better living that way.

The references in the prior reply was directed at YOU... IDIOT.

Are you hitting on me, Tom?

I'd rather be a politician..."is you...or is you ain't my con-stichin-see!"

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

That's what we keep telling gays but they ain't buying it, they will never be made whole or feel they're being treated equally until they're married. But I think you did find a way to describe gay unions without using the word marriage: Government contracted partnerships, and instead of using the terms bride and groom they can be called signatory 1 and signatory 2.

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

OK, let's raise the minimum wage by 50% and see what we get - we get this:

Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley calculate that almost a third of all bank tellers receive some form of government assistance, according to the Washington Post. That includes $534 million for health insurance through Medicaid and coverage for low-income children, $250 million in tax credits for low and moderate earners, and more than $100 million in food stamps. They qualify for government aid because, on average, the country’s half a million tellers earn about $25,790 a year, or $12.40 an hour (if they work a 40-hour work week), according to the most recent government data. That’s less than similar administrative jobs, and tellers are also more likely to be part-time employees.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...study-says

(12-06-2013 12:29 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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.

You step up and be the first in line with the moderation. Good luck with that.

(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.

I totally agree...and I could not give a damn if people get married or not.

What I do object to is having children and not supporting them and nurturing them properly and then expecting me to foot their bills because of their bad choices. You can not say with any honesty that the paradigm you suggest actually exists to any extent. If you are?...well...I call fabrics. There may be couples that choose to not marry and have children because of the "government" issue. They are a TINY percentage of couples. The hyperbole went over the top on your comment.

(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.

So a state with home prices starting at a quarter million paying a 9 dollar minimum love their poor more than a state paying 7.25 with homes starting around 40,000?

(12-08-2013 09:09 AM)Paul M 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.

So a state with home prices starting at a quarter million paying a 9 dollar minimum love their poor more than a state paying 7.25 with homes starting around 40,000?

Unless you are a dolt...you have no business starting a family making minimum wage. Get your schit together first.

(12-06-2013 02:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:17 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(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.

I agree...no point in trying to work with the looney Tea Party...they are completely irrational.

Yes, just like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln ...