Occupy Wall Street... Screw That! Lets Occupy The Net!
-
You haven't changed a bit.
First a logical fallacy, then ignoring what I wrote about the protests and inventing a cartoon instead, then a thoroughly ridiculous comment, and then another one where you imagine yourself to be the only person who understands that a president can't make everything right. Really? Wow. You really are seeing the world clearly. We could all learn from you.
I really enjoyed writing one thing in five months, having it be about the protests and how they're somewhat misguided and over-simplified, then being accused of changing the subject from the protests (huh?) and thinking that "the OWS gang are right on the money."
Sorry for pointing out how your opinions about unions and regulation killing American manufacturing are untrue and political, but don't worry - you can keep them anyway! As I'm sure you will.
-
You haven't changed a bit.
Thanks. Nor have you amigo.
First a logical fallacy, then ignoring what I wrote about the protests and inventing a cartoon instead, then a thoroughly ridiculous comment
. It's an expression of legitimate angst without a real sense of what to do about it. It also includes lunatics. But I'd say these people are far more connected to reality than the Tea Party ever was
OK Unsolicited attack on the lefts target of the month. Support for the demands of the protestors whatever they might be. Check
, and then another one where you imagine yourself to be the only person who understands that a president can't make everything right. Really? Wow. You really are seeing the world clearly. We could all learn from you.
Probably so.
I really enjoyed writing one thing in five months, having it be about the protests and how they're somewhat misguided and over-simplified, then being accused of changing the subject from the protests (huh?) and thinking that "the OWS gang are right on the money."
Somewhat? See above
Sorry for pointing out how your opinions about unions and regulation killing American manufacturing are untrue and political, but don't worry - you can keep them anyway! As I'm sure you will.
Yes. And as long as your team is on the union payroll youll pretend they have little or no responsibility in the downfall of the industrial states that are not right to work.
Come down to Akron Ill buy you a beer and we can drive by the rubber shops.
They build tires down south and not for 90 cents an hour The world no longer needs as much manpower and there are more people. Simple enough. Semi or unskilled labor isnt worth as much. Unions keep the cost artificially high and the jobs move elsewhere. Indonesia China Mexico and Georgia..
If Romney ends up being president - and God, I hope they nominate him - he's going to end up doing a lot of the things Republicans are now pretending to be against, but will instantly flip to supporting once their hide is on the line - payroll tax cuts, infrastructure projects, aid to the states, etc. And those won't exactly fix things either. We're going to be stuck in the mud for years no matter who is in charge
Now well attack the supposed Republican nominee. Check.
Make sure to mention the word flip. OK. But again I dont get misty over Romney like your guys did over Obama. Your campaign oversold the guy and when he didnt meet the challenge he looks bad.
And if Romney doesnt bring us to the land of milk and honey the Reps will blame you guys.
Like you did the first couple years in which you had a blank check.
But Romney will suffer less for compromise than would one of the candidates to the right. The expectations on them are too high.
But as to jobs I'd rather (if we're going to add to the deficit) create 3 12 dollar anhour jobs than one 35 an hour job.
WSS
-
Now we’ll attack the supposed Republican nominee. Check.
I don't think that was really an attack on him. A candidate flipping on their campaign promises? That's an attack? When's the last time a candidate did what he said he was going to do?
And if Romney doesn’t bring us to the land of milk and honey the Reps will blame you guys.
Like you did the first couple years in which you had a blank check.
Yep. And I remember when I was in high school, all the gung ho republicans blamed a bunch of stuff on Clinton during the W. years. Aaaaand I remember people in my family blaming Bush. This whole damn thing is a farce. Any change we see between the parties is just an illusion, outside of the polarizing issues that they key on to sustain their power (abortion, gay marriage, gun control), each party's stance on the economy is just the same. It's a circle jerk between big government and big corporations.
Anywho...
Heck, how, in your opinion, should we approach the issue of the lack of education of the majority of our population?
-
Well, for 1 thing romney is not president yet. I have not heard em say that he was against spending for the infrastructure or the lower payroll tax. And as for flip floppin I suppose it all depends on who your candidate is. Did he reevaluate his positions and come up with a better understanding of the plan? Is he too damn stubborn to see the light? Does he hold true to his convictions and beliefs? It all depends on the way you choose to spin it.
Here I would call it an attack because the governor hasn't done anything as president yet.
You see my point is that no 1 expects Romney to come in and make a
big splash. His supporters don't seem all that zealous to me. I think people would be more disappointed if a tea party candidate comes in and can't get anything done. Just like they are with obama, or should be. He can blame his own campaign for that. They tapped into the unrealistic hopes and dreams of the population and then failed to deliver.
WSS
-
Now we’ll attack the supposed Republican nominee. Check.
I don't think that was really an attack on him. A candidate flipping on their campaign promises? That's an attack? When's the last time a candidate did what he said he was going to do?
And if Romney doesn’t bring us to the land of milk and honey the Reps will blame you guys.
Like you did the first couple years in which you had a blank check.
Yep. And I remember when I was in high school, all the gung ho republicans blamed a bunch of stuff on Clinton during the W. years. Aaaaand I remember people in my family blaming Bush. This whole damn thing is a farce. Any change we see between the parties is just an illusion, outside of the polarizing issues that they key on to sustain their power (abortion, gay marriage, gun control), each party's stance on the economy is just the same. It's a circle jerk between big government and big corporations.
Anywho...
Heck, how, in your opinion, should we approach the issue of the lack of education of the majority of our population?
Anywho...
Heck, how, in your opinion, should we approach the issue of the lack of education of the majority of our population?
I'd be here all day trying to answer that one.
It's been extremely difficult to figure out ways to improve educational outcomes. The only programs that seem to pay dividends are the ones that focus on the earliest years of development, from ages 1 through 5. And even some of those gains get erased over time, or they're difficult to duplicate on a large scale.
It's a really, really tough problem to solve. And it hasn't been for a lack of trying.
However, we're getting lapped here. One of the main reasons so many people are out of work right now is that they're not educated enough, and don't possess the skills you need in the new world economy. After all, people with a college degree or more? Their unemployment rate is 4.5%, which is essentially full employment. So that's not where the recession really is. The recession is for people on the lower end of the education spectrum. Their unemployment rate is 14.3%. And a lot of that is caused by globalization, but education is obviously a part of that.
There used to be good jobs for those people to do. Not so much anymore. The hard working middle class guy of 1975 or 1985 now competes with a Mexican guy and a Chinese guy and an Indian guy - all of whom will work just as hard, may even have a higher education, and will do all of that for less pay.
It's what comparative advantage economics is all about. If we're going to be the big dog in the new economy, we have to have the best educated workforce, and the best infrastructure. But that's not what we have. And our political system is essentially broken.
Have a nice weekend.
-
China Mexico and India have better infrastructure than the US?
Are the Indians and Chinese ahead of our kids in education?
If so is it because the teachers get paid a great deal of money?
If not, why does anyone suppose that is?
WSS
-
China Mexico and India have better infrastructure than the US?
That's not what his point was. The difference between them and us is the standard of living and the cost of living. Ours is disproportionately higher than most other places. 10 dollars a day in China, Mexico, or India might be enough to keep you or your family fed. Here, it isn't.
Are the Indians and Chinese ahead of our kids in education?
As far as numbers go, yes. Firstly, they're both wayyyy more populated than us, and Asian PhD's are a very, very common sight at any university. Secondly, they also have many more uneducated than we do, and that is who Americans are losing their jobs to.
If so is it because the teachers get paid a great deal of money?
Again, you're not losing jobs to a Chinese person with a PhD. You're losing jobs to the ones who don't go to college.
-
Yes, Steve, there are places in China and India that have superior infrastructure to the US. Drive on your roads in Ohio, go to the airport in Cleveland or Chicago, and then fly to the airport in Shanghai or Beijing and drive on their roads and bridges. Tell me which ones are better. It's not even close.
Or, if you like, try the highways and airports in France or Germany or the Netherlands or Sweden, most of which are far superior to ours.
And Vapor is right - you're completely missing the point. We're not keeping up with these countries. Not in education. Not in infrastructure. They have better health care delivery systems.
But you've got a solution, and it's to have lots of jobs that pay $3.50 an hour. Which is $140 a week. Which is a yearly salary of $7280. Before taxes.
Comical.
-
Yes, Steve, there are places in China and India that have superior infrastructure to the US. Drive on your roads in Ohio, go to the airport in Cleveland or Chicago, and then fly to the airport in Shanghai or Beijing and drive on their roads and bridges. Tell me which ones are better. It's not even close.
Or, if you like, try the highways and airports in France or Germany or the Netherlands or Sweden, most of which are far superior to ours.
And Vapor is right - you're completely missing the point. We're not keeping up with these countries. Not in education. Not in infrastructure. They have better health care delivery systems.
But you've got a solution, and it's to have lots of jobs that pay $3.50 an hour. Which is $140 a week. Which is a yearly salary of $7280. Before taxes.
Comical.
Yes, Steve, there are places in China and India that have superior infrastructure to the US. Drive on your roads in Ohio, go to the airport in Cleveland or Chicago, and then fly to the airport in Shanghai or Beijing and drive on their roads and bridges. Tell me which ones are better. It's not even close.
Or, if you like, try the highways and airports in France or Germany or the Netherlands or Sweden, most of which are far superior to ours.
And Vapor is right - you're completely missing the point. We're not keeping up with these countries. Not in education. Not in infrastructure. They have better health care delivery systems.
But you've got a solution, and it's to have lots of jobs that pay $3.50 an hour. Which is $140 a week. Which is a yearly salary of $7280. Before taxes.
Comical.
China may have great infrastructure in some places, in others it is a joke. The earthquake that killed so many people topples schools made of bricks, and little else. Majority of Chinese are poor, not Phd's viper. India, don't even go there, sure they have educated people, but the majority live in a caste system and are extremely poor. I would have listed Japan and South Korea. Those are the two most advanced countries in Asia by far.
-
Yes, Steve, there are places in China and India that have superior infrastructure to the US. Drive on your roads in Ohio, go to the airport in Cleveland or Chicago, and then fly to the airport in Shanghai or Beijing and drive on their roads and bridges. Tell me which ones are better. It's not even close.
Or, if you like, try the highways and airports in France or Germany or the Netherlands or Sweden, most of which are far superior to ours.
And Vapor is right - you're completely missing the point. We're not keeping up with these countries. Not in education. Not in infrastructure. They have better health care delivery systems.
But you've got a solution, and it's to have lots of jobs that pay $3.50 an hour. Which is $140 a week. Which is a yearly salary of $7280. Before taxes.
Comical.
Hey France The Netherlands and Germany. About the size of Texas?
Thanks Heck. That's just the third world manufacturing giants I meant.
But you've got a solution, and it's to have lots of jobs that pay $3.50 an hour. Which is $140 a week. Which is a yearly salary of $7280. Before taxes.
Comical.
Your stupidity is comical actually.
What we need is to realize that semi and unskilled labor isn't worth two to three times the state average with pensions.
And that very few people (including any of you I'd wager) will pay double for a US made product.
-
Once again, you're not arguing with me, but a phantom you've created. I'm not arguing for those unskilled jobs to remain the in the United States, unless it benefits a company to do so. We live in a global economy and a global marketplace.
But to think that the solution to our jobs problem, and our inequality problem, and our wages problem is to pay people much, much less, far below subsistence wages, in a fruitless effort to try and out-compete foreign labor in places like China and Indonesia and Malaysia is just laughable.
You don't know what a false choice is, and that's your problem. You don't realize that all of your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies. Again, that's your problem. But acting like the choice is between paying lots of Americans $3.50 an hour and paying one American $35 an hour is the definition of a false choice.
We need more Americans to be able to do the jobs at the high-end of the production spectrum, not the low end. We're not keeping up in this race. And we can't compete at the bottom end. The reality of the low skilled US worker who loses out to low-wage foreign labor isn't going to change any time soon.
The solutions aren't sexy. They involved long-term public investments in education and job training/re-training, investments in infrastructure, and changes to tax policy. We spend too much of our money on transfer payments to the elderly and on defense, and not enough trying to remain competitive.
-
@vaportrail said:
Right, that's the point I'm making. You're not losing jobs to the educated Chinese, those guys are my competition (and I never said there were millions of them, just that there were a bunch of them in American academia). Your competition are the billions of uneducated Chinese.
Also.... Holy shit! hahahaha, I made the front page of the Dayton Daily News!
Haha, I look so jobless.
Nice makeshift drums
Head or Gut? -
@vaportrail said:
Right, that's the point I'm making. You're not losing jobs to the educated Chinese, those guys are my competition (and I never said there were millions of them, just that there were a bunch of them in American academia). Your competition are the billions of uneducated Chinese.
Also.... Holy shit! hahahaha, I made the front page of the Dayton Daily News!
Haha, I look so jobless.
Nice makeshift drums
-
Nice purple sweater?
But it IS a huge part of our problems - the unions. Ask any old union member - he/she will TELL you that
back in the day, the union was for worker oriented principles, and there was a huge work ethic and all.
Anymore? Work ethic went out the window, greed runs rampant in constant self serving, self-justifying side issues,
and now, worst of all - political power derived from forced union dues.
Back in the day, those union dues meant the workers were supported by their union.
NOW? Union dues means the Democratic politicians who will give the unions all the power and benefits they want, and double more for more donations....get
mega union campaign funds.
If it isn't the unions.... why all the fright and rage about right to work states by the Obamao admin? They blocked that company from building in S. Carolina -
you know, a RIGHT TO WORK state. So many of the big unions no longer represent the workers based on principle and fairness.
It's giant benfits and wealth to the union leaders, who invest in Dems who respond by benefitting the unions...
it's no wonder several states are looking at, or have worked at, stopping the vicious,destructive cycle.
It amazes me, that guys like Heck get all spouty about these subjects, when they don't know crap what they are talking about -
from the people involved. All Heck has, is talking points from liberal information sites.
Well, talk to any old union member, who isn't on the socialist benefactor's payroll to be an activist.
-
lol, the best part of yesterday was when someone told me to "Get a f—cking job, loser." I smiled and told him I had two, then wished him a nice day.
-
Once again, you're not arguing with me, but a phantom you've created. I'm not arguing for those unskilled jobs to remain the in the United States, unless it benefits a company to do so. We live in a global economy and a global marketplace.
But to think that the solution to our jobs problem, and our inequality problem, and our wages problem is to pay people much, much less, far below subsistence wages, in a fruitless effort to try and out-compete foreign labor in places like China and Indonesia and Malaysia is just laughable.
You don't know what a false choice is, and that's your problem. You don't realize that all of your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies. Again, that's your problem. But acting like the choice is between paying lots of Americans $3.50 an hour and paying one American $35 an hour is the definition of a false choice.
We need more Americans to be able to do the jobs at the high-end of the production spectrum, not the low end. We're not keeping up in this race. And we can't compete at the bottom end. The reality of the low skilled US worker who loses out to low-wage foreign labor isn't going to change any time soon.
The solutions aren't sexy. They involved long-term public investments in education and job training/re-training, investments in infrastructure, and changes to tax policy. We spend too much of our money on transfer payments to the elderly and on defense, and not enough trying to remain competitive.
Once again, you're not arguing with me, but a phantom you've created.
I'm arguing with the guy who said this.
" But you've got a solution, and it's to have lots of jobs that pay $3.50 an hour. Which is $140 a week. Which is a yearly salary of $7280. Before taxes. "
I'm not arguing for those unskilled jobs to remain the in the United States, unless it benefits a company to do so. We live in a global economy and a global marketplace.
But to think that the solution to our jobs problem, and our inequality problem, and our wages problem is to pay people much, much less, far below subsistence wages, in a fruitless effort to try and out-compete foreign labor in places like China and Indonesia and Malaysia is just laughable.
And again you're pretending I said something I didn't.
When I worked at Consolidated Freightways in the 70s (for a short time) as a non union janitor the union dockworkers, men who loaded and unloaded trucks, mad nearly seven times the minimum wage. Twelve times it if they worked a holiday Sunday which every one did even though not ONE truck rolled on Waster Sunday.
That kind of job at that kind of pay had to disappear.
I repeat that if Ohio were a right to work state there'd be more of those jobs being done here but maybe at two or two and a half times minimum wage.
You don't know what a false choice is, and that's your problem. You don't realize that all of your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies. Again, that's your problem. But acting like the choice is between paying lots of Americans $3.50 an hour and paying one American $35 an hour is the definition of a false choice.
Because you made it up.
We need more Americans to be able to do the jobs at the high-end of the production spectrum, not the low end. We're not keeping up in this race. And we can't compete at the bottom end. The reality of the low skilled US worker who loses out to low-wage foreign labor isn't going to change any time soon.
We (you specifically) need to realize that due to technology among other factors that huge labor forces arent needed for the jobs of today.
The president got shit for mentioning ATMs but he's right.
As DVD store clerks grocery store checkers turnpike attendants mail carriers receptionists etc are replaced by machines people who made an average wage doing those things are out of a job. One Steve Jobs to what, 50, 000 Apple workers?
The solutions aren't sexy. They involved long-term public investments in education and job training/re-training, investments in infrastructure, and changes to tax policy. We spend too much of our money on transfer payments to the elderly and on defense, and not enough trying to remain competitive.
We just can't find work for those numbers no matter how many degrees we pay for.
The world just doesn't need manpower as much.
Troubling but true.
WSS
-
@vaportrail said:
Right, that's the point I'm making. You're not losing jobs to the educated Chinese, those guys are my competition (and I never said there were millions of them, just that there were a bunch of them in American academia). Your competition are the billions of uneducated Chinese.
Also.... Holy shit! hahahaha, I made the front page of the Dayton Daily News!
Haha, I look so jobless.
Nice makeshift drums
-
Because you made it up.
I did? I believe it's right here, my man: But as to jobs I'd rather (if we're going to add to the deficit) create 3 12 dollar anhour jobs than one 35 an hour job. Yup, that's a false choice.
And thanks for teaching me how technology can eliminate certain jobs. I had no idea! Here I was going on and on about how we need to preserve all the jobs technology has eliminated.
...Except that I wasn't. I was making the opposite point.
Thanks for reminding me what a waste of time this is. Good to hear you're doing well.
-
Heck. Try to read just a little bit more carefully please? Look again it says 3 jobs at 12 dollars an hour not 3 dollars and 50 cents an hour. So yes, old buddy, you did make that up. And yes, old buddy, it is a pain in the ass trying to talk with you. Not because you're so bright but because you make things up and you're so angry all the time.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login