Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Porforis pointed out :

[Re Social Security]Even if you don't do that, it won't mathematically function simply because of people paying in versus paying out. 1%ers collecting social security are a drop in the bucket compared to sheer money in versus out.

I couldn't agree more....its a Ponzi scheme...and the youth get stuck with the tab.

That's a pretty weird way of comparing the two. Where are you getting the figures for average starting salaries for people coming out of undergrad programs with business degrees, and how is that average salary determined? First job in-field after graduation? First job after graduation? Best job after 2 years?

Sorry I should have been more clear on my methodology. I took the average starting salary from where I graduated (which is a bit light as a business major will make more than a liberal arts major)

On the technology angle, when you (I'm assuming, no clue how old you are but I'm 32) and I were getting out of college, internet and a cellphone were not basically mandatory things you needed if you wanted to function in the world and apply for jobs. You're going to get weird looks if you don't list a cell number. Higher standard of living, but also higher expenses to reach that standard of living.

I am old, 63. True the internet and a cell phone are necessary, but they enable you to have a much higher quality of life: entertainment (music, books, movies), communication (it was a special thing to be able to talk with friends and parents who weren't local) If your grandparents are alive ask them how a lower level income person lives NOW versus how lower level income persons lived when they were younger.

Higher standard of living, but also higher expenses to reach that standard of living.

A true statement, but an exponentially higher standard of living vs. the cost.

Some retail chains and food service joints invested heavily decades ago to buy up property (and actually have made a ton of money off of leasing properties themselves) and don't have magically better employees just because they own the property and aren't shelling out tons more over the long term on leases.

The point I was trying to make (obviously poorly) was that even though they spent millions on real estate, they are squandering it by NOT paying up for good labor. They were/are dumb.

Nobody's suggesting to tax the people that want to get rich at a higher rate than everyone else pays

Great a flat percentage income tax for everyone. I am all for it.

For a corporation paying their employees an average income of $40,000, somehow I don't think it's crazy to expect that corporation to pay a little bit more of an effective tax rate than their average employee. Then again, you seem to be not a fan of progressive tax which... Not sure what to say about that on an economic level. You're an extreme outlier, and even the vast majority of conservatives acknowledge this is necessary


[list][*]I don't think corporations should be taxed at all. Its double taxation. People and pension funds own corporations. It raises the cost of capital [*]I don't think there should be an income tax at all. In this I agree with the founding fathers. If there is one, everyone over the poverty level should pay the same rate. And if there is a corporate tax, it should be passed though as a tax deduction pro rata, to owners..[*]I think revenue should come from use taxes, VAT, tolls, license fees, and property taxes at a state level.[*]Also, if there is an income tax, for every $10,000 one pays in taxes, one should get an extra vote.[/list]
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
I am another “old guy”, and I think another problem with today’s beginning workers is: they are taught that they are “special”, and that they have “rights”. When I was young, you had to actually DO something to show you are special, and if you didn’t, you were average or below average. And we were taught first that we had responsibilities, and to treat people that were in higher positions (teachers, police, our parents and other adults) with respect. To have a job was a responsibility to not be taken lightly.
I don’t see that much anymore. And people spend more time on their cell phones then actually conversing with actual people face to face. The personal connection seems to be lost. That’s a down side to technology.
That’s my observation at least.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
5 years ago
I can't say I'm for limiting how much money someone can make (e.g. Bill Gates) because they can often times donate it and do good with it. John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J. P. Morgan donated a good portion of their wealth and did some good. Granted, they did some really shitty things before that.

I'm kind of torn. I just don't know that almost doubling the minimum wage in ~5 years is gonna be good for the economy. Surely folks much more economically smarter than I are making this decision. I just am fearful it's some kind of 'get votes' ploy.



Here's how it's working for Seattle having the wage boost.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/13/20690266/seattle-minimum-wage-15-dollars 


Interesting read
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/#68d883675ec8 
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
“Employers can cut costs in other ways”....true. Like using parts with lower quality. Or raising prices.
Using one city as proof that a $15 an hour is good isn’t proof that it would be good for the entire country.
And I really believe it’s just a political way to buy votes. Makes the politicians look like they really care about the people, when they are just using it to LOOK that way.
JMO of course.
UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
To All for your collective Joy and Relief...this is my last post on the subject as I have belabored it. My final thoughts:
[list][*]The Laws of Economics (and they are immutable) dictate the price of anything is predicated on availability[*]If we really want higher wages (and we do) stop importing cheap labor through open borders (yes, build it...and they won't come)[*]The Koch Brothers and US Chamber of Rinos love cheap labor[*]Provide training credits to Companies to encourage Employee Training Initiatives[*]Government Mandates will not work to the desired effect.[/list]It is my fervent desire that America become the land of opportunity for all. But this can only happen by removing barriers to investment and risk taking, not mandates.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
Was just thinking....the ones who are making the decision to increase the minimum wage are the ones that wouldn’t be affected by it either way. They are people that have enough money. So what if prices go up? So what if cost of living increases? They can weather the storm. But how will it affect middle to lower class income people?
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
5 years ago
This topic made me research the subject more. I did not know this for example.

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

Also interesting point...
“Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you – using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” (1938, Fireside Chat, the night before signing the Fair Labor Standards Act that instituted the federal minimum wage)
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
Some good points, Zero.
I have nothing against a federal minimum wage. But to make it ridiculously high is not a good thing. It might seem so in the workers point of view, but is it really?
Beginning jobs are not meant to be a lifetime job, unless you want to work your way up into management.
It also is an incentive to find a better job. Pay raises should be given when you have proven that you earned them. Not just because you are there.
What incentive is there to try to better yourself, if you are making a high wage at a low level job?
What’s next? Restaurant workers walking off because they think they deserve $25 an hour?
It’s a slippery slope.
And again, it’s all about buying people’s vote for life. That’s how I see it at least.
UserPostedImage
porky88
5 years ago

As for raising the minimum wage to $15 in 2025, I feel that is a mistake. People in technology profession (Hello!) will prosper because it will be them (HI!) who are making the automated programs and machines that replace the menial jobs that people feel they need to support 3 kids with.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


This is the case regardless of the minimum wage. Society fears change. They don't want to accept that times are changing and many jobs are being replaced with machines. This is a natural economical and cultural development. Changes happens all the times. It is inevitable. It was 100 years ago and it will be 100 years from now. I would argue - regardless of the min wage debate - that people should be going to school for technology jobs. Get the education and/or training needed to thrive in today's job market. Don't rely on past stereotypes because the past is the past.

For example, let's say there is a local plant that has changed within the last decade. They have an automated machine that does the work that people used to do on the plant's floor. However, now they have more programmers, engineers, and technicians trained to maintain the machines. Why is that bad? Because it doesn't fit the stereotype work that Americans did in the 1970s-1990s? Well, it's not the 1970s-1990s. We're going through a transitional period (and have been for a while). If you want to be gainfully employed, then you should probably adapt or you'll get left behind.
porky88
5 years ago
Just a note on Social Security.

I am 30 and I currently pay into social security. I am not collecting that money nor will I probably live long enough to collect every dollar I pay into social security. However, it will still benefit the elderly, such as my father who is 69. Is that a bad thing?

When I am 69, it is probable that I will have a child in his or her 30s paying into social security. I will then benefit from that generation paying into the program just as my Dad did and my Grandfather did. Too many people assume there is a pot of funds that's being stashed by the Govt. for you. That's not the case. Social Security was never designed to work that way. That money is being spend immediately on current seniors. That's the cycle.

Would we be better off without social security?

I'm not sure. I can tell you that my Dad would be living with me or my sister (and not on his own) without social security. He is simply too ill to work at this point in his life. It would be Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory type of stuff. If we wouldn't or couldn't go that route, then he'd live in a home that we'd have to fund. If we weren't around, then the state (aka the taxpayers) would be paying for him to die in a home.

Is that a more efficient way to take care of our elderly?

Regardless, Social Security is an imperfect model (much like the U.S. Economy/Government by the way) that does its best to ensure we are taking care of our elderly.
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers elevated S Omar Brown.
    go.pack.go. (3h) : I tried the [img][/img] but that didn’t work
    go.pack.go. (3h) : How do I upload a picture to change my signature? I haven’t done it in years lol. I have the picture but can’t get it to work
    Mucky Tundra (3h) : Saturday NFL games=the season is about to get serious
    Mucky Tundra (17h) : Greg Gumbel passed away today after bout with cancer.
    buckeyepackfan (22h) : 1 NFC South @ NFC West @ AFC West other 3 games,
    buckeyepackfan (22h) : Packers play NFC East and AFC North in 2025, plus 2 other games
    Mucky Tundra (23h) : Geeze Zero get it right!😋
    Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : I guess 3 games. Whatever
    Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Bleh, that only impacts two games.
    Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Packers are gonna get 3rd place division schedule next year.
    Mucky Tundra (27-Dec) : Kanata, seek help! lol
    beast (27-Dec) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status
    Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha
    TheKanataThrilla (27-Dec) : That was terrible.
    TheKanataThrilla (27-Dec) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.
    beast (27-Dec) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent
    beast (27-Dec) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime
    beast (27-Dec) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing
    Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is
    Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true
    beast (27-Dec) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management
    wpr (27-Dec) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
    Mucky Tundra (27-Dec) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
    beast (27-Dec) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
    Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
    packerfanoutwest (26-Dec) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
    beast (26-Dec) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
    Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
    Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
    packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
    Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
    beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
    beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
    Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
    Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    22m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    25m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    27-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    27-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    27-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    27-Dec / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

    27-Dec / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

    27-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

    24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

    24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.