Riddle me this
I watch practically no TV, you understand. What I do watch is Tivo'ed, and other than that it's mostly DVDs. I certainly do not watch the news on TV.
So all of last week, I was down at my parents' house in NC, and they do watch TV news, mostly the local news & some Fox News. I therefore learned things I did not know before. Specifically, I learned that a young lady recently disappeared in Aruba and that every ablebodied adult in the Western Hemisphere has been mobilized to find her. Or at least, that's the impression I get from the news.
Could somebody explain to me why this story, which seems to me to be personally tragic to the woman's family and friends, but to be of no particular exceptional newsworthiness, has dominated the news for days and days on end?
she was blond and blue. she is now missing. "let's see if we can get big rating by capitalizing a tragedy" takes over. what passes as journalism today is nauseating.
I watch practically nothing BUT TV news as background.
News producers have found that they need to fill 24 hours with information that is cheap to produce and compelling enough to keep interest. This is also true because it's hard to follow important REAL news - that takes people with some smarts, and getting it wrong is bad.
At some point they started to realize that some stories are compelling to people because of their soap-opera-like nature. These stories have a "story arc" with drama, good guys and bad guys, twists and turns. It doesn't hurt that the culture is hungering for more reality, as the popularity of reality shows indicates. These news stories compete with reality shows for public interest and "water cooler time".
And if you're 100% wrong, it doesn't matter. Several "news" analysts and hosts took the usual tack with Jennifer Wilbanks, painting the fiancee as the bad guy. It appears there is no penalty for such bad behavior. Furthermore, the shows that scream how horrible the drama is and take the harshest tone and spin up the soap opera are getting higher ratings.
The worst such offender is Nancy Grace; I don't think there's anyone on TV who disgusts me more, and it appears she is in line to take over the 9pm CNN slot when Larry King inevitably becomes too infirm to hold up his suspenders.
There's a writing pyramid that I picked up in an english class that seems to apply even more broadly than she realized. It covers three standards to writing, to what you are trying to appeal. In order of increasing difficulty are pathos, ethos, and logos.
[font=courier]
[center] logos[/center]
[center] ^[/center]
[center] /-\[/center]
[center] /---\[/center]
[center] /ethos\[/center]
[center] /-------\[/center]
[center] /---------\[/center]
[center] /---pathos--\[/center]
[center] ---------------[/center]
[/font]
It's pretty obvious which each applies to; pathos to emotion, ethos to character or personality, and logos to reason. You can see why real news, meaning information with which to reach a reasoned conclusion, is not good business.
I don't watch the news either. I read voraciously, though.
I can understand the mobilization of Aruba, most of their economy is based on pretty, blond-haired girls, or their families (== bling!).
However, for the infotainment stations to report it as if it were the most important thing in the world is loathsome, but not unexpected. Unfortunately, I'm starting to see it (hear it, whatever) on Air America, and it is really irritating.
News outlets jumped-the-shark decades ago and went from informative to ratings whores. It's human nature to want to see bad news. It allows us to say, "jeez, that's terrible. I'm sure glad that's not me." The news agencies (and not just TV news but internet news outlests as well) know this and are exploiting this pretty good. No one wants to tune in to hear or see good news. It's like a traffic accedent, you can't pass it by without having to slow down and gawk. There is also a desire to hang on every bad news item in the world of terrorism/ant-terrorism/Iraq/blah blah blah (thank-you post-9-11 world). And the reason why the young lady in Aruba is getting so much press time is becuase she is very young, very blonde, and very white. The press has ample opportunities to snap some heartbreaking family pictures. "Wow, that's sad. Glad that's not me."
Undertoad hit it right on, too. Everyone is in for the 15 minutes of fame/reality TV stuff. No incentive to do good because everyone who is a knucklehead who the press gives any amount if airtime gets some sort of book deal in the end. This Jennifer Wilbanks, as much of a chowder-head she was, has been rewarded by a "Tell-all" book deal. I'm sure she has an agent of sorts by now as well. Grrrrrrr!
I detest the current state of journalism as well. It's a product being made for profit, just like anything you buy at the store. News organizations want you watching and listening so they can tell their advertisers how big their market share is. Furthermore, "The Media" are their own political party, massaging stories and weighting polls to give their candidate an edge.
I think that it's more of a reflection on our society, though. If we didn't have such a voracious appetite for garbage, it wouldn't be made in such quantities. Jennifer Wilbanks is getting a book deal ONLY because X million people are stupid enough to buy a copy.
I detest the current state of journalism as well. It's a product being made for profit, just like anything you buy at the store. News organizations want you watching and listening so they can tell their advertisers how big their market share is. Furthermore, "The Media" are their own political party, massaging stories and weighting polls to give their candidate an edge.
I think that it's more of a reflection on our society, though. If we didn't have such a voracious appetite for garbage, it wouldn't be made in such quantities. Jennifer Wilbanks is getting a book deal ONLY because X million people are stupid enough to buy a copy.
I thought this story was uber cool.
Briefly, a young Ethiopian girl who was being abused by men who were trying to force her into marriage was saved by lions. They chased off the bad guys and stood guard over the girl until help came, then melted back into the forest. Or whatever flora Ethiopia has.
That's just friggin sweet.
Will the real mrnoodle please stand up?
Boo, stupid modern journalism. I detest it. Oh, looky, a LION!!
Even smart guys like you are vulnerable to this. You stuck with the hook of the story long enough to read most of it, and thereby fulfilled the story producer's goal, your eyeballs on his page.
Doesn't seem like news to me though. More like filler. But it gets called news so you'll come to the story with those expectations and if the story is short enough and prurient enough, maybe the momentum will carry you through the next commercial break.
Here are three posts about this subject. I am really exercised about this. It would be nice to move about in today's society without this armor of cynicism regarding the media, BUT, I just don't see how. It would be like taking a jog on the freeway. You'd be crushed, and forgotten.
Post 1: Somebody, mrnoodle actually, casually mentioned a leftwing media conspiracy. That started it. This was my response. Although I began talking the silliness of the "conspiracy", I was really hacked about the hipocrisy in the news.
So Clodfobble called me on it.
Post 2: She took me to task for taking out of context some remarks in a FOXNews story. That's fair, she was, after all, right. I did do that. But that highlights the core issue here, and that is context. Much of this crap-ola we're subjected to in the news media is presented as though it were news, and it's not. A point SteveDallas is trying to recocile. Good luck with that, by the way.
Here was my response to Clodfobble's question/accusation.
Post 3: I took the opportunity to talk about the difference between "news" and "infotainment". I could be cerebral and aim for "logos" again, but I'm too tired. I'll settle for "pathos". In this case it's the same. I am emotionally affected (nauseated and infuriated) by the truth of the matter: They lie, and do so with impugnity.
I'll just go throw up now. :vomit:
ps: I guess it's poor form to quote oneself so freely, since it's done so infrequently here. I'll bear the cost, though, because this thread is a better match than the Iraq thread for the spirit of these posts.
--snip--News producers have found that they need to fill 24 hours with information that is cheap to produce and compelling enough to keep interest. This is also true because it's hard to follow important REAL news - that takes people with some smarts, and getting it wrong is bad.
--snip
I wish I could have said that. Very nice UT. :Bullseye: (no smilie, rats).
Will the real mrnoodle please stand up?
Boo, stupid modern journalism. I detest it. Oh, looky, a LION!!
You off your meds? There is no similarity between that story and the kind of story that's played incessantly for months on end for ratings. I'm allowed to think EVENTS are nifty without being accused of hypocrisy, aren't I?
Yes, certainly. Nifty is, by definition, nifty. I like cool stories too. But the two stories do share a certain "arc". Both were called news. Girl is missing. One is found, one is not. Both in countries far from where I live.
If anything, the Aruba story should rate the same level of coverage as the Ethiopian story.
I was not calling you a hypocrite, sorry. I was pointing out the fact that these things happen and deserve some attention. But the contrast shows the absurdity of the stories that are over the top. And for nothin! That "runaway bride"? :smack: It's filler if it's anything. You put it very well when you said it was a "nifty event". SD started talking about media madness and I was using a comparative example. Sorry. Here::chill:
s'all good.
One other point, though. I don't really think there is a leftwing "conspiracy" in the media. Nothing conspiratorial about it -- they are completely open about their politics. That's one reason why Fox looks so extremely right-wing, because they don't follow the party line. For every truly critical appraisal of a Democratic candidate (and I'm being generous here, because I don't remember any), there are dozens about the Republican du jour. It's just plain old bias.
Missing people are not national news. We'd need 100 more 24 hour channels if there was equivalent coverage for everyone on the side of a milk carton. Instead, they just pick a random missing person story when they are feeling lazy and give it 24 hour coverage.
For every truly critical appraisal of a Democratic candidate (and I'm being generous here, because I don't remember any),
You don't remember Al Gore?
Precisely my point. Al Gore is so three hours ago. Since then we've been treated to slash pieces on every single Bush cabinet member, every Bush judge, and half the Republican senators and congresspersyns.
And Gore's a raving lunatic of Howard Dean proportions. Whether it's his environmental stance or his screaming diatribes about Bush, he's a liability to the party and is therefore fair game. Dean's next on that list, as soon as he polarizes enough Dems to make Hilary seem like a moderate choice.
The only Republican with a media get-out-of-jail-free card is John McCain. Why? Because he's fully aware that the media comprise their own political party, and he wants to be at the head of it. He knows what to say when the cameras are on, and he knows that his path to success is not through the Republican party (who he has made a career of criticizing), nor through the Democrats (who he takes on about once every 6 months as a diversionary tactic). If McCain makes president, it will be as Media Darling/Independent, and he knows it.
bleh. rambling. Taco Bell is a bad thing to eat when it's 90 degrees out.
Bush has had over 100 judges confirmed. Ten were disputed. 90% confirmation is excellent.
And then you propagate the media construction of Al Gore and Howard Dean as raving lunatics. Not a great support for your theory.
The confirmation rate is fine. That's got little to do with newspeeples' lust for conservative blood. And in a sideways sort of way, you're still proving my point by suggesting that the media have a hand in selecting which candidates get confirmed.
The media had no choice but to cover HD and AG's screaming fits, that doesn't mean that the fits are constructs of the media.
Edit: and like I said, they've been deemed disposable (AG has, anyway). Howard Dean is soon to follow. Negative coverage of those two does not constitute lack of bias.
Mrnoodle, i would contend that Foxnews IS blatantly right wing. that is reality, not just an insult thrown by liberals. they have grown more so over the last 24 months. sean hannity is their darling and he is a freaking joke - even limbaugh has more credibility than hannity. O'Reiley is slightly better, but they both use the same tactics. they are fair and balanced because they allow liberals on their shows. but then they shout them down in an attempt to make the liberal look weak, IMO making themselves look like asses.
watch foxnews(i do sometimes), but don't allow yourself to believe even for one moment that they are fair and balanced. fox is just as biased as CNN and the rest of the alphabet.
The confirmation rate is fine. That's got little to do with newspeeples' lust for conservative blood. And in a sideways sort of way, you're still proving my point by suggesting that the media have a hand in selecting which candidates get confirmed.
No I didn't. The vast majority of Bush's nominations got no coverage, never mind "slash pieces". The coverage was given when there was a debate.
The media had no choice but to cover HD and AG's screaming fits, that doesn't mean that the fits are constructs of the media.
The media had no choice but to isolate Dean yelling "Yeah!" at a pep rally, filtering out the crowd noise? They simply couldn't help playing it repeatedly for weeks? It was beyond their ability to avoid labeling enthusiasm as lunacy? Where did the term "screaming fits" come from?
HM - has the rest of the media ever chosen a few seconds out of longer segments of time to focus, in regards to Bush? and then played them incessantly? and then applied labels such as illiterate, hick, idiot, etc? or do you really believe that Bush fumbles and bumbles every single sentence to leave his mouth?
the media are swine, and those who believe the spiel are sheep. truth doesn't matter. ratings and customer loyalty matter. if your target viewer or listener doesn't like Bush focus on his frequent word flubbage. if your target audience doesn't like dean or gore, focus on the scream or the invention of the internet.
Mrnoodle, i would contend that Foxnews IS blatantly right wing. that is reality, not just an insult thrown by liberals. they have grown more so over the last 24 months. sean hannity is their darling and he is a freaking joke - even limbaugh has more credibility than hannity. O'Reiley is slightly better, but they both use the same tactics. they are fair and balanced because they allow liberals on their shows. but then they shout them down in an attempt to make the liberal look weak, IMO making themselves look like asses.
watch foxnews(i do sometimes), but don't allow yourself to believe even for one moment that they are fair and balanced. fox is just as biased as CNN and the rest of the alphabet.
Fox is biased, yes. But Fox's bias is seen as a Very Bad Thing, while 40 years of leftist media bias is, what, negligible? Can't find the word I'm looking for. Fox stands out as some kind of propoganda machine because we've been so trained to accept the ABCBSNBCNNMSNBC blather that all Republicans want to be our evil overlords, starve our children and seniors, blah blah blah.
Fox's conservative slant IS equal time, to parrot a Limbaughism.
And Hannity is a commentator, not a reporter or anchor. He is packaged and sold with no pretense as a rightwinger. That's his schtick. Why is it so horrible for him and so noble for say, Al Franken?
HM -- Al's screaming fits about Bush are widely documented and easy to find. You have me on the Dean scream -- I wasn't aware there had been doctoring of the audio. But his rhetoric since becoming DNC chairman is no less hateful and untrue for its low volume.
Why is it so horrible for him and so noble for say, Al Franken?
definitely not noble. franken is a fuckstick. so is randi rhodes or whatever that ridiculous biaaatch's name is. about the only one on air america that makes any sense at all is Charles Goyette (he may only be regional at this point) and even he has left his libertarian roots to become a stark raving lunatic in the name of ratings since switching to air america.
liberal media bias is obviously there. it is also obviously no more acceptable than the right wing bias found on fox. i was simply making a point that fox is just as biased as the rest.
and as far as EQUAL time? i don't want equal time - i want responsible journalism from people who report the facts of the story without spin and who at all costs refuse to become part of the story.
The Dean scream can only be understood in context and HM's portrayal of it removes as much context as the media.
It was the final act of the rise and fall of Dean during the Iowa primary, and Dean's ascension was largely due to media attention, along with his newly-proven tactic of using the net to raise nationwide funds. Three weeks prior to the scream, Dean was being Kinged as the new savior. His approach called for getting rough with the other side and attacking vigorously which caught the attention of everyone. Unfortunately it also had the effect of completely turning off the Iowa electorate, and his unexpectedly poor result let most of the air out of the balloon. And only THEN, YEeeaaaaagh!
The Yeagh was the least of his concerns, and the reason it was overplayed was because it was somewhat representational of his fiery attack approach being overplayed and leading to his demise. And because it was LESS damning than the REAL story, which was that Dean had dramatically failed and that his campaign had been dealt a terrible blow.
Similarly, during the 1992 election, the media made a big deal of George Bush 41 being very surprised by the newfangled technology of a supermarket scanner.
The event didn't really happen as described. But the story took hold because it was such a strong analogy for what people felt about 41.
But his rhetoric since becoming DNC chairman is no less hateful and untrue for its low volume.
What was untrue?
republicans are all rich and have never worked an honest job in their lives seems a bit far fetched to me. i'm not searching for the quote, but i did hear myself - and he was speaking about why bush won. reps don't work so they have time to go to the polls. dems work hard so couldn't make it the polls. it is just class warfare at its lowest.
the republican politicians, sure - but no more so than democrat pols.
and as far as EQUAL time? i don't want equal time - i want responsible journalism from people who report the facts of the story without spin and who at all costs refuse to become part of the story.
The very idea of this gives me a woody. But the tune was called many many years ago and all we can do now is dance to it. Eventually someone will make a serious stab at doing what you suggest, but I'm afraid they won't be able to drown out the trash peddlers.
HM - has the rest of the media ever chosen a few seconds out of longer segments of time to focus, in regards to Bush? and then played them incessantly? and then applied labels such as illiterate, hick, idiot, etc? or do you really believe that Bush fumbles and bumbles every single sentence to leave his mouth?
Of course they do the same to Bush. I'm not saying they give Republicans passes, as mrnoodle is claiming about Democrats.
the republican politicians, sure - but no more so than democrat pols.
To be fair, he said "a lot of" Republicans, not all, and it was primarily the Republicans who vehemently opposed efforts to make voting easier and more convenient. And it was Republicans who reallocated voting machines in Ohio to create the 8 hour lines. And it was again Republicans who tried to turn people away from the polls who had been waiting in line for hours when the polling time ended. Dean's quote could certainly be read as applying to rank and file Republicans, but it was obviously not aimed at them.
I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers.
However.....
I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.
Hm.
(mocking imitation of Rush Limbaugh snorting drugs)
very doctoral of you.
I hate Republicans
and
A lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.
Ted Kennedy and his fellow trustfund babies have?
It's pretty much a white, Christian party
and
I consider myself a deeply religious person. I consider myself a Christian...you either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don't. I do. And I'm not ashamed to admit it.
That's in the last month or so. He's ramping up the bullshit to make headlines, and is in no way, shape or form a leader. He is, however, the downfall of the Democratic party.
So I guess the first one is the closest to untrue. And I'll agree. Dean should give at least as much benefit of the doubt to DeLay as he did to bin Laden.
And what's the contradiction and/or mistruth in the last two quotes?
You know the drug thing was a cheap shot, and untrue (he's a pill popper)
The "Republicans don't work for a living" thing is also a cheap shot, and untrue. It's part of his playing to "Democrats with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks", which, like the other statements I quoted, fall under the "hateful" category for numerous reasons that you're smart enough to figure out, so fertheloveofpete stop nitpicking and instead tell me whether Dean is nuts, pure mean, or what.
I responded to the honest living quote above. And, I gotta say that the first time I heard Republican officials consider the Confederate flag offensive was in response to Dean's comment.
And the Limbaugh thing isn't nitpicking?
Unfortunately, I'm starting to see it (hear it, whatever) on Air America, and it is really irritating.
They are just starting to run out of topic.
Air America is really irritating all by itself, actually.
The only news I get a chance to watch is the national news while I'm on the eliptical at the gym....it does help the time pass but it is usually pretty dull. Very rarely watch the local news although I read this morning that a 20 year old man in CT had too much to drink and stole a small Cessna plane and took two of his buds for a joy ride! DUH! When he some how landed safely at Westchester airport where the airport security met him and opened up the door a unusual amount of beer cans fell from the plane! :eyebrow:
As for the Aruba story....white, blonde and blue eyed. Enough said.
I hope this thread has demonstrated to a few more people why noodle takes the pedestal of fuckwittery.
Dean was assassintated by the media for showing emotion. I don't know which bit of the whole thing is saddest.
I find BBCNews24 still quite good, they occasionally get a bit carried away with tabloid stuff like the FA cap sex scandal crap but in general they're much better than CNN, Fox, Sky24 etc. You get the media you pay for, get the financial papers, the more expensive dailies and you get real news and issues that don't make it in the main ones, all media has bais but some is more transparent than others. Avoid anything by Murdoch, if you want to see why look at the Times before and after.
You have to admire the republican party in a way, there's something so utterly shameless about pandering to 'cultural' issues and then getting away with fucking the very people that voted for them long and hard while in office.
I'm sorry, jaguar, did I misquote Dr. Dean? In which instance?
The confederate flag quote is actually the most revealing one. The left has made a 40-year career out of making minorities and the poor dependent on big government, and has no real empathy for them. All they are is a voting bloc as far as Democrats are concerned. Dean's actually being quite honest on that count -- he knows they have the black vote tied up, now he wants the racist vote too.
Which fucks over people more? Making them dependent on handouts and programs or fostering an environment in which businesses are actually able to pay better wages and benefits?
Dean wasn't "assassintated" by anyone, he's committing political suicide in front of the whole world, and dragging the Democrats over the cliff with him.
And I'm afraid that the vaunted Pedestal of Fuckwittery is reserved for people who make constant personal jabs at others who are just voicing their opinion. Not enough room for me up there unless you move over, or at least prick that grossly inflated head of yours and let some air out.
The confederate flag quote is actually the most revealing one. The left has made a 40-year career out of making minorities and the poor dependent on big government, and has no real empathy for them. All they are is a voting bloc as far as Democrats are concerned. Dean's actually being quite honest on that count -- he knows they have the black vote tied up, now he wants the racist vote too.
Actually, he's being quite honest that the Democratic party has pretty much given up on the rural South, and doesn't even try anymore. He plans to change that, and start campaigning thoughout the country.
Which fucks over people more? Making them dependent on handouts and programs or fostering an environment in which businesses are actually able to pay better wages and benefits?
The economy is consistently better under Democrats. And one goal of Republican lawmakers is to allow businesses to pay
lower wages and benefits.
Are you referring to the economy of Jimmy Carter, or the economy of Bill Clinton after the Republicans took control of Congress in 94?
I'll bite. Which law is designed to allow businesses to pay lower wages and benefits? This is so tiring. So many people to starve, and so little time. My folks got their social security check last month, so we've failed there. And Medicare covered a big chunk of our friend's shoulder replacement. Damn.
The kids haven't had school lunches in a couple weeks, since school has been out, so I don't know if we've finally eliminated those or not. But I saw some Mexicans doing yardwork for a white guy this morning, so at least they're still under our thumb. Oh shit. How'd THEY get in here?
I can't believe how many people actually believe that's really what lawmakers are thinking. This business about the Dems looking out for the little guy while the Republicans only care about lowering taxes on the rich is an absolute relic, and I can't wait for it to self-destruct. More Howard Dean, please! I like watching the left implode.
--whack--This business about the Dems looking out for the little guy while the Republicans only care about lowering taxes on the rich is an absolute relic, and I can't wait for it to self-destruct.
I hope you're patient, cause you're in for a long wait.
For me, the party labels are of secondary consideration at best. I'll give substantially more weight to an individual's actions and words. Interestingly, whenever I notice an effort to lower the taxes on the rich, say our current estate tax system, the people trying to make it happen identify themselves as republicans.
Republican credo:* "...government by the <strike>people</strike> rich, for the <strike>people</strike> rich, by the <strike>people </strike> rich, plus anybody we can trick into doing our work for us..."
* edited for clarity
I have more, but the subject sickens me too much to continue now.
Are you referring to the economy of Jimmy Carter, or the economy of Bill Clinton after the Republicans took control of Congress in 94?
Here's a reference.
I'll bite. Which law is designed to allow businesses to pay lower wages and benefits? This is so tiring. So many people to starve, and so little time. My folks got their social security check last month, so we've failed there. And Medicare covered a big chunk of our friend's shoulder replacement. Damn.
Programs that Democrats champion and Republicans denigrate, Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, labor laws, overtime. These programs are so popular that the Republicans have trouble making headway against them, and you use that failure to claim that Republicans actually support them?
This business about the Dems looking out for the little guy while the Republicans only care about lowering taxes on the rich is an absolute relic, and I can't wait for it to self-destruct.
Maybe if the Republicans sided with the little guy once in a while, they could do something about that.
That's another relic, man. This class warfare garbage is just that -- garbage. When a group of people bears 90 percent of the tax burden, they are obviously going to benefit from any tax break more than the group that only bears 10 percent of the burden. This idea that the rich are taking a bigger piece of a pie and leaving only crumbs for the less fortunate is false, false, false. The rich are that way because they made the pie bigger, not because they penny-ante'd some welfare mom's check from her. The left has completely convinced a big chunk of the population that the only way people become wealthy is if they steal government lucre from the poor.
It's untrue, false, a lie, bullshit, garbage, and otherwise incorrect. Taxing the rich as punishment for their success is counterproductive and for that matter, doesn't improve the quality of life for the poor one whit. That money doesn't go to the poor, it goes to the government, who spends it on bloated pork-ridden nonsense. Both parties.
edit: this was responding to BigV. HM beat me to the post button. Again.
Minimum wage? What good does raising the minimum wage do? No one can live on it anyway. Instead, take the burden off of businesses so that they can create better paying jobs. I suppose raising the minimum wage helps someone who works at fast food or as a farm laborer, but if that's the only goal someone has in life, they shouldn't expect to be paid $30 an hour for it. Some jobs are just low-paying. That's not my fault.
Minimum wage? What good does raising the minimum wage do? No one can live on it anyway. Instead, take the burden off of businesses so that they can create better paying jobs. I suppose raising the minimum wage helps someone who works at fast food or as a farm laborer, but if that's the only goal someone has in life, they shouldn't expect to be paid $30 an hour for it. Some jobs are just low-paying. That's not my fault.
There is nothing more stupid than a Republican that earns less than 150K per year.
Minimum wage? What good does raising the minimum wage do? No one can live on it anyway.
Hmmm. I wonder... How can I combine sentences two and three?
What does that mean, warch? I don't understand. :confused:
What it means is you're screwing yourself.
The rich are that way because they made the pie bigger, not because they penny-ante'd some welfare mom's check from her.
This is the kind of thing that really makes me laugh. Or cry, depending on mood. Look at say, the kafuffle over estate tax, and look at who is affected by that. Or bush's last round of tax cuts that did little for the economy but sure helped some of his mates. Look at the tens of billions of public money effectively siphoned to rich cronies off by untendered contracts over Iraq.
The other thing that halfwits like noodle tend not to take into account is themore recent concept of non metric externalities. People's wellbeing and most forms of environmental damage being the most common two. By exploiting these things you're effectively borrowing against a finite resource you cannot really define or passing the cost silently over to someone else, this doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved. Look at the cost of things like depression on the economy (when they put a vague number or it) or the forecasts for economic damage from the greenhouse effect and it starts to come into focus. There is a vague school involving this called PAE - post autistic economics which has gained some ground but it's effectively fractured and a bit all over the place at the moment, postmodern economics is not very mature yet but needed more than ever in the face of people like noodle.
The minimum wage stops exploitative businesses doing people over even harder than they do at the moment, there is no way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour, it's not in their interest. People do live on the minimum wage, usually supplemented by a sideline of some sort, take the 'burden' of businesses to pay employees in something other than peanuts fucks over all those people, including particularly vulnerable categories like new immigrants. I suppose environmental law is a 'burden' as well, why not let them dump PCBs into the local ecosystem so they can concentrate on making more environmentally friendly products? Both statements are fucking non sequiturs.
As for your folks social security cheque, this admin is working to stop that as soon as possible.
No way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour - except of course for the obvious fact that every single person in the job market would like to be paid more, and is angling for that at all times, and when paid not enough generally departs for greener pastures.
The labour market doesn't exist in a vacuum, and historically every increase in the minimum wage results in a burst of increase in unemployment for a few quarters. The correction is that some businesses can't afford to continue with a higher percentage going to labor and so some of the jobs go away temporarily and others go away forever.
But at this point the M.W. has been low for so long in the US that it almost doesn't matter. Even mild inflation has left the M.W. behind. Very few jobs exist at minimum wage these days. Jacquelita's 16-year-old started work as a hostess at a Bob Evans restaurant (read: working class sit-down meals) for a good 30% over the M.W.
So it turns out that if you are concerned about wages, all you really need is economic growth. No amount of laws will permit employers to hire people at wages above what they can possibly pay in the economy. A decade of really good growth increases everyone's standard of living until they are ALL paid above "minimum" - even to just stand there and smile while people come in to get their biscuits and gravy. (After only three months of doing that, Jacquelita's young one will have enough cash to buy my old car, not bad at all for a teenager.)
Let me know when they work out this whole really good growth thing, it doesn't look like happening anytime soon. Removing regulation will usually stimulate some economic growth but almost always at a cost.
Well that's kinda the problem: as long as a population looks to "them" to work out really good growth, it won't happen. "They" definitely do not know how to do it.
and deregulation is not the answer. If you want to visit how it works, visit the Scandinavian states, the quality of life for everyone beats the shit out of the Anglo-Saxon model, for everyone. . The answer to the problem now is massive investment in education and research. While noodle's bizarre claims that the government can never do anything right are to be expected but they don't hold true. While governments often fuck things up they can and do do a lot of good. It's not like the republicans believe in small government anymore either. Also - the equally strange claim the rich pay 90% of tax is amusingly far from reality, the rich don't pay tax you sillybilly, that's for little people. Over a certain point the money fades into networks of shell companies, offshore tax havens and other tricks with the assistance of Private Banks. Big corporations tend not to pay tax either, last I checked GE was surprisingly based in a small Caribbean county. It's the middle class that pay the vast majority of tax in our societies.
a visual. It even comes from the NYT, not known for its integrity when it comes to anything regarding Bush. Despite the normal class warfare rigamarole about "the rich", tell me jaguar, who bears the tax burden in American society? Why, then, is it unfair that those shouldering the burden should benefit from tax cuts? Should their percentage be higher still? And should we add the burden of forcing them to pay even higher wages? If so, are you willing to pay 50% more for the same products? Obviously you will answer this with some playground insult, but if you would couch the answers "yes" or "no" somewhere within, it'd be appreciated.
Perhaps it wouldn't be that much. What, then, should the minimum wage be? How much would you pay someone to wash dishes in your restaurant? $20/hour? After all, when they go to the grocery store to purchase the products whose price has trebled because the owner has to pay his/her employees $20/hour, they'll need enough to get by on.
The "rich", which by the way means "anyone who makes over 50k" to the left, are paying it all.
a visual. It even comes from the NYT, not known for its integrity when it comes to anything regarding Bush. Despite the normal class warfare rigamarole about "the rich", tell me jaguar, who bears the tax burden in American society?
It depends on what you mean by burden. The word has a very different meaning depending on how much you've got.
The "rich", which by the way means "anyone who makes over 50k" to the left, are paying it all.
What makes you say that?
The fact that they pay 88.4% of the money that the feds receive from taxes?
What I mean by burden is obvious. What you're talking about is whether or not poor people have a hard time coming up with the scratch to pay Uncle Sam. The answer is that most of them don't have to -- by the time they've received all of their government checks and gotten breaks for marriage, kids, etc., any amount they pay to the feds is offset. Most of the least wealthy people don't pay any federal income tax at all.
Now, the middle class does pay. And it would be great to have a system by which we could pay less. But as far as this fairness bullshit goes, if taxation were fair, then there would be a flat income tax (or no tax other than sales tax). This doesn't interest liberals. Libs are obsessed with idea that those with more money should be somehow forced to feel the same amount of "suffering" as everyone else.
Firstly, you want a real debate, well, it makes a nice change but you'll have to work by some basic laws first. First of all, stop making up numbers. Where did the trebling come from? Where did the 50% come from? Where is 20/hr come from? I'm not going to answer you question because it has no basis in reality. Yes noodle, I understand the inflationary power of the minimum wage but use real numbers. Include the deflationary effect of overseas manufacturing. Secondly, stop using misleading terms such as 'least wealthy', we're mostly fairly intelligent people, not a goddamn news-crew, it just gets in the way.
Also worth noting: the AMT hits the rich far harder than the superrich.
Notable label here: share of reported income.
I know some people with a villa on the French Rivera, a chalet in Switzerland and a penthouse in London that report an income of your average accountant. You so far have chosen to ignore this point. I don't think the rates should be higher, I think much more resources should be put into catching the very rich dodging taxes, which is estimated last time I saw in the tens of billions and long jail terms implemented for major tax fraud by individuals.
From the graphic the biggest tax demographics by far are the 'middle class', and middle/upper 160000-400000 or soish. Rich as far as I'm concerned is 150000+. Which is pretty much what I said. Do they deserve tax cuts? I don't see why. It's not about suffering, it's about fairness, by taxing those that have far more, more, we can help those at the bottom get by. I think tax on profits from financial instruments like shares and bonds should be far higher, it's essentially free money. You can argue all you want about the economic stimulus from investment but the same effect is had by just leaving the money in the bank, the bank just does it instead.
On a philosophical level this all comes down to how selfish you are. If you're more selfish the argument tends to run that what you earn is your business, your tax burden should be the same as everyone else and fuck those with less, they should get better jobs if they want more money. The other side says that those at the bottom are in circumstances that make advancement far harder and deserve help from those that have more. Some such as myself also feel that many services can be provided more cost effectively to everyone by the government than as optional services to those that can afford it. Look at healthcare in the US, you guys spend 15% of GDP, more than 5500 a head for healthcare that judging by what I hear, isn't that great compared to 11.5%(3800PP) in Switzerland for incredible healthcare for all or 9%(2900PP) in Denmark. Only the US spends more than 50% of its money on healthcare privately. As far as I'm concerned this is a superior model.
There is one other aspect here, why is the government cutting taxes to anyone while increasingly spending by a massive amount?
Need to take this a bit further while I think about it. People lambaste the 'European welfare state' but it is in a sense, an indirect way of achieving things. If you look at high-tech productivity I seem to remember it's highest in Spain, midday siesta and all and lowest in the UK with it's grindingly long hours and workworkwork culture. Looking after people pays off. Many European nations have higher absolute worker productivity (per hour) than the US. Trade balance and per capita GNP in Sweden, the usual target for the welfare state stuff is higher than the UK.
As we move towards service / tertiary economies the ability of our best and brightest to think and work to their fullest potential coming up with innovative ideas will as far as I can see, become more economically important than squeezing every last ounce out of workers before the collapse exhausted into depression. But that's just my opinion.
Weird. I channel surf the news everyday sometimes twice. BBC, ABC (Aussie). This is the first I've heard. I can only assume she's American or is married related to one and it was a slow news day.
Could it also be that the story was cheaper to buy or run than say something from the Beeb or CNN. After all news is not free.
Maybe for the Philosophy Thread but I've often wondered why there isn't a Good News Channel. Must be something about human nature and the "Rather Him Than Me" attitude that pervades life. This could of course be a distant survival thing.
I think that the girl missing (presumed dead) in Aruba is the US equivalent of the Australian story we didn't hear very much about ... you know, the one about the nice blonde Aussie Girl who got busted for drugs in Thailand, was it? Someplace where drug smuggling gets you the death penalty? Whatever did happen to her, anyway?
Tonight on FoxNews it was pretty much wall to wall coverage of the Aruba thing, especially now that the boy's dad's been arrested.
They couldn't afford the bribe money so she got 20 years. But they have another chance as it will probably go to appeal. If she or someone can scrape up enough money to "lobby" the judges well.....
Death penalty for drug smuggling is the norm in some SE Asian countries. Singapore definitely; Thailand maybe not but life imprisonment for sure; Indonesia well.. see above.
maybe of no interest but this is 5 mins ago from BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm
Now I'll look at CNN.
Aaha. Got it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4125492.stm
Sorry it's a slow day here in the scrub. Well it used to be jungle but....
Firstly, you want a real debate, well, it makes a nice change but you'll have to work by some basic laws first. First of all, stop making up numbers. Where did the trebling come from? Where did the 50% come from? Where is 20/hr come from? I'm not going to answer you question because it has no basis in reality.
Then remove the numbers that bother you and answer the basic question. If we are to raise the wage for every job in existence to the level at which the worker can live comfortably, where should the money come from? How much are you willing to pay for potatoes to ensure that every person who picks potatoes makes enough money to feed a family of four and still put some back for college tuitions? It's like trying to draw a circle in which the two ends don't meet. It just can't be done.
I don't have the patience for minutae that some of you do. I only have time for big-picture arguments, particularly when I'm at work, which is the only time I come to the cellar. So when I use a number, it's not statistically valid, it's for illustrative purposes only.
So when I use a number, it's not statistically valid, it's for illustrative purposes only.
:headshake
It it because you are going cold turkey that you are admitting this stuff?
probably.
Here's another admission -- if I do use a number that's intended to be a real, scientific, actually accurate number, I googled it. Particularly on subjects as mind-numbingly dull as minimum wage and class envy.
Hey mrnoodle. That hole in your foot you were wondering about, well, it came from shooting off at the mouth while your foot was still in it. Look here, you *%@)!^& hypocrite...
Your earlier position:
--snip--This idea that the rich are taking a bigger piece of a pie and leaving only crumbs for the less fortunate is false, false, false. The rich are that way because they made the pie bigger,...
Freeze frame. "the rich are rich because they made the pie bigger", because they 'created' the wealth. Ok, I think I understand that. I paraphrased you fairly, right? Continue...
...not because they penny-ante'd some welfare mom's check from her.--snip--
Not because the wealth came at the expense of someone else's efforts to get by, to raise their own standard of living.
Now you say:
--snip--If we are to raise the wage for every job in existence to the level at which the worker can live comfortably, where should the money come from? How much are you willing to pay for potatoes to ensure that every person who picks potatoes makes enough money to feed a family of four and still put some back for college tuitions? It's like trying to draw a circle in which the two ends don't meet. It just can't be done.--snip--
emphasis mine
So what you're trying to say is that this wealth pie that was created by the wealthy is only big enough for the rich to put food on the table and put a little away,
but no one else, cause "where would it come from?!"
.
News flash, Mr I-don't-have-time-for-the-facts-just-give-me-the-big-picture (who do you think you are? GWB channeling Col Potter?!)
That welfare check? That job training assistance, that reduced price school lunch, that transportation subsidy, that Pell Grant? That gap in the circle around the pie can easily be closed by some changes in other places.
The price of potatoes can be raised. This cuts both ways, though, and to realize the maximum effect for "closing the gap", we'd have to agree that the increase in revenue to the potato grower would have to be directed to the potato picker, and not become increased potato grower profit. But even then, there are diminishing returns, since the potato picker is also a potato buyer and his costs would be increasing too.
Another way would be to decrease the potato picker's costs of living. Make milk cheaper, and his rent, and his gas prices, college tuition while you're at it. But this only exacerbates the cash flow problems of all the cow milkers and the landlords and the gas pumpers and the college profs and all the other "little people" who are also having a rough time feeding four and putting a little aside for college.
To this point, we've been ignoring the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room, haven't we? Those rich people. Wait, let's not demonize them, I really don't want to go there. I don't live there, I know they're people too, families, kids, hopes and dreams. Really. So let's just look at where the money is, the money that will fill the gap you complained about, that uncloseable gap.
The almighty motherlode of slack to close that gap is found in the most recent (one generation) transfer of wealth in this country. It is SO skewed and SO gigantic, that words and number fail to convey the effect (ok for you, you wouldn't read or believe them anyway :smack: ) and the graphs are so distorted and bizzare that you wouldn't believe your eyes.
I'm talking about the redistribution of wealth in this country. Now, before you spontaneously combust in a fit of capitialist rage calling me a communist, I want you to notice that it's already happened. Past Tense. And still is happening, right now. And accelerating. Not in the potato picker's favor. It's time to stop, then reverse the trend. That would be in the best interest of everyone, including Daddy Throwbucks.
Some numbers and pictures for you:
Median net worth of households, by monthly income in quartiles. For the year 2000:
Bottom 4 quintiles: $156,747
Top 1 quintile: 185,500
Source:
US Census Bureau. Look at the bottom of page 8 for the graph.
That means that the top 20% of households have 118% of the wealth of EVERYBODY ELSE in the country PUT TOGETHER. Do you think there's some slack there that could be better used to close the gap around the pie, mrnoodle? I mean, come on. You know those lower 80% of the population are not all on food stamps, they're not all deadbeats, they get by somehow on their relatively puny slice of the pie. That's the key. They get by on less. Do you think the top 20% could get by on less too? The answer is yes. Of course.
I can hear it now, "BigV, populist, communist, promoter of class warfare". *GONG* Wrong. What I say is true, and I'm not the only freak out here saying so. Here's somebody from a tax bracket higher than mine who is my patriotic coequal, ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to Bill Gates' daddy, William H. Gates! A real rabble rouser, eh? Listen to what he has to say in his book,
Wealth and Our Commonweath.
The essence of the American experiment is our collective rejection of European hereditary aristocracy and grotesque inequalities of wealth. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, he noted that equality of condition permeated the American spirit: "The American experiment presupposes a rejection of inherited privilege." In the words of novelist John Dos Passos, "rejection of Europe is what America is all about."
The nation's founders and populace viewed excessive concentrations of wealth as incompatible with the ideals of the new nation. Revolutionary era visitors to Europe, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, were aghast at the wide disparities of wealth and poverty they observed. They surmised that these great European inequalities were the result of an aristocratic system of land transfers, hereditary political power, and monopoly.
And what do we have today? Hmm? Gates and Collins focus on the stupidity of repealing the estate tax, and I agree with them. The message is just another thread in the tapestry--the one you call "soak the rich" I call "shared sacrifice".
I'll give you just one more reference, you may recognize it. Back in the day, King David, richest man in Jerusalem, wanted for nothing. And yet, he coveted and took Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. Because he could. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. David knew this and indulged himself anyway, and made a horrible mess of several lives, including his own, trying to cover it up. Just because the laws today make it "ok" for the screaming stupefying imbalance in wealth to exist, doesn't make it right or even a good idea.
I'll make it simple for you, higher taxes, on the higher brackets, will close this gap. And it should be closed. The shift in policy in this nation from taxing capital to taxing labor has swung dangerously far, and it is in the interest of all to move it in the other direction.
Y'know, that's about two hours of wind up there, but it's all my wind (well, almost all of it's mine). But this guy
says the same thing, only better, and it's about a 5 minute read. I urge you to do so, please.
An excerpt:
Is it tolerable for 1% of the population to own half of the wealth of the nation?
Not when one out of five households has zero or negative net worth, not when a fifth of the nation's children live in poverty, not when more than forty million of our fellow citizens are without health insurance, and not when the average worker's pay and the minimum wage (in constant dollars) are declining. (All this data documented in "Divided Decade..." see above).
Moreover, such a disparity of wealth is intolerable when urgently needed research in alternative energy sources and other environmentally benign technologies is neglected, as fellow species disappear and the warming world careens toward ecological disaster. It is intolerable when this wealth leads to the conglomeration of the media and thence a stifling of the spectrum of opinion which Jefferson held to be the lifeblood of a free society. And finally, it is intolerable when this wealth finances the elections, and thus virtually selects and purchases the services of our political leaders.
To be sure, personal wealth, and the aspiration of wealth, can be the wellspring of great benefit to society as a whole. Personal wealth encourages capital investment, a tolerance of personal and financial risk, an expression of socially valuable talents, a willingness to endure additional years of specialized education, and the private support of education, the arts and sciences, and charitable institutions.
Clearly, an unequal distribution of wealth can be a good thing. But there can be too much of a good thing.
Half of a nation's wealth in the hands of one percent of the population is too much of a good thing.
Too much, indeed.
Hey SD:
You may think all these histrionics have hijacked your thread: Why do we have silly pieces roaring across the headlines in place of real news? But we haven't. This is really more a case of pulling aside the curtain to see what's yanking the levers of power and why. A few people, misleading the viewers, for their own gain, and the truth be damned. Just like that scene in the Wizard of Oz.
You go, Toto.
All right, enough of this petty squabbling. Can we get back to the real issue at hand? We say the media is biased, that they do not tell us the whole truth. What can we do about it? Is there anything we can do? I have been thinking about this for a long time, and I see no solution, short of finding out the news for ourselves. But that seems to be exactly what we're doing here in The Cellar. But I'm confusing myself, so I think I'll stop now.
:(
something about how communism is no longer communism, noodle is too dumb to live, David committing adultery is a symbol of the struggle of the boor jwah
um.
k.
I know I'm not a hypocrite, let me try to convince you of that (although in my current nicotine-deprived state, more effort is being spent backspacing over the dozen or so different variations of "cocksucker" that desperately want to occupy this space).
First, let me make sure that
I am hearing
you correctly. You believe that as long as there are desperately poor people living in our country, there should be no exceedingly rich people. The federal government should arbitrate who gets what; the more wealth you have accumulated, by whatever means, the greater percentage you must give to the government for redistribution, in whatever form. Right? Seems I've heard of that system before...
The job of government is not to redistribute the private assets of its citizens until everyone feels like they're getting what they deserve. Furthermore, most of the poor people I know (and I know plenty -- my family's full of em, and I myself was unemployed for 2 years until this January) are insulted by the idea that liberals think we are so fucking inept that those who have succeeded should be forced by the government to give us the crumbs off their table.
Maybe I would rather use my skills to better myself and my situation, and not suck off the teat of big government. Maybe I want to start my own business. Of course that likelihood recedes if I know that doing so successfully means that the fruits of my labor will be taken from me by force of law and given to those who didn't earn a damn penny of it.
Closing the gap, indeed. Shove a potato into the gap between your liberal fangs [/breathes deeply, imagines a cigarette].
Oh yeah, the hypocrisy thing. Why does the zero-sum idea apply to the potato farmer and not to the country as a whole? I'm no economist, so I can't answer in a way that will immunize me from jabs from intellectuals and arrogant pricks. But I know that the potato farmer is concerned about a far smaller set of economic factors than "the country" is. Raising the minimum wage to, say, $10/hour will run him out of business, and it really won't do the employee much good to win some kind of moral victory, yet still be out of a job.
erm...sorry, back to the media bias thing.
Dear Luna:
No, no, no, no, don't stop, for heaven's sake. You're right on target, you correctly answered your own question. DO read, widely, continuously. Do listen to a variety of voices. Do watch the content put forth by the media. Do so in all cases with a critical eye and a critical ear. Consider the source (this one is important). Nurture your judgement along the way. Compare what you see and hear and read with what your first hand experience tells you. Keep an open enough mind to realize that your experience is limited and that there are other sides to the story, and that they do all fit together. The key is how.
As you listen and learn you'll understand more of that how.
Don't give up.
At this very moment, I have no health insurance. But it's not rich people's fault, it's mine.
At this very moment, I have no health insurance. But it's not rich people's fault, it's mine.
Would you be more likely to have health insurance if it was easier/cheaper to get?
Not really, no. 100% my fault.
ok, i have been really busy so no time to produce a really well documented post but here goes:
The economy is consistently better under Democrats. And one goal of Republican lawmakers is to allow businesses to pay lower wages and benefits.
historically the markets have a 1% difference in performance between democrat and republican presidents. you are right though, the D's get the extra 1%. economic cycles and the coincidence of politics have as much to do with that as anything else. none of these guys are really working FOR us, remember?
Minimum wage? i'm open for the discussion, but if we raise minimum wage for an unskilled, entry level job by X%, what should we do for the pay of the people who are a little more trained and thus more valuable? and right up the line for you computer gurus, teachers, etc... when someone on the bottom gets a payraise, that invariably must move up the chain. so the bottom level moves up, but so do the top levels - and we are still exactly where we started - with a great big gap in incomes with some people on the bottom barely getting by. if you can figure out a way around that, let me know. i think it would be cool to make 5 or 10% more next year even if i can't really buy anything more with it.
taxes? higher taxes do discourage production. i spend 5 hours today with a CPA, Attorney, and our mutual client. this guy just crossed over making $135,000 for the year. (yes, i know that is obscene) they looked at his tax situation and told him that he has to either A) lower his production and relax for the rest of the year, or B) incorporate so they can shelter his income from taxes. So he incorporated so that he can continue at his current pace and make even more obscene money and now pay effectively $0 in taxes. if his tax bracket was 15% then he would pay @ $40,500 in taxes. - oh yeah, that is federal only. because his tax bracket is above 35% - instead of that $40K he will walk away paying @$5,000. sure he has to pay the CPA and attorney, so that is good for the economy - but would $40,000 have been better than $0? or does it feel good knowing we have a "progressive" tax system?
tax dodges piss me off, but why should someone who works 60 hour work weeks after finding a career that hurts no one have to payout more than 1/3 of their income? because they are financially more successful than someone who works 60 hour work weeks to make $40,000? this stupid effing progressive system designed to get more out of the rich only encourages the rich to not pay anything, so that the burden goes back on the middle class.
and FYI - the rich do in fact pay 80% of the taxes received by the federal gov't, even after setting up their shelters.
um.
k.
I know I'm not a hypocrite, let me try to convince you of that (although in my current nicotine-deprived state, more effort is being spent backspacing over the dozen or so different variations of "cocksucker" that desperately want to occupy this space).
Thanks. I appreciate the effort and the (slightly) higher level discourse. I will do my part to repay the honor.
First, let me make sure that I am hearing you correctly. You believe that as long as there are desperately poor people living in our country, there should be no exceedingly rich people.
Glad you asked. Let me be clear, I believe there will be poor, always. Sad, true, The Way Things Are. And a sincere "way to go" to the exceedingly rich. I know it's not all good, but there are worse problems to have.
The fact that there are people on both ends of the scale does NOT bother me. It is unavoidable, and therefore acceptable. We'll get to the "But..." in a minute.
The federal government should arbitrate who gets what;
No, again. YOU should arbitrate that, and I should arbitrate that and UT and all the rest of youse bums. We
may choose to delegate the responsibility for the execution of our decisions to the "federal government", but I do not advocate abdication of my responsibility for my own actions, my own decisions.
We, as a people, a society, are obligated to arbitrate that. The mechanism for that distribution doesn't have to be just a single entity, like the feds. Indeed, it isn't today. Think of all the philanthropic organizations that "redistribute" the what to the who. And all the religious traditions I know anything about all exhort the believers to care for their brothers and sisters. Think about families that share. I know when I was out of work, the help we got was really appreciated, whether it came from family, church or the government (in my case, the state government)
And I want to make sure I mention individual giving. I know it sounds repetitious, but
people give, give all the time. Out of their pocket and into the tin cup, dirty hand, volunteer roster, offering plate, charity drive, non-profit collections every day. All. The. Time.
Those decisions about who gets what come from individuals. People who think, and act.
the more wealth you have accumulated, by whatever means, the greater percentage you must give to the government for redistribution, in whatever form. Right? Seems I've heard of that system before...
I'll take this fragment all together, jab and all. I DO believe in a progressive taxation system, and so do the great majority of Americans. It's the system we have, you know, tax "brackets", right? Nothing radical there. Chill out. I do believe[indent] From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx
[/indent]Now you think I'm a communist, right? How about this one then?
[font=Times][size=3][font=Times][/font][/size][/font][indent]Of those to whom much is given, much is required. John F. Kennedy
[/indent]Flaming liberal you shout, eh? Perhaps you've heard it this way.[indent] From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Jesus, Luke 12:48 NIV
[/indent]Now what am I?
If you have more, you should give more. Where are you coming from that makes that a bad thing?
As to the "any means" part...the means
do matter. A lot.
The job of government is not to redistribute the private assets of its citizens until everyone feels like they're getting what they deserve. Furthermore, most of the poor people I know (and I know plenty -- my family's full of em, and I myself was unemployed for 2 years until this January) are insulted by the idea that liberals think we are so fucking inept that those who have succeeded should be forced by the government to give us the crumbs off their table.
*sigh*
What's happening is that the current system is not fair, not by a country mile (or a thousand country miles). The reason it's not fair is that money buys influence and influence craves money and on and on in one great big circle jerk. The poor have very little voice in the matter. They have little voice because they have little to offer those that are in a position to make the rules. Unlike the very wealthy that can literally buy the attention of those that govern. You claim to speak for the poor. Well, so do I. And I am talking about what's in their best interest.
And if the poor have little voice, then the future generations have even less. Who, I ask you, who will pay for the increase in the debt this administration has incurred? Your children and their children. Not you. Not me. F'sho not the trust fund babies and the corporations. And because they're unable to protest, the get the shaft. Have you ever seen that joke about the sergeant asking for a volunteer and the whole rank of soldiers except one takes a step back? That hapless "volunteer" was given the role through the complicity of everyone else.
Today that everyone else is you and me and those whose hands are on the levers of power. We're all speeding along the same track, and some are stoking the fire and some are stomping the brake. Would you join the side that is striving to increase the disparity in wealth?
Maybe I would rather use my skills to better myself and my situation, and not suck off the teat of big government. Maybe I want to start my own business. Of course that likelihood recedes if I know that doing so successfully means that the fruits of my labor will be taken from me by force of law and given to those who didn't earn a damn penny of it.
Let's talk about what's in common here. Rich and poor alike have the same hours in a day. The vast majority are able bodied to some degree. That same majority has some visible means of support. Everyone has certain minimum consumptioni requirements, food, shelter. You agree with me so far, I'm sure. We may begin to diverge here.
As a society, we have affirmed other aspects of life as worthwhile, that every individual in our society can reasonably expect to enjoy. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Public education. Due process. Strong mutual national defense.
Do we still have some overlap? Left a lot out, I know. Here's another important section. Let me appeal to your self interest. So you want to be n entrepreneur? Great. What makes you willing to take the risk? Possible return? Low likelihood of having it fail, or stolen or federalized? What reduces that fear? A trust in the rule of law. You're willing to take personal and finacial risk BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. *sheesh*
Now this government, with all these aspects, costs money. And ya don't have to be an economist to know you just can't "print more." Obviously, government provides these benefits, secures these liberties, protects it's citizens, educates it's people using tax dollars. Not that difficult. Oh, and by the way, you can't pick and choose which policies you'll support with each dollar. I don't write my check to the IRS and then cut of a big hunk of it with my scissors cause I think the war in Iraq was/is a mistake. It's a package deal.
I'll go you one further. It is in your best interest as a potentially wildly successful entrepreneur to overseed the ground you tread on. An educated workforce is the veritable font of innovation. The more skilled minds and gifted hands you have at work out there, the more likely, no, the more often you'll see innovation, that's spelled with a capital $, by the way.
You'll want judges and law enforcement to protect your assets. You want people to be able to get to your store, on public roads and to have enough money to buy your whiz-bang-o-matic, right?
Ok, that last one is really about wages and not tax policy, but the point is that it takes money to make it all go around.
--continued--
--continued--
Closing the gap, indeed. Shove a potato into the gap between your liberal fangs [/breathes deeply, imagines a cigarette].
*mute*
Dude, I'm not a liberal. I'm not insulted, but since we're gettin all honest with each other, I thought you should know. I'm a progressive. But the liberals, they're cool too! They're the people that brought you
The Weekend.
Oh yeah, the hypocrisy thing. Why does the zero-sum idea apply to the potato farmer and not to the country as a whole? I'm no economist, so I can't answer in a way that will immunize me from jabs from intellectuals and arrogant pricks. But I know that the potato farmer is concerned about a far smaller set of economic factors than "the country" is. Raising the minimum wage to, say, $10/hour will run him out of business, and it really won't do the employee much good to win some kind of moral victory, yet still be out of a job.
No problem, I never mistook you for an economist anyway. Just be a man. Yourself. If it's cold outside and your hands are freezing, but your pockets are warm, why would you deny your hands the comfort of those warm pockets? Of course you wouldn't . But if you're out in the cold and you have a knit cap but no shoes, you have a problem. Sure, you might redistribute your cap to your feet, but now you have a cold head. And if you have only shoes, your head's just out of luck. If you need it and you have it you'll use it.
Now imagine you're a father and a husband. You have plenty of money coming in, would you let your children and your wife go shoeless cold and hungry? No, you'll share. Duh. I mean, they don't make the money, but all share.
Do you require the scorekeeper of your beer league softball team to count the runs you score as yours or the team's? You have surplus ammo and the other guy in your recon patrol is out? Share? Probably. Would you carry some of the items from the too heavy pack of one of your hiking buddies or leave the dope behind? Man, you share the burden all the time.
It's in the interest of the producer to have consumers that are able to complete the deal. Absent other motivating factors, why would a business pay a cent more for labor? How does starving a necessary aspect of the whole work toward the good of the whole?
...sorry, back to the media bias thing.
Right. On the whole, you'd be far healthier if you smoked enough cigarettes that you could no longer see FOXNews on the tv across the room.
[QUOTE]those with more money should be somehow forced to feel the same amount of "suffering" as everyone else.
Just in case you don't know in Norway road traffic fines are a percantage of one's income. Maybe that would be a start in the US.
Who, I ask you, who will pay for the increase in the debt this administration has incurred?
Hope it works this time. click on
The Budget Deficit Shrinks in the upper right.
The accompanying chart of quarterly data shows how overplayed are the acute deficit fears that have frozen investors from time to time for several years now. The data graphed here show the federal deficit (or surplus) as a percentage of GDP for the past 35 years. This ratio is the best way to analyze the deficit. The dollar figures can mislead because everything becomes larger in dollar terms over time, including also the economy, federal revenues, federal outlays, and, frequently, deficits. But even more than this need to get away from the up trend in all dollar figures, the ratio of deficits to GDP has analytical value because it states the liability right next to the ultimate means by which the government can discharge it. Here, it is evident that deficits have become much less burdensome than last year or in 2003. In fact, deficits have retraced almost half the distance from the worst of the red ink to balance. What is more, the deficits currently differ little from much of this long past experience. Today's red ink looks bad, of course, compared with the impressive surpluses of 1998-2000, but otherwise, today's burden looks lighter than in much of the 1990s, 1980s, and even the 1970s, when taxes skyrocketed.
Though the fear-mongering that has accompanied deficits looks misplaced in this context, it still would be misleading to suggest that federal finances are in good shape. Today's deficits may look manageable, but even the least bit of red ink carries an ominous quality when looking farther out on the horizon to see the nation facing the retirement of the baby-boomers and the financial strains that phenomena will place on Social Security and Medicare. Indeed, the prospect of these great long-term strains makes an argument for the government to try amassing surpluses in the near term or, at least, to balance its budget. Today's deficits, no matter how moderate in an historical context, will only make that future financial burden more difficult to bear.
Still, however much these distant burdens loom, the government's finances at present clearly do not burden financial markets, as some have suggested. Longer-term budget strains give cause for concern, but the fact is, stocks and bonds will rise and fall several times before the nation has to confront its fundamental burdens of Social Security and Medicare. In the interim, federal financial demands clearly are manageable.
Just so we are being somewhat accurate about the sky is falling and all that jazz. the deficit is not a good thing, by a long shot - but it has been worse and we've made it through - so let's keep that in mind.
Now imagine you're a father and a husband. You have plenty of money coming in, would you let your children and your wife go shoeless cold and hungry? No, you'll share. Duh. I mean, they don't make the money, but all share.
And yet, if that wife had an affair and left the husband, taking the kids with her, he would all of a sudden feel really pissed off at having to still give them money for shoes and food. Charity and sharing only works when it is not
required.
There have been tons of studies on the different types of incentives. Social and moral incentives rank way,
way higher in people's minds than financial and punitive incentives. People would prefer to give because it feels good, not because they have to. Tell them they have to, and all of a sudden the social and moral incentives that might have been there in the first place are taken away from them.
Just in case you don't know in Norway road traffic fines are a percantage of one's income. Maybe that would be a start in the US.
Exactly my point. It's punitive. Used as a punishment for traffic violations, it deters people from breaking the law. Used as a basis for taxation, it deters people from becoming successful and contributing voluntarily.
Then remove the numbers that bother you and answer the basic question.
Then ask the basic question and avoid trying to puff up your argument with spurious bullshit your made up because you thought it'd help your case.
To answer, I don't remember defining the minimum wage at a level that allowed someone to feed a family of four and put some back for college tuition. it should however be a living wage and I think that is doable without hyperinflation.
Maybe I would rather use my skills to better myself and my situation, and not suck off the teat of big government. Maybe I want to start my own business.
Hard to do that when you have no money, who's gonna lend you money? You have no assets. A government-subsidised small business loan might help. This is my point about social mobility you never addressed.
noodle - I challenge you to find me one person who said 'well, I could start a successful business, become wealthy and pay one arseload of tax which i'll do with by platinum card while on my yacht in the carribean but no, darn that progressive tax system! I'll work 60hrs a week in an office instead.
lookout - very, very few would pay more if they could get away with less no matter how low their tax burden. Secondly - surely the problem there is the holey tax system not the progressive system. I call bullshit on this whole idea that people would give more if they didn't have to. Sure, some people would but the vast majority would give nothing, particuarly to something as large and opque as government. Whether that is a problem in itself is another issue.
I'll grant all your points about social mobility, and take my lumps on using unverified numbers. But we're still left with very basic questions that you still haven't answered. I'll reword them: Why should the federal government increase the percentage of income it takes from you to offset the costs incurred by its inability to wisely use the money it has already soaked you for? Why does "society," with all the grand implications of that term, owe anyone a living? What is the incentive for someone who manages a small business on family income to succeed in that business when they know at some point, they will be punished monetarily for it and that which they have honestly earned will be stolen and Robin-Hooded out to those who did not earn it? Furthermore, if they know this is to happen, what's the point of charitable giving on a personal level?
The people fanning the flames of class warfare are ultra-rich Boston trust fund Democrats, and the only reason they're doing it is for votes. Someone as smart as you should see that. Like I said, I know lots of poor people, and am almost poor myself. Any of us with any pride feels marginalized by the idea that some fat cat is telling his fellow fat cats that they owe us crumbs from their table. We'd far rather buy our own damn table with money we earned. That's not everyone, of course. The lazy ones are lazy at any income level. Don't fool yourself into thinking that everyone at a certain income level is some bluecollar hero who just can't get by because "the rich" took all the available money and left none for the lower classes.
As to your point about social mobility: it's damn hard to break out of a rut where you're not making any money and don't see any money coming in in the foreseeable future. Extremely hard. And nearly impossible if you have mouths to feed. But social mobility is not enabled by handouts. The gap between rich and poor doesn't close when you take away incentives for small business.
I know 2 people personally who owned small businesses in my town. One of them had such a tiny tiny profit margin that when the city came in and ordered him to dig a new septic tank, it took him 2 years to come up with the money. Luckily the second year was really good for him.....except it put his personal income into the next tax bracket, and he couldn't afford the CPA to tell him how to get around the loopholes. We're talking an ADDITIONAL $5,000 owed to the government, for making about $12,000 more.
In other words, all the extra work he did, all the extra hours and sweat, netted him abou $7k towards a (can't remember the number exactly...$11k?) construction project. Hmm. Who gets the pound of flesh? The city water board or the feds? He's automatically put in a position of having to cheat to get by. So, he sold the only saleable asset he had -- his truck -- and paid for the digging and got his taxes in on time. All this because he was considered "rich" by the standards of the left and therefore owed a greater percentage of his income.
Oh, but selling the truck meant that he couldn't run the delivery part of his business, which had been funding his shop for the past 3 years. Shop closed, land sold to a whitewater rafting outfit. The taxes he paid on the income from the sale must've been impressive, but I don't know what happened to him after that.
He didn't cheat or use loopholes, and was put out of business in part by unfair taxes. Well, he cheated a little. I worked for him part time for a few years and he paid me in fishing tackle and cash under the table. Paying unemployment insurance, payroll tax, workman's comp, and all the other garbage would've sunk him even sooner. This is the environment that liberals create in their lust to punish oil company executives and Republicans.
Paying unemployment insurance, payroll tax, workman's comp, and all the other garbage would've sunk him even sooner. This is the environment that liberals create in their lust to punish oil company executives and Republicans.
I know many citizens who have been quite relieved to find they have pesky garbage like workers comp and funding as they look for new work, enabling them to keep their homes in the face of hospital bills or outsourcing. That allows them a chance to stay afloat.
Most of the small business owners I know that have struggled and failed (besides just having bad business sense, or faced smarter competition) have been most burdened by the cost of
healthcare. Those that have succeeded have been greatly assisted by startup loans, small business grants, local city investments, and tax breaks. Also, having a community that can afford your product or services helps.
As a liberal, it’s true that I feel little, ok, no pity for the weasels at Enron or Walmart. Particularly when good workers of all levels get screwed out of earnings as the executive profits soar. Perhaps I'm silly, but I think that you can have ethical and strong, profitable, creative business. What you see as burden, I see as investment in creating a good place to live for the majority of people. Quality of life. I don’t want to live in the Midwest of Argentina.
“There isn't a single measure in which the U.S. excels in the health arena. We spend half of the world's health care bill and we are less healthy than all the other rich countries... Fifty-five years ago, we were one of the healthiest countries in the world. What changed? We have increased the gap between rich and poor. Nothing determines the health of a population more than the gap between rich and poor.”
— Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, School of Public Health, University of Washington
That Walmart manages to keep so many of their employees on government assisted healthcare that I must pay for, while they work and earn profits for, rather than take that responsibility....that's annoying. So there is a growing underclass, working their asses off, and they get even a little sick, or their kids, just a bit, and end up in the emergency room on my tab, probably far sicker and definitely more costly than if they had the security of care.
Is you state looking into this? From the Mpls Star Tribune:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. does not want Minnesotans to know how many of its workers in this state receive public health care assistance.
The world's largest retailer has denounced as a public-relations ploy legislation -- which some state legislators have dubbed the "anti-Wal-Mart bill" -- that would create a public list of companies whose workers are enrolled in MinnesotaCare and other government-funded health care programs.
The Bentonville, Ark.-based retail giant recently sent two executives to St. Paul to lobby against the bill, which the Legislature may vote on in special session this month. Wal-Mart also sent a two-page letter describing its health care benefits to every legislator in the state.
"This is not health care reform," said Nate Hurst, public and government relations manager for Wal-Mart. "This is a campaign against Wal-Mart."
But proponents of the bill, whose chief author is Sen. Becky Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, say the public has a right to know which employers have become a drain on the state's public health care system. They say the bill does not target Wal-Mart in particular but is meant to see how the state can work with companies to provide better health care programs.
In the last fiscal year, the state government spent $270.2 million for MinnesotaCare, a program that provides assistance for people who don't have access to affordable insurance. Yet no one in the state government knows which employers have the most workers enrolled in the program.
"If it's true what people say, that big multinational companies are outsourcing health care to taxpayers, then it would be good to have a handle on which ones," said Rep. Sheldon Johnson, DFL-St. Paul. "It's just information."
But it's information that Wal-Mart fears, and for good reason. In other states that have compiled such lists, Wal-Mart has come at or near the top among employers with workers enrolled in state medical assistance. Once such findings are made public, they can be used by opponents of Wal-Mart to stir up support for punitive measures against big-box retailers.
In Wisconsin, for instance, the Department of Health and Family Services reported last week that Wal-Mart employees topped the list of BadgerCare recipients, a state health care program for low-income residents.
A Wisconsin state representative has introduced a bill that would force big-box retailers to reimburse the state for providing the health care needs of their under-paid and under-insured employees.
The bill would place a graduated 1 percent to 2 percent tax on gross receipts on any store that exceeds $20 million in sales in a taxable year, and that allocates less than 10 percent of its payroll to health insurance for its employees. The bill applies only if the retailer fails to pay full-time, entry-level employees at least $22,000 a year, or about $10.58 per hour; or if more than 25 percent of the retailer's workforce is part-time. The revenue would go to the state's Medical Assistance trust fund. ...
Luckily the second year was really good for him.....except it put his personal income into the next tax bracket, and he couldn't afford the CPA to tell him how to get around the loopholes.
Um, when you enter a higher tax bracket, the higher rate doesn't apply to your entire income, just the amount over the bracket cutoff. You don't suddenly owe $5000 more when you enter a higher bracket.
Walmart does indeed provide health coverage for their full time employees.
You work part time, you don't get benefits, or in some cases, full benefits. That's not unusual.
Yes, I know that Walmart is frequently accused of making sure employees don't get enough hours to make full time ... but you don't have to work there. Retail is pretty much an open field. There's always the KMart. Or Target. Or the local stupidmarket chain.
I don't know what other factors might have been present, I only go by what he complained about. As I said, he was utterly uneducated about finance, and I'm sure the line between the money he earned/spent personally and the money he earned/spent on the business was quite blurry. He also worked full time in manufacturing as a support tech.
That does bring up another issue about the tax code, though. It really should be something that's translatable by the average schmo. After all, the average schmo is footing the bill. If the money my friend lost was actually lost somewhere other than through taxes, and he was just an inept businessman, then that's the breaks. But for someone who doesn't have an MBA, and just wants to make a family-run business work, it's quite easy to get bumfuzzled.
So, if he lost $X thousand and saw that a simultaneous increase in his tax rate, there might not be a DIRECT cause/effect relationship, but isn't the outcome the same? I ask in all humbleness, not arguing here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/666837/posts
Have we covered this yet?
Profiting from death? Lawsuit filed in Wal-Mart life insurance case
Houston Chronicle ^ | April 15, 2002 | L.M. SIXEL
Posted on 04/16/2002 4:15:37 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
Jane Sims always knew her husband was a valuable employee to Wal-Mart. She just didn't know how valuable. Sims discovered recently that Wal-Mart, the company her husband, Douglas, worked for before he died, had taken out a life insurance policy in his name. When Douglas Sims died in 1998 of a sudden heart attack, Wal-Mart received about $64,000. She got nothing from that policy.
"I never dreamed that they could profit from my husband's death," said Sims, whose husband worked in receiving at Wal-Mart's distribution center in Plainview for 11 years.
Companies routinely take out secret life insurance policies on the lives of their low-level employees and collect thousands of dollars when they die. The families never know the policies are in place and typically receive none of the money.
The policies are called corporate-owned life insurance policies or COLIs for short. But they're better known in the insurance industry as "dead peasant" and "dead janitor" policies.
...more...
So, if he lost $X thousand and saw that a simultaneous increase in his tax rate, there might not be a DIRECT cause/effect relationship, but isn't the outcome the same? I ask in all humbleness, not arguing here.
I'm not sure what "lost $X thousand" means. Was his after-tax income actually $X thousand less in his good year than in his bad year? Or was his tax $X thousand more in a year where his income was $X*Y more?
I'll grant all your points about social mobility, and take my lumps on using unverified numbers. But we're still left with very basic questions that you still haven't answered. I'll reword them: Why should the federal government increase the percentage of income it takes from you to offset the costs incurred by its inability to wisely use the money it has already soaked you for? Why does "society," with all the grand implications of that term, owe anyone a living? What is the incentive for someone who manages a small business on family income to succeed in that business when they know at some point, they will be punished monetarily for it and that which they have honestly earned will be stolen and Robin-Hooded out to those who did not earn it? Furthermore, if they know this is to happen, what's the point of charitable giving on a personal level?
Ok, let's break this down because you're lumping stuff together.
The key point, other stuff stripped is why does tax increase as income does. As far as I can see, society as a whole has deemed that those with more can afford to contribute more to the collective kitty we all benefit from in the forms of police, roads and floral clocks. Simple as that. Arguably the turrany of the majority in action but that's another point entirely.
Moving on to the other bits and pieces. I don't see the relevancy of efficiency of government spending, see above. As for owing a living, outside those who cannot work or have earnt their pensions, arguably society doesn't. Once again, clearly the majority feel that the severely disabled and the old deserve that, if not, I'm sure the 'boot the cripples onto the street' party would sweep in at the next election. Beyond that, that money doesn't just go into the pockets of the poor, it goes into the roads you drive your merc on, the airport you land the private jet on was probably built with government money and the marina for the yacht probably was as well.
I really don't get you on this small business stuff. Seriously. As I've said enough, I've never heard of someone not starting a business because their tax bracket might change. You don't seem to have a perfect grip of the tax system yourself and if your friend is totally uneducated at finance he should get himself a CPA, it's common bloody sense, would you go into a courtroom without a lawyer if you knew nothing without law? I don't see how moving up a tax bracket would cause him to have a lower income, the only kind of situations where that kind of thing could occur is if his business was so tiny as to fall outside the bottom bracket for things like having to apply sales tax. In which case he can't possibly have been living off it to start with. Should the tax code be more understandable? Same applies to law. The answer is that anything that has to deal with so many situations and complex financial arrangements is never going to be that simple, it's just not possible. There is also a governmental role here, good documentation and advice are important and good tax departments provide them.
From a purely economic standpoint your friend's business clearly wasn't competitive, that's what the market does, weeds out uncompetitive businesses. If you want to get all libertarian on my ass you better accept that. Pride? No-one's making you take out unemployment benefit or the small business loan, hardass. Class war? I'm calling them as I see them. Wanna talk about big money connections? Since '94 when DeLay and other misc. scum swept in they stuck a pretty sweet deal where the money goes to republican lobbyists and in exchange industry gets to write legislation, look at stuff like the failed energy bill for a particularly extreme example. There's wealth at the top of both political pyramids but this particular republican one seems notably scummier than most.
Yes, I know that Walmart is frequently accused of making sure employees don't get enough hours to make full time ... but you don't have to work there. Retail is pretty much an open field. There's always the KMart. Or Target. Or the local stupidmarket chain.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. :lol2:
If that's all you're qualified to do, go do it.
Remember the lesson of the useless telephone sanitizers from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Here in the Megalopolis that parallels the I-95 corridor, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a mall, mini-mall or shopping center. But as you head west the stores thin out faster than good radio stations and they’re getting thinner every day.
An Iowa State University study said, in the first decade after Wal-Mart arrived in Iowa, the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women’s apparel stores, 153 shoe stores, 116 drugstores, and 111 men’s and boy’s apparel stores — all attributed to the Wal-Mart presence. It’s hardly confines to Iowa either, it’s everywhere. Ask Case how many retail jobs are available in her area.
“you don't have to work there. Retail is pretty much an open field. There's always the KMart. Or Target. Or the local stupidmarket chain.”
That is not really true in most areas.
In a 1994 report, the Congressional Research Service warned Congress that communities need to evaluate the significance of any job gains at big-box stores against any loss of jobs due to reduced business at competing retailers. For every two jobs created by Wal-Mart, a community loses three. And those two new jobs usually pay less than the three that were lost. According to government reports, the average pay at Wal-Mart is $8.23 an hour — $2 less than standard retail industry pay.
The result is a lot Wal-Mart workers not being able to afford the health insurance Wal-Mart offers. Even if you can pay, part-time workers, and it does its best to keep as many as possible, part time, must wait two years and cannot add a spouse or children to their coverage. A lot of their people rely on public assistance such as food stamps and health care.
Wal-Mart being the country’s biggest employer leads to bad news for states.
In Arkansas Wal-Mart has more children of employees on publicly funded state health care rolls than any other employer.
In Connecticut taxpayers annually provide $5 million in health care to Wal-Mart workers — more than to workers in any other company in the state.
A 2002 Georgia survey showed that 10,261 of the 166,000 children covered by the state’s taxpayer-funded PeachCare for Kids insurance program had a parent working at Wal-Mart. That’s 14 times the number for the next highest employer.
In 2004 a University of California at Berkeley Labor Center study found that the reliance of Wal-Mart workers on California public assistance programs cost state taxpayers $86 million each year.
Nationally, taxpayers pay an average of $420,750 each year in social services for Wal-Mart associates for each store with about 200 employees.
A bill nearing approval in the Maryland General Assembly would require organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits — or put the money directly into the state’s health program for the poor. The bill doesn’t name Wal-Mart, but with 15,000 employees in the state, it is the only company to which the law would apply.
Montana is tired of footing the bill for big-box stores, too. Its legislature is debating a tax on retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target and Costco. The tax — 1 percent for stores with more than $20 million in annual sales, 1.5 percent for more than $30 million and 2 percent for more than $40 million — is intended to offset welfare costs for the retailers’ low-paid employees.
What’s myth, what’s not
Myth: People without health insurance coverage don’t work.
Fact Seventy-five percent live in families where at least one person works full time. Twenty percent live in families that have two full-time workers.
Myth: Most people without health insurance are poor.
Fact Almost 29 million of the uninsured in 2002 had household earnings of at least $25,000. In 2002 the federal poverty guideline for a family of four was $18, 850.
Myth: It doesn’t really matter if a person doesn’t have health insurance.
Fact About 18,000 Americans die each year because they did not seek early medical attention for a treatable illness, due to lack of insurance.
Myth: Most uninsured children live in single-parent households.
Fact More than half live with both parents.
Myth: People who don’t have health insurance simply don’t want to pay for it.
Fact Seventy-five percent of uninsured adults say the main reason they are not insured is they cannot afford the premiums.
Source: CovertheUninsuredWeek.org
And the $20 Billion Wal-Mart brought in from China last year contributed more than a little to the lack of good jobs paying wages that people could raise a family on.
If that's all you're qualified to do, go do it.
Oh, I see. I've got mine, fuck you.
Well a few million of these people could be trained to be proficient in your, or anybody elses, field and then let the bidding begin for who will work for the least compensation. :p
...
Good one Bruce.
I know a lot of college students here work at Walmart and chances are a good number of them will continue to work there when they graduate because it's the best game they know.
It's funny really, they go to school to get a diploma to raise their hiring value and unless they leave town they're still stuck at Walmart because it's the only employer with any turnover. They'll be forever discharging their school loans on what Walmart pays.
Don't forget about the evil intarweb taking those retail jobs away.
I bought about $500 online and eBay last two months that would have gone to local places ten years ago. This month I'm planning on spending $3000 in a similar way.
I recently read an article about Ireland being the richest nation in Europe. They turned it around by offering free college tuition and being friendly to corporations. Dell is their biggest exporter now. I like the free college tuition part. Seems like it works. You've got to give people skills to improve their lot. That's part of being a civilized nation.
Don't forget about the evil intarweb taking those retail jobs away.
I bought about $500 online and eBay last two months that would have gone to local places ten years ago. This month I'm planning on spending $3000 in a similar way.
You would do that if you could get evrything in a store across the street for the same price with free delivery and a free haircut. :p
I'm talking about
normal people that go shopping and you are a self professed anti-socialite.
Truthfully, I do most of my shopping online or by mail also. Always have, but I never claimed to be normal. :biggrin:
I recently read an article about Ireland being the richest nation in Europe.
Boeing sells more planes in Ireland than anywhere else. Leasing companies that rent them to airlines and charter operators.
That's part of being a civilized nation.
You make that sound like it's a good thing. I wouldn't know, having always been an American.
What it means is you're screwing yourself.
This is the kind of thing that really makes me laugh. Or cry, depending on mood. Look at say, the kafuffle over estate tax, and look at who is affected by that. Or bush's last round of tax cuts that did little for the economy but sure helped some of his mates. Look at the tens of billions of public money effectively siphoned to rich cronies off by untendered contracts over Iraq.
The other thing that halfwits like noodle tend not to take into account is themore recent concept of non metric externalities. People's wellbeing and most forms of environmental damage being the most common two. By exploiting these things you're effectively borrowing against a finite resource you cannot really define or passing the cost silently over to someone else, this doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved. Look at the cost of things like depression on the economy (when they put a vague number or it) or the forecasts for economic damage from the greenhouse effect and it starts to come into focus. There is a vague school involving this called PAE - post autistic economics which has gained some ground but it's effectively fractured and a bit all over the place at the moment, postmodern economics is not very mature yet but needed more than ever in the face of people like noodle.
The minimum wage stops exploitative businesses doing people over even harder than they do at the moment, there is no way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour, it's not in their interest. People do live on the minimum wage, usually supplemented by a sideline of some sort, take the 'burden' of businesses to pay employees in something other than peanuts fucks over all those people, including particularly vulnerable categories like new immigrants. I suppose environmental law is a 'burden' as well, why not let them dump PCBs into the local ecosystem so they can concentrate on making more environmentally friendly products? Both statements are fucking non sequiturs.
As for your folks social security cheque, this admin is working to stop that as soon as possible.
do your eally think social security will be ended? or are you kidding.:headshake
Where then are all these mom and pop businesses I should be shopping at?? Wallmart isn't the only company that outsources.
Where is that 'made in America ' label?
http://www.usstuff.com/jacket.htm