"Hard-Working American" Myth

[IGIT]

You probably don't. Those aircraft carriers aren't cheap.

hi OldGoat,

aircraft carriers are really expensive, that's true. then again, i don't have a lot of assets to protect. my net worth is under 1 million dollars.

i'm sure i'm paying my share. i'm also sure i'm not using all of my share.



- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

hi OldGoat,

aircraft carriers are really expensive, that's true. then again, i don't have a lot of assets to protect. my net worth is under 1 million dollars.

i'm sure i'm paying my share. i'm also sure i'm not using all of my share.



- IGIT

So, if you are discontent with the status quo and you feel so strongly about these inequities that have been inflicted on your fellow man, why not donate some of that loot to a fine upstanding elected official to help enact your will?

 

[IGIT]

So, if you are discontent with the status quo and you feel so strongly about these inequities that have been inflicted on your fellow man, why not donate some of that loot to a fine upstanding elected official to help enact your will?

hi OldGoat,

i never said i was unhappy with the status quo.

i don't think it's fair or equitable, but i'm also winning (though i'm not one of the superwealthy, i'm pretty content), so i'm not really one of those who are complaining.

i'm just making an observation, Goat.

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

hi OldGoat,

i never said i was unhappy with the status quo.

i don't think it's fair or equitable, but i'm also winning (though i'm not one of the superwealthy, i'm pretty content), so i'm not really one of those who are complaining.

i'm just making an observation, Goat.

- IGIT

Just stirring up the rabble?

 

[HIMBOB]

This isn't true at all... Even if there are workers on food stamps, these workers would be unemployed and would consume even MORE government handouts if WM didn't exist.

I believe very few would become unemployed.

Fast food is the largest min wage employer and it survives well in Australia with a minimum wage double the US one, I know it can survive an increase in wage costs.

People talk like to talk about walmart greeters in here for some reason, Bunnings has them over here too.


Also while the amount being paid to those who do become unemployed would increase substancially, it would substancially reduce the number who are getting assistance.
I am not sure if this would cost or save money as each factor offsets the other to some degree.

It would also mean all of those who did become unemployed were engaged in tasks which did not create value.

 

[HIMBOB]

Anyway I got an assignement I should do, so I will will be back later. Hopefully mu8ch later but I will prob get bored soonish.

 

[IGIT]

Just stirring up the rabble?

hi OldGoat,

no, not really.

i'm just pointing to the sky and saying it's blue. i don't see anything i've said as being dramatic or controversial.

“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.

“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

if US taxpayers stop the tide of corporate welfare to Walmart, i imagine the Waltons would just keep paying their employees the same and the lives of their employees would become less tolerable (i've never really been poor, but it must be a bummer...totally unfun) - but i don't think it would effect me much one way or the other.

it's no skin off my back.

if US taxpayers continue their welfare to Walmart, then the poor won't have as much hardship - and i'm fine with that too.

what i am unclear on is why people who can afford to pay Federal taxes need to subsidize a massively profitable company. it doesn't seem fair, but i'm a pro-business guy, and if it helps the Waltons stay billionaires, i guess i'm ok with it (as a fan of President Reagan, i believe wealth trickles down...but only if the wealthy remain so).

- IGIT

 

[ben236]

I believe very few would become unemployed.

Fast food is the largest min wage employer and it survives well in Australia with a minimum wage double the US one, I know it can survive an increase in wage costs.

People talk like to talk about walmart greeters in here for some reason, Bunnings has them over here too.


Also while the amount being paid to those who do become unemployed would increase substancially, it would substancially reduce the number who are getting assistance.
I am not sure if this would cost or save money as each factor offsets the other to some degree.

It would also mean all of those who did become unemployed were engaged in tasks which did not create value.

Pretty sure that the minimum wage is significantly less for teenagers in Australia. Which is what these companies probably heavily rely on to bypass the high minimum wage for adults.

A booming housing bubble and raping your natural resources (ie. mining) also probably contributes to keeping wages high and employment levels down.

 

[OldGoat]

hi OldGoat,

no, not really.

i'm just pointing to the sky and saying it's blue. i don't see anything i've said as being dramatic or controversial.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

if US taxpayers stop the tide of corporate welfare to Walmart, i imagine the Waltons would just keep paying their employees the same and the lives of their employees would become less tolerable (i've never really been poor, but it must be a bummer...totally unfun) - but i don't think it would effect me much one way or the other.

it's no skin off my back.

if US taxpayers continue their welfare to Walmart, then the poor won't have as much hardship - and i'm fine with that too.

what i am unclear on is why people who can afford to pay Federal taxes need to subsidize a massively profitable company. it doesn't seem fair, but i'm a pro-business guy, and if it helps the Waltons stay billionaires, i guess i'm ok with it (as a fan of President Reagan, i believe wealth trickles down...but only if the wealthy remain so).

- IGIT

Faulty logic. But I can't make the blind see. But I'll give you a clue. If the name of the Obama check is yours you are getting the subsidy. Hopefully that's not too complicated.

 

[HIMBOB]

Negative value? Lol. And what is the true value of anything? What the government says? What the Central Planning Committee says?

Are you seeking to muddy the waters?

 

[IGIT]

If the name of the Obama check is yours

hello i am going to sleep now, Goat,

but i also do not understand what the above means.

- IGIT

 

[CableandThanos]

This is true, four shit posts in a row let's you get to 15 per day really fast.

And after looking at your posting history, you for sure know about shit post.:icon_chee

 

[CableandThanos]

It's defined by your income, not by whether or not you have a flatscreen. I know a lot of poor people who have flatscreens. What's a flatscreen, like $400 bucks?

yep let's see


$400 flat screen
$150 xbo360
$160 =$40 games x 4 a year
$100= blu ray player
$200 $20 dvd x10 a year
$125 jordans
$720 $60 cable x12 months
$912= $5 pack cigs at every other day

$2767 that the poor could of had in a savings account, now add anotheer $2000 the year after and $2000 the year after that.

Holy cow in 3 years of not buying shit that they don't need the poor could have $6767 in savings!!!!

Now do you see how the poor screw themselves over..

 

[HIMBOB]

Pretty sure that the minimum wage is significantly less for teenagers in Australia. Which is what these companies probably heavily rely on to bypass the high minimum wage for adults.

A booming housing bubble and raping your natural resources (ie. mining) also probably contributes to keeping wages high and employment levels down.

Yes minimum wage is lower for teens in Aust, I thought that was established.

I see that as a key difference in that it give teens easier access to jobs, but does ensure they move off the lower rate as they gain skills and just work experience. Basically it is not a permanent situation for the employee.


I do not see housing prices are relevant but you are correct about mining (11% of our GDP Vs Americas 2%) however the minimum wage is higher in many countries other with low resource production.

 

[ABACA]

A society is nothing more than the sum of it's individuals. If the individuals within a society benefits, then society benefits. And I don't know what you mean by transactions being "coerced."

Remember my hint? Look at externalities.


People can be coerced into all kinds of economic activity, mainly through monopolies, monopsonies, and collusive oligopolies.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I agree.
They have no right to demand more than they agreed to work for.


I am saying when a business requires the government to support its workers it is ineffiecnt and it should die (unless it provides some other material benefit for society).

I don't agree. A year or two after I started out in my first real job, the cost of living skyrocketed due to gas and heating oil getting way more expensive (this was the early Bush 2 years). I successfully renegotiated my salary. Obviously, management has the right to decline, but the workers should always have a right to ask for more if they think they're worth more.

 

[SirDiddymus]

Move somewhere they are not destroying the middle class for profit... Here you can start at a factory with 40.000$ a year and 6 weeks paid vacation

 

[ultramanhyata]

So what is more difficult, professional high level legal work or installing flooring or carpentry, or whatever?

Isn't that answer going to depend on how you define "difficult"?

As another poster said, very well, we're talking about "hard work" as a factor of caloric energy being burned via the labor. Thinking burns calories. But physical activity burns more.

It's funny how most blue collar types don't get caught up in these ridiculous semantics relative to hard work. You'll rarely find, for example, the bus driver who, while sitting on his ass in air conditioned comfort, will look over at the guy on the street crew spreading hot asphalt with a rake on a 95 degree summer day and think, "I work harder than that dude."

That's a level of narcissistic delusion reserved for the lawyers of the world.

 

[kpt018]

As another poster said, very well, we're talking about "hard work" as a factor of caloric energy being burned via the labor. Thinking burns calories. But physical activity burns more.

It's funny how most blue collar types don't get caught up in these ridiculous semantics relative to hard work. You'll rarely find, for example, the bus driver who, while sitting on his ass in air conditioned comfort, will look over at the guy on the street crew spreading hot asphalt with a rake on a 95 degree summer day and think, "I work harder than that dude."

That's a level of narcissistic delusion reserved for the lawyers of the world.

Short background for context, my parents were factory workers. Nearly all my friends are blue collar. I relate to and have tons of respect for people who bust their asses, like my parents did. I really don't relate to the dickheads I work with. Although, the people who have become my friends over the years are guys like me - smart dudes who came from blue collar families but went to college instead of our parent's paths.

My only point is you have to define what hard work is. You have and by your definition, I'm a fucking lazy ass at work. That's ok. I just didn't feel like one when I worked full time at McDonalds while in college, worked full time while I pursued my licence (which required 20+ hours of study per week, for a year) or after putting in an 80 hour work week now. Or doing that for an entire quarter.

It's funny, my buddies work much harder for their 8 or 10 hours, but seem to have WAY more free leisure time then I do. They also have much less stress to perform.

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's funny, my buddies work much harder for their 8 or 10 hours, but seem to have WAY more free leisure time then I do. They also have much less stress to perform.

OK... So maybe you don't get the Hardest Work Award. But maybe you get the Longest Hours Award and/or the Biggest Sacrifice of Personal Time Award. Why is the differentiation so difficult for some to make?

Or if a lawyer told me that his/her work was more complex than the work of a jack-hammer operator I would agree with him/her wholeheartedly.