What do you want to do with the little people?

[DBT]

Despite the economy home prices in Seattle are going up.

Excellent for the sellers....not so much for buyers.

 

[RVonse]

Do you have anyone in mind?

As far as I can tell, I haven't seen anyone on this thread that seems to resemble that distinction.

Really.

Steve Bank is one. RVonse is one. Loren skirts close to it.
I have no idea what they really think, but this is the way they are answering this thread, so it seems to be their own opinion.

ANyway, thats my observation.

When did I say that? When have I ever claimed no one should care about the little people?

 

[Canard DuJour]

Those focused on the wealth disparity pick on corporations but ignore areas like sports and entertainment.

Because it isn't sports and entertainment ppl that bid their wages down, outsourced their jobs, broke their unions, bribed their govt etc

 

[steve_bank]

Those focused on the wealth disparity pick on corporations but ignore areas like sports and entertainment.

Because it isn't sports and entertainment ppl that bid their wages down, outsourced their jobs, broke their unions, bribed their govt etc

Pro atheltes liken themselves to slaves on a plantaion run by the owners.

The reality is pro athletes and owners are both greedy free market capitals out to maximize profit and gain. Pro sports IS the system.

No diffent than Apple or Amazon.

Wealth disparity is what it is regardless of who has wealth.

Corporations are easy targets. They are faceless enemies easy to attack without a lot of political risk. Attack he wealth of sports and a shit storm will rain down on you for a number of reasons, including race.

IMO sports salaries are obscene compared to issues of corporate profits. Corporations create jobs, products, and services.That being said that is how the system works. Anyone can try to be a s rich as possible with no limits. That is the American Dream.

Remember the Pet Rock guy who got rich selling rocks with painted faces?

The question is whether or not wealth should be limited or taxed for the general good, welfare, and most importantly stability.

The BLM unrest and capitol riot is just a taste of what can happen.

 

[Bomb#20]

...The reason they are stuck where they are is that they came here illegibly....

Not only did they come illegibly, their English skills aren't up to scratch either.

...
The primary ducation system as we have it began in the early 20th century as in part a systm to facilitate immigrant assimilation. IOW rading and writing English.
...

The irony of all the typos and misspellings in the above post is.. *chef's kiss*

Disability put-downs. Classy. Steve is almost blind.

 

[Bomb#20]

The first thing would be to limit the flow of low-skilled immigration so that the wages of our fellow citizens are not undercut.

Why are low skilled Americans you have never met or interacted with, more important to you than low skilled foreigners who want to come to America?

The low skilled Americans know how to speak English. That makes them less burdensome to rest of the population who do currently speak English.
...

If your problem is with people who don't speak English, you should <expletive deleted> say so. If you talk about immigrants as a problem, while in fact only having a problem with the subset of immigrants whose English is poor, then you run the serious risk of people assuming that you are just a <expletive deleted> racist <expletive deleted> scrambling for a justification for your xenophobia.

Um, you know RVonse and Trausti aren't the same person, don't you? If your problem is you're a tribalistic git who regards everyone who disagrees with you as outgroup which makes it okay for you to think of them as interchangeable parts, you should work on that.

 

[Bomb#20]

Because they're Americans. It is truly a bizarre happenstance that the loyalties of Western nations leapfrog over their own people to foreigners while the loyalties of those foreigners remain concentric.

I don't care if we share a passport; I care if we share ideals and moral values. And patriotism is completely foreign to me.

But like Trausti says, who else treats their citizens worse then the US? I can't think of any.

...North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, China and Russia come immediately to mind. Moreover, the prospective asylum-seekers to the USA are visible evidence that there are countries that treat their citizens whose than the USA treats its citizens.

The idea that the US is at that bottom of its treatment of its citizenry is so shockingly counterfactual as to make one wonder about the sanity of those who make such claims.

Pretty sure all those countries give preferential treatment to their own citizens as opposed to foreigners.

Shift those goalposts.

He's not shifting the goalposts; he's reminding you where they were. Trausti and RVonse were blatantly talking about a relative scale -- about the U.S. treating its citizens worse relative to how it treats foreigners than how other countries treat their citizens relative to how those countries treat foreigners. Read for content, not keywords.

 

[bilby]

Why are low skilled Americans you have never met or interacted with, more important to you than low skilled foreigners who want to come to America?

The low skilled Americans know how to speak English. That makes them less burdensome to rest of the population who do currently speak English.
...

If your problem is with people who don't speak English, you should <expletive deleted> say so. If you talk about immigrants as a problem, while in fact only having a problem with the subset of immigrants whose English is poor, then you run the serious risk of people assuming that you are just a <expletive deleted> racist <expletive deleted> scrambling for a justification for your xenophobia.

Um, you know RVonse and Trausti aren't the same person, don't you? If your problem is you're a tribalistic git who regards everyone who disagrees with you as outgroup which makes it okay for you to think of them as interchangeable parts, you should work on that.

Yes of course I do. I was responding to RVonse; As I was doing so from my phone, I didn't bother to remove the less relevant post he was quoting before doing so.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes of course I do. I was responding to RVonse; As I was doing so from my phone, I didn't bother to remove the less relevant post he was quoting before doing so.

But it was that less relevant post he was quoting that talked about immigrants as a problem. You told RVonse that if his problem is with people who don't speak English, he should say so. He did say so. Don't hector RVonse over talking about immigrants as a problem when it was Trausti who did that.

 

[Swammerdami]

Those focused on the wealth disparity pick on corporations but ignore areas like sports and entertainment.

Because it isn't sports and entertainment ppl that bid their wages down, outsourced their jobs, broke their unions, bribed their govt etc

Pro atheltes liken themselves to slaves on a plantaion run by the owners.

The reality is pro athletes and owners are both greedy free market capitals out to maximize profit and gain. Pro sports IS the system.

No diffent than Apple or Amazon.

Wealth disparity is what it is regardless of who has wealth.

Corporations are easy targets. They are faceless enemies easy to attack without a lot of political risk. Attack he wealth of sports and a shit storm will rain down on you for a number of reasons, including race.

IMO sports salaries are obscene compared to issues of corporate profits. Corporations create jobs, products, and services.That being said that is how the system works. Anyone can try to be a s rich as possible with no limits. That is the American Dream.

Remember the Pet Rock guy who got rich selling rocks with painted faces?

The question is whether or not wealth should be limited or taxed for the general good, welfare, and most importantly stability.

The BLM unrest and capitol riot is just a taste of what can happen.

I agree with much in this post by Steve Bank.

All this ranting that the super-rich win their wealth on the backs of their underpaid employees is very confused thinking. Just for starters, note one simple fact: For millennia, unskilled or semi-skilled labor was the major contributor to production. If you think that's still the case in the 21st century ... you need a new brand of coffee!

Rachel Maddow makes $8 million per year. That's more than most of us make in a life-time. Her writers are probably well paid; should their salaries be tripled? Should Rachel be sharing her wealth with her make-up artist?

Merck is a profitable drug company with average salary of $100k. Average salary at Google is $120k. Should they give everyone a 50% raise?

I regard the high earnings of lawyers as a bad thing! Is the "problem" that law clerks making $80k should be making $300k instead?

We need policies that will reduce, somewhat, wealth and income disparities. These disparities are bad for American society, bad for the economy, and are continuing to grow.
But if progressives pursue the same wrong-headed arguments we see here at TFT, expect opposition from the tiny segment of American citizens who still admire rational thought.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why are low skilled Americans you have never met or interacted with, more important to you than low skilled foreigners who want to come to America?

They're all strangers. They all want to work. The only differences seem to be <snip>

... then you run the serious risk of people assuming that you are just a ... racist ... scrambling for a justification for your xenophobia.

Pardon the juxtaposition of two posts, but this fits a pattern I've seen you run through on more than one occasion.

Phase 1: Tell people migration of workers seems to you to be a universally good thing to permit at every scale, with an explanation so mind-blowingly simplistic you should be embarrassed to have uttered it.

Phase 2: Observe that others have not been persuaded by your masterful eloquence.

Phase 3: Insinuate that they're racists.

You might want to take seriously the possibility that you are not an oracle, the world is more complicated than it seems to you to universally be, there are more differences between strangers than it seems like to you, and your debate opponents are not mustache-twirling cartoon villains.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Because it wasn't sports and entertainment ppl that bid their wages down, outsourced their jobs, broke their unions, bribed their govt etc

Pro atheltes liken themselves to slaves on a plantaion run by the owners.

The reality is pro athletes and owners are both greedy free market capitals out to maximize profit and gain. Pro sports IS the system.

No diffent than Apple or Amazon.

Wealth disparity is what it is regardless of who has wealth.

Corporations are easy targets. They are faceless enemies easy to attack without a lot of political risk. Attack he wealth of sports and a shit storm will rain down on you for a number of reasons, including race.

IMO sports salaries are obscene compared to issues of corporate profits. Corporations create jobs, products, and services.That being said that is how the system works. Anyone can try to be a s rich as possible with no limits. That is the American Dream.

Remember the Pet Rock guy who got rich selling rocks with painted faces?

The question is whether or not wealth should be limited or taxed for the general good, welfare, and most importantly stability.

The BLM unrest and capitol riot is just a taste of what can happen.

I agree with much in this post by Steve Bank.

All this ranting that the super-rich win their wealth on the backs of their underpaid employees is very confused thinking. Just for starters, note one simple fact: For millennia, unskilled or semi-skilled labor was the major contributor to production. If you think that's still the case in the 21st century ... you need a new brand of coffee!

Nobody thinks that, however, automation can work either way. For nearly the first 100 years of the industrial revolution, there was mass unemployment, stagnant wages, inhuman work hours and conditions. Only after massive state interventions and bitter battles were the gains shared. Only then did mass consumerism really take off. By the 1930s, Keynes famously predicted a 15 hour work week before the end of the century. Which arguably was the direction of travel during the Keynesian era of shared growth until the neoliberal reforms.

Rachel Maddow makes $8 million per year. That's more than most of us make in a life-time. Her writers are probably well paid; should their salaries be tripled? Should Rachel be sharing her wealth with her make-up artist?

Merck is a profitable drug company with average salary of $100k. Average salary at Google is $120k. Should they give everyone a 50% raise?

I regard the high earnings of lawyers as a bad thing! Is the "problem" that law clerks making $80k should be making $300k instead?

We need policies that will reduce, somewhat, wealth and income disparities. These disparities are bad for American society, bad for the economy, and are continuing to grow.

And there used to be such policies, but they were overturned by moneyed interests. Policy has been moving in the opposite direction under the same impetus. Those moneyed interests are mainly corporate and financial sector. Not sports and entertainment people, who are irrelevant precisely because it isn't just about resenting the rich.

"There's class warfare alright, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffet.

 

[DBT]

Warren Buffett is right.

 

[Elixir]

Warren Buffett is right.

They always win in the beginning. Then, the pitchforks ...

 

[Swammerdami]

"There's class warfare alright, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffet.

I am NOT arguing against you and Mr. Buffett.

I just think the political emphasis should be different. A one-size-fits-all minimum wage hike is not a good solution. Better would be money (or goods and services) distributed to people whether they're employed or not, a la Andrew Yang. Abolishing the health insurance industry, and making all healthcare taxpayer-funded would do far more immediate good than many proposals.

And I don't want to vilify the high profits of corporations. I want to TAX those profits and thereby raise money for government to spend for the public betterment. And I want to regulate profiteering which opposes the public good: NOT because those profiteers are evil, but simply because they make the economy less efficient.

 

[Politesse]

Pro atheltes liken themselves to slaves on a plantaion run by the owners.

The reality is pro athletes and owners are both greedy free market capitals out to maximize profit and gain. Pro sports IS the system.

No diffent than Apple or Amazon.

Wealth disparity is what it is regardless of who has wealth.

Corporations are easy targets. They are faceless enemies easy to attack without a lot of political risk. Attack he wealth of sports and a shit storm will rain down on you for a number of reasons, including race.

IMO sports salaries are obscene compared to issues of corporate profits. Corporations create jobs, products, and services.That being said that is how the system works. Anyone can try to be a s rich as possible with no limits. That is the American Dream.

Remember the Pet Rock guy who got rich selling rocks with painted faces?

The question is whether or not wealth should be limited or taxed for the general good, welfare, and most importantly stability.

The BLM unrest and capitol riot is just a taste of what can happen.

I agree with much in this post by Steve Bank.

All this ranting that the super-rich win their wealth on the backs of their underpaid employees is very confused thinking. Just for starters, note one simple fact: For millennia, unskilled or semi-skilled labor was the major contributor to production. If you think that's still the case in the 21st century ... you need a new brand of coffee!

Rachel Maddow makes $8 million per year. That's more than most of us make in a life-time. Her writers are probably well paid; should their salaries be tripled? Should Rachel be sharing her wealth with her make-up artist?

Merck is a profitable drug company with average salary of $100k. Average salary at Google is $120k. Should they give everyone a 50% raise?

I regard the high earnings of lawyers as a bad thing! Is the "problem" that law clerks making $80k should be making $300k instead?

We need policies that will reduce, somewhat, wealth and income disparities. These disparities are bad for American society, bad for the economy, and are continuing to grow.
But if progressives pursue the same wrong-headed arguments we see here at TFT, expect opposition from the tiny segment of American citizens who still admire rational thought.

Everything you use is farmed or mined.

 

[bilby]

Pro atheltes liken themselves to slaves on a plantaion run by the owners.

The reality is pro athletes and owners are both greedy free market capitals out to maximize profit and gain. Pro sports IS the system.

No diffent than Apple or Amazon.

Wealth disparity is what it is regardless of who has wealth.

Corporations are easy targets. They are faceless enemies easy to attack without a lot of political risk. Attack he wealth of sports and a shit storm will rain down on you for a number of reasons, including race.

IMO sports salaries are obscene compared to issues of corporate profits. Corporations create jobs, products, and services.That being said that is how the system works. Anyone can try to be a s rich as possible with no limits. That is the American Dream.

Remember the Pet Rock guy who got rich selling rocks with painted faces?

The question is whether or not wealth should be limited or taxed for the general good, welfare, and most importantly stability.

The BLM unrest and capitol riot is just a taste of what can happen.

I agree with much in this post by Steve Bank.

All this ranting that the super-rich win their wealth on the backs of their underpaid employees is very confused thinking. Just for starters, note one simple fact: For millennia, unskilled or semi-skilled labor was the major contributor to production. If you think that's still the case in the 21st century ... you need a new brand of coffee!

Rachel Maddow makes $8 million per year. That's more than most of us make in a life-time. Her writers are probably well paid; should their salaries be tripled? Should Rachel be sharing her wealth with her make-up artist?

Merck is a profitable drug company with average salary of $100k. Average salary at Google is $120k. Should they give everyone a 50% raise?

I regard the high earnings of lawyers as a bad thing! Is the "problem" that law clerks making $80k should be making $300k instead?

We need policies that will reduce, somewhat, wealth and income disparities. These disparities are bad for American society, bad for the economy, and are continuing to grow.
But if progressives pursue the same wrong-headed arguments we see here at TFT, expect opposition from the tiny segment of American citizens who still admire rational thought.

Everything you use is farmed or mined.

Neither farming nor mining use anything close to the level of unskilled or semi-skilled labour in today's developed world that they did even very recently. Some specific crops still require large numbers of low-skilled pickers at harvest time, but many have machines doing even that job.

A single worker operating a machine can replace dozens of manual labourers in almost every primary production role. And in the few roles for which that's not yet true, it soon will be.

 

[Politesse]

Everything you use is farmed or mined.

Neither farming nor mining use anything close to the level of unskilled or semi-skilled labour in today's developed world that they did even very recently. Some specific crops still require large numbers of low-skilled pickers at harvest time, but many have machines doing even that job.

A single worker operating a machine can replace dozens of manual labourers in almost every primary production role. And in the few roles for which that's not yet true, it soon will be.

I would challenge whether either discipline was ever truly "unskilled". I see that phrase more as a rhetorical element in biased exchnages of class warfare than a reasonable description of how much skill is involved. I assure you that, whether by 21st century standards or 14th century standards, learning the mining trade takes many years of direct instruction and hard experience. It is not and never was a job that any old Joe off the street could just start doing.

But if you truly believe that modern farmers and miners are doing "skilled labor", then you should be appalled at the wages they receive for this "skilled labor".

 

[bilby]

Everything you use is farmed or mined.

Neither farming nor mining use anything close to the level of unskilled or semi-skilled labour in today's developed world that they did even very recently. Some specific crops still require large numbers of low-skilled pickers at harvest time, but many have machines doing even that job.

A single worker operating a machine can replace dozens of manual labourers in almost every primary production role. And in the few roles for which that's not yet true, it soon will be.

I would challenge whether either discipline was ever truly "unskilled". I see that phrase more as a rhetorical element in biased exchnages of class warfare than a reasonable description of how much skill is involved. I assure you that, whether by 21st century standards or 14th century standards, learning the mining trade takes many years of direct instruction and hard experience. It is not and never was a job that any old Joe off the street could just start doing.

But if you truly believe that modern farmers and miners are doing "skilled labor", then you should be appalled at the wages they receive for this "skilled labor".

I agree with you, at least partially, on both points.

By "unskilled" I mean "not requiring literacy and numeracy", rather than "just anyone can do it". Although there are certainly some jobs that really don't need skills beyond manual dexterity and/or strength, that you can grab some random person and expect them to be productive in less than a day of on the job learning. And such jobs were commonplace in the past, and still are in parts of the developing world.

As for miner's wages, at least here in Australia, they are very good indeed.

 

[Politesse]

By "unskilled" I mean "not requiring literacy and numeracy", rather than "just anyone can do it".

Arbitrary. Still classist. And irrelevant in a country where most people are literate.