• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

AS DEFICIT EXPLODES, GOP DEMANDS EMERGENCY TAX CUT FOR THE RICH

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,882
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Outliers are not the norm, Keith.

Most everyone works a job where they work for a rich owner, which means it's in the worker's best interest to keep the company going so they don't close and lose their jobs.

You can't have it both ways, Keith. You can't blast the rich for creating all these jobs and then turn around and also blast the rich when the company closes. We see how many people complain when the company goes under. They know they need the rich guy's company to survive at that point.

When the rich start a business they are not necessarily thinking about creating jobs and helping people, but turning a profit....getting even richer. If they could do that through automation, even better for them.

The rich hire people, not necessarily through the goodness of their heart or social conscience, but because they need workers to run their business....paying as little as possible wherever possible while charging customers whatever the market permits. Maximising profits, minimising running costs.

That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

livingwage.jpg
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

It's supposed to be a motivator. I'm sure there's some people in the world who are perfectly happy working at McDonald's and whistle while they work there. They understand they have no skills and they have come to terms with it. They are making the best of their life. The ones who complain about those jobs are the ones who realize they wasted their potential and could've done something better. When I was growing up my parents always used to ask me, "You don't want to end up like that guy, right?" when we would go out to eat at a fast food place. I would say, "No way!"

The people in those jobs have very little skills. They should not be rewarded with more money for that. People are exactly where they belong in the world.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,882
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

It's supposed to be a motivator.

So you want people to be in poverty. Got it.
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
People are exactly where they belong in the world.
prolix.
You could have just agreed that some people deserve to live in poverty.
Oh! Look! You just did!

We can test this claim, Keith.

I don't want to assume you make a lot of money, but I will assume that you are well off for yourself. Let's just say that hypothetically you make 100K a year, Keith. If you went into McDonald's and an employee said to you, "Keith! Give me 20 grand! I know you make 100K a year! Give me 20 grand now!! I need it!!"

Would you give it to him? Of course you wouldn't. You'd probably say something like, "Get a better job," or, "get your own money" or "I'm not your father."

You do not believe that person is entitled to your money, right?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
What in the name of fuck does my relative generosity have to do with you stating that people deserve to not earn a living wage?
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
It's supposed to be a motivator.

So you want people to be in poverty. Got it.

No, but that is the unfortunate outcome of people being lazy and having no skills. Capitalism is the one system that has lifted billions out of poverty. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed. It's OK to fail. Just don't demand that others need to take care of you, then.

Look at unions. They think promotions should be done based on who was there the longest as opposed to who is the most productive. I can show up to a union job, run circles around everyone that works there, but I have no chance of a promotion because I am the lowest guy on their totem pole: the newest hire. I have no seniority. This is why Republicans despise unions. They reward the lazy as opposed to the productive.

Remember when I told you guys I used to work at Wendy's in college? One day I opened the soda fountain and started cleaning the gunk out of the sides and everything. The manager said, "Wow! No one ever voluntarily does this! Keep up the good work!" and I got a raise after a few months and my co-workers were complaining about it. I said, "it's because you guys do the bare minimum. I'm not lazy like that."

They had the attitude of, "I'm getting paid minimum wage! That means I'm doing minimum work!" They don't realize this attitude holds them back. They think they are "sticking it to the owner" by doing the bare minimum, but they are really just sticking it to themselves. At many minimum wage jobs, that is the people's attitude: do minimum work. Pay me more, I do more.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,882
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
prolix.
You could have just agreed that some people deserve to live in poverty.
Oh! Look! You just did!

We can test this claim, Keith.

I don't want to assume you make a lot of money, but I will assume that you are well off for yourself. Let's just say that hypothetically you make 100K a year, Keith. If you went into McDonald's and an employee said to you, "Keith! Give me 20 grand! I know you make 100K a year! Give me 20 grand now!! I need it!!"

Would you give it to him? Of course you wouldn't. You'd probably say something like, "Get a better job," or, "get your own money" or "I'm not your father."

You do not believe that person is entitled to your money, right?

Oh, goody. Another ridiculous made up story to justify a bullshit position.

A perfect example of people making $200 an hour convincing someone making $25 an hour that people making minimum wage are the problem.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed.
So, that's WHY you think people in poverty deserve it.
But blaming tge poor for being poor still means you think they derpserve to be poor.
I suppose you think Jesus taught that, Too?
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,635
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
The poor deserve to be poor because they are too fucking stupid to commit fraud and lie about their taxes. Smart people do that all the time, apparently.
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed.
So, that's WHY you think people in poverty deserve it.
But blaming tge poor for being poor still means you think they derpserve to be poor.
I suppose you think Jesus taught that, Too?

Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink. Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.

A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?

People always say sports are a metaphor for life.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed.
So, that's WHY you think people in poverty deserve it.
But blaming tge poor for being poor still means you think they derpserve to be poor.
I suppose you think Jesus taught that, Too?

Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink.
What's the league minimum pay for a professional in the NFL, Halfie?
Just how far have you gone from 'people living in poverty' to pretend your position is rational?
Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.
i could possibly care a little less about NFL teams.
A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?
you can find, please, any place i suggested those self-important cheats would have to give up a single trophy?
Is that a democrat tax plan the GOP is blocking?
If so, cite your source.
Or shut up on this conservative feargasm.

So, all fluff and derail aside, the GOP still wants to cut rich taxes only to make the rich happy, not to preserve any jobs, not to provide virus tests or vaccines, not to even build the fucking wall.
And you think we should kiss rich butts and thank them for below half of the jobs in America.
Because reasons.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,882
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed.
So, that's WHY you think people in poverty deserve it.
But blaming tge poor for being poor still means you think they derpserve to be poor.
I suppose you think Jesus taught that, Too?

Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink. Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.

A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?

People always say sports are a metaphor for life.

You're really bad at creating analogies.
 

Deepak

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
MA, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink.
What's the league minimum pay for a professional in the NFL, Halfie?
Just how far have you gone from 'people living in poverty' to pretend your position is rational?
Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.
i could possibly care a little less about NFL teams.
A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?
you can find, please, any place i suggested those self-important cheats would have to give up a single trophy?
Is that a democrat tax plan the GOP is blocking?
If so, cite your source.
Or shut up on this conservative feargasm.

So, all fluff and derail aside, the GOP still wants to cut rich taxes only to make the rich happy, not to preserve any jobs, not to provide virus tests or vaccines, not to even build the fucking wall.
And you think we should kiss rich butts and thank them for below half of the jobs in America.
Because reasons.

Actually, the NFL is an interesting study in economics. While the teams don't share their trophies, the league is a revenue sharing entity, where each team contributes a bit under half their gate goes to a communal pool, and ticket sales and merchandise sales are all split equally among the teams. Too, the players get the lion's* share of net profits - with about 60% of the take going to wages.

*Not the Detroit variety
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,997
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
Outliers are not the norm, Keith.

Most everyone works a job where they work for a rich owner, which means it's in the worker's best interest to keep the company going so they don't close and lose their jobs.

You can't have it both ways, Keith. You can't blast the rich for creating all these jobs and then turn around and also blast the rich when the company closes. We see how many people complain when the company goes under. They know they need the rich guy's company to survive at that point.

When the rich start a business they are not necessarily thinking about creating jobs and helping people, but turning a profit....getting even richer. If they could do that through automation, even better for them.

The rich hire people, not necessarily through the goodness of their heart or social conscience, but because they need workers to run their business....paying as little as possible wherever possible while charging customers whatever the market permits. Maximising profits, minimising running costs.

That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.


What you conveniently overlook is that the rich, in order to turn a profit, hire people because they need people to run their business. Without which the business does not run and does not turn a profit for the rich....also, that it is the power imbalance between individual workers and the management that does not allow the worker to negotiate a better pay rate. Some businesses love nothing better than to pay workers in third world countries 50 cents an hour in order to increase profit, while charging customers top dollar for their products and services. It often comes down blatant self serving greed.
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.


What you conveniently overlook is that the rich, in order to turn a profit, hire people because they need people to run their business. Without which the business does not run and does not turn a profit for the rich....also, that it is the power imbalance between individual workers and the management that does not allow the worker to negotiate a better pay rate. Some businesses love nothing better than to pay workers in third world countries 50 cents an hour in order to increase profit, while charging customers top dollar for their products and services. It often comes down blatant self serving greed.

Who should get the majority of the profits if not the owner? You are giving up the incentive for people to open businesses if they can not receive the majority of the profits.

Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer and the government says, "Thanks for the idea, Bill! The workers own it now!" Where is Bill's incentive for innovation? Everything would stagnate!

The free market breeds innovation. "I need to build the best product possible or else someone else will overtake me in the market!" Competition and ideas flourish!
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,997
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.


What you conveniently overlook is that the rich, in order to turn a profit, hire people because they need people to run their business. Without which the business does not run and does not turn a profit for the rich....also, that it is the power imbalance between individual workers and the management that does not allow the worker to negotiate a better pay rate. Some businesses love nothing better than to pay workers in third world countries 50 cents an hour in order to increase profit, while charging customers top dollar for their products and services. It often comes down blatant self serving greed.

Who should get the majority of the profits if not the owner? You are giving up the incentive for people to open businesses if they can not receive the majority of the profits.

Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer and the government says, "Thanks for the idea, Bill! The workers own it now!" Where is Bill's incentive for innovation? Everything would stagnate!

The free market breeds innovation. "I need to build the best product possible or else someone else will overtake me in the market!" Competition and ideas flourish!

There is a vast gulf between the 'majority of the profits' and a fair and decent living wage for the workers who make that profit possible.

That is the issue.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,754
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

It's supposed to be a motivator. I'm sure there's some people in the world who are perfectly happy working at McDonald's and whistle while they work there. They understand they have no skills and they have come to terms with it. They are making the best of their life. The ones who complain about those jobs are the ones who realize they wasted their potential and could've done something better. When I was growing up my parents always used to ask me, "You don't want to end up like that guy, right?" when we would go out to eat at a fast food place. I would say, "No way!"

The people in those jobs have very little skills. They should not be rewarded with more money for that. People are exactly where they belong in the world.

ah.. that explains it. it was your parents that were complete pieces of shit that taught you to be this way. makes sense.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,131
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Who should get the majority of the profits if not the owner? You are giving up the incentive for people to open businesses if they can not receive the majority of the profits.

Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer and the government says, "Thanks for the idea, Bill! The workers own it now!" Where is Bill's incentive for innovation? Everything would stagnate!

The free market breeds innovation. "I need to build the best product possible or else someone else will overtake me in the market!" Competition and ideas flourish!

There is a vast gulf between the 'majority of the profits' and a fair and decent living wage for the workers who make that profit possible.

That is the issue.

Personally, I'm not such a greedy piece of shit that I want a majority of profits. I would be fine, as an investor, just getting a plurality of profits over a fixed period, and then moving on to new investment.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,813
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

Disagree--if more people get the skills for better jobs it will raise the pay for the shit jobs also because you won't have as many people available who can't do better.

(And it will cut down on the number of shit jobs as some will be automated.)
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,134
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink. Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.

A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?

People always say sports are a metaphor for life.

You're really bad at creating analogies.


Where does curling fit in as a metaphor for life? Asking for a friend.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,997
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

Disagree--if more people get the skills for better jobs it will raise the pay for the shit jobs also because you won't have as many people available who can't do better.

(And it will cut down on the number of shit jobs as some will be automated.)

Somebody has to serve tables, cook, clean make beds, etc....not everyone can be doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs. Doing necessary work should pay well.

In a wealthy nation such as America, nobody should be struggling if working full time.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
Disagree--if more people get the skills for better jobs it will raise the pay for the shit jobs also because you won't have as many people available who can't do better.

(And it will cut down on the number of shit jobs as some will be automated.)

Somebody has to serve tables, cook, clean make beds, etc....not everyone can be doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs. Doing necessary work should pay well.

In a wealthy nation such as America, nobody should be struggling if working full time.

Everyone should be making enough money to provide the opportunity to invest in their own future. We can't say we have capitalism unless everyone gets to have capital. Just like any of the other isms. Communal ownership for everyone except the elite isn't communism. Government ownership for everyone but the oligarchs isn't socialism. I'm a capitalist and we have to fix our system so everyone makes enough money to have a savings account and has the opportunity to increase their financial security.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
you always say that when i answer the question you literally asked.
Soory thrre are people who have jobs you never considered.
But still, what was you point dupposed to be?
That somehow, the existance of rich people in the economy means the party tgat prides itself on fiscal responsibility, whise president fucking PROMISED to reduce the natl. debt, is NOT whoring itself out to the rich at the cost of the nation's deficit?

Poor people don't create jobs for themselves, Keith. They get them from rich people who open businesses..

When Bill Gates started Microsoft, how many jobs did he create?

Technically he co-founded Microsoft with Bill Allen, and they created 2 jobs, filled by Allen and Gates. Neither was rich at the time, and at the end of the second year in business, Microsoft revenues totaled a whopping $16,005. Two years later, when they moved from New Mexico to Washington, the company was 13 employees strong.

When Steve Jobs started Apple, how many jobs did he create?

Technically, Apple was founded as a partnership between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. None of them were rich at the time, and in fact Steve Jobs' father was a Muslim Syrian immigrant, you know, one of those poor brown people from the wrong religion who will destroy our country if we let them in. Anyway, they created two jobs, one for each of the Steve's, with Ronald Wayne acting as an advisor.

When Zuckerberg started Facebook, how many jobs did he create?

I don't know as much about the history of Facebook, but I would assume it was a similar story and he created all of a job or two. Although he was from an upper middle class family, and was Harvard educated, they certainly were not in the 1% of uber wealthy Americans.

Competition in the free market is the best thing about capitalism, Keith.

Sure, but what does that have to do with rich people creating jobs, since none of the people in your example were rich when they started their business ventures, and they initially created very few jobs?
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
Technically he co-founded Microsoft with Bill Allen, and they created 2 jobs, filled by Allen and Gates. Neither was rich at the time, and at the end of the second year in business, Microsoft revenues totaled a whopping $16,005. Two years later, when they moved from New Mexico to Washington, the company was 13 employees strong.

When Steve Jobs started Apple, how many jobs did he create?

Technically, Apple was founded as a partnership between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. None of them were rich at the time, and in fact Steve Jobs' father was a Muslim Syrian immigrant, you know, one of those poor brown people from the wrong religion who will destroy our country if we let them in. Anyway, they created two jobs, one for each of the Steve's, with Ronald Wayne acting as an advisor.

When Zuckerberg started Facebook, how many jobs did he create?

I don't know as much about the history of Facebook, but I would assume it was a similar story and he created all of a job or two. Although he was from an upper middle class family, and was Harvard educated, they certainly were not in the 1% of uber wealthy Americans.

Competition in the free market is the best thing about capitalism, Keith.

Sure, but what does that have to do with rich people creating jobs, since none of the people in your example were rich when they started their business ventures, and they initially created very few jobs?

You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Technically he co-founded Microsoft with Bill Allen, and they created 2 jobs, filled by Allen and Gates. Neither was rich at the time, and at the end of the second year in business, Microsoft revenues totaled a whopping $16,005. Two years later, when they moved from New Mexico to Washington, the company was 13 employees strong.



Technically, Apple was founded as a partnership between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. None of them were rich at the time, and in fact Steve Jobs' father was a Muslim Syrian immigrant, you know, one of those poor brown people from the wrong religion who will destroy our country if we let them in. Anyway, they created two jobs, one for each of the Steve's, with Ronald Wayne acting as an advisor.



I don't know as much about the history of Facebook, but I would assume it was a similar story and he created all of a job or two. Although he was from an upper middle class family, and was Harvard educated, they certainly were not in the 1% of uber wealthy Americans.

Competition in the free market is the best thing about capitalism, Keith.

Sure, but what does that have to do with rich people creating jobs, since none of the people in your example were rich when they started their business ventures, and they initially created very few jobs?

You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.

But all your fluff about rich people not letting workers run the company, they'd fuck it up?
Your examples were not rich people when they started. And they quite apparently did not guck it up. So, who's being obtuse?
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.

But all your fluff about rich people not letting workers run the company, they'd fuck it up?
Your examples were not rich people when they started. And they quite apparently did not guck it up. So, who's being obtuse?

What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.

But all your fluff about rich people not letting workers run the company, they'd fuck it up?
Your examples were not rich people when they started. And they quite apparently did not guck it up. So, who's being obtuse?

What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.

You insist we need to give a tax cut to the rich so they'll keep making jobs, but your every justification either conflicts with reality or conflicts with another of your justifications.
I'm not the one on thin ice, Halfie.
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.

You insist we need to give a tax cut to the rich so they'll keep making jobs, but your every justification either conflicts with reality or conflicts with another of your justifications.
I'm not the one on thin ice, Halfie.

How many people DEPEND on Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook not closing down, Keith? I'll wait for a response.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.

You insist we need to give a tax cut to the rich so they'll keep making jobs, but your every justification either conflicts with reality or conflicts with another of your justifications.
I'm not the one on thin ice, Halfie.

How many people DEPEND on Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook not closing down, Keith? I'll wait for a response.
Shitloads.
Now, how about explaining why there needs to be a rich guy in each case, that it cannot be replaced by employee-owned?
I mean, actually explain, not hand waving and mistruths.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.

You insist we need to give a tax cut to the rich so they'll keep making jobs, but your every justification either conflicts with reality or conflicts with another of your justifications.
I'm not the one on thin ice, Halfie.

How many people DEPEND on Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook not closing down, Keith? I'll wait for a response.

More important, show that if there's no tax cut, the business WILL shut down?
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
How many people DEPEND on Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook not closing down, Keith? I'll wait for a response.
Shitloads.
Now, how about explaining why there needs to be a rich guy in each case, that it cannot be replaced by employee-owned?
I mean, actually explain, not hand waving and mistruths.

Because you remove the incentive for innovation if its employee owned. "Why should I invent something? The workers will own it and steal my money!"
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,420
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I believe the budget was balanced under Clinton.

The republican hypocrisy is stunning. They have completely abandoned the usual anti democrat position on reckless spending and handing debt down to future generations.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
How many people DEPEND on Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook not closing down, Keith? I'll wait for a response.
Shitloads.
Now, how about explaining why there needs to be a rich guy in each case, that it cannot be replaced by employee-owned?
I mean, actually explain, not hand waving and mistruths.

Because you remove the incentive for innovation if its employee owned. "Why should I invent something? The workers will own it and steal my money!"
um, genius, if the bus is employee owned, an innovator is one of the workers who will benefit from an increase in profits.
So, no, that's not a characteristic of employee-owned.
Guess again?
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
I believe the budget was balanced under Clinton.

The republican hypocrisy is stunning. They have completely abandoned the usual anti democrat position on reckless spending and handing debt down to future generations.

Because it's common knowledge that "the debt" is meaningless. It's a boogeyman. Republicans raise the debt to pay for things, Democrats raise taxes to pay for things. "The savior" Bernie even wants to raise taxes on the middle class and poor!

No one wants taxes raised, that's why the majority of U.S. states are Republican. Republican states also have cheaper cost of living.
 

Half-Life

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
3,198
Location
U.S.A.
Basic Beliefs
Skeptical
Because you remove the incentive for innovation if its employee owned. "Why should I invent something? The workers will own it and steal my money!"
um, genius, if the bus is employee owned, an innovator is one of the workers who will benefit from an increase in profits.
So, no, that's not a characteristic of employee-owned.
Guess again?

So you want the employees licking the boots of the original inventors? "You thought of the idea but we get your money! HAHA!"
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Because it's common knowledge that "the debt" is meaningless.
then why did Trump make a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in 8 years?
I mean, obviously it was a lie, but why even suggest this was a proority?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Because you remove the incentive for innovation if its employee owned. "Why should I invent something? The workers will own it and steal my money!"
um, genius, if the bus is employee owned, an innovator is one of the workers who will benefit from an increase in profits.
So, no, that's not a characteristic of employee-owned.
Guess again?

So you want the employees licking the boots of the original inventors? "You thought of the idea but we get your money! HAHA!"
Please outline the chain of thoughts that got you from the content of my post to this bullshit.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
12,997
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Basic Beliefs
˙uoıʇdǝɔǝp ɟlǝs ɟo ɯɹoɟ ɐ sı ɥʇıɐℲ
What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.

You insist we need to give a tax cut to the rich so they'll keep making jobs, but your every justification either conflicts with reality or conflicts with another of your justifications.
I'm not the one on thin ice, Halfie.

How many people DEPEND on Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook not closing down, Keith? I'll wait for a response.

These companies need their employees to keep running. They both rely on each other. Both need each other.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,420
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I believe the budget was balanced under Clinton.

The republican hypocrisy is stunning. They have completely abandoned the usual anti democrat position on reckless spending and handing debt down to future generations.

Because it's common knowledge that "the debt" is meaningless. It's a boogeyman. Republicans raise the debt to pay for things, Democrats raise taxes to pay for things. "The savior" Bernie even wants to raise taxes on the middle class and poor!

No one wants taxes raised, that's why the majority of U.S. states are Republican. Republican states also have cheaper cost of living.


Yes, and Trump went into bankruptcy how many times? He says he 'knows how to mange debt'. That means he dumps it on others. The government can not do that.

Tax revenues according to Trump would rise after his tax cuts which it did not, accelerating rate of debt increase.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,133
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
So you want the employees licking the boots of the original inventors? "You thought of the idea but we get your money! HAHA!"
Please outline the chain of thoughts that got you from the content of my post to this bullshit.

Spare us! We all know that halfie's bullshit is based on halfie's bullshit.
He has never been an owner of an innovative company or he would know better.

In my last company I had the honor of working with and eventually hiring a doctor who had developed a unique and revolutionary device in co-operation with a State University. He and the University shared the patents and inked an agreement with us that ended up being a great thing for all involved, as well as for numerous spec ops personnel, smoke jumpers and even civilian EMS. It is still a cutting edge product today, and is allowing the doc who served as our medical director to pursue further inventions without having to use University resources.

The dynamic is no different for Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates or you name it. Innovate something that allows even a small part of one of those Companies to operate even fractionally more efficiently or effectively and you WILL be rewarded if it is implemented.

Halfie is simply trying to rationalize continuous government bailouts, tax holidays - basically theft - with the "too big to fail" stupidity.
Maybe he knows that Cheato's farm bailouts have now exceeded that Auto Industry bailout, and that the biggest difference is that the Auto Industry bailout money was PAID BACK. Cheato destroyed those farmers' markets and they're not coming back any time soon. That's the model for Trump's "success".
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
There's the old joke about the efficiency expert that was hired by a major automotive company. He started at headquarters, roaming the building and seeing who did what, looking for duplicate or wasted effort.
He gave his report to the company president and said, 'there's this guy, couple floors down. He's got the rank and pay of a vice president, but i found him sitting at his desk, chair tilted back, feet in the window sill. You gotta get rid of that dead weight.'
The pres nodded. 'I know who you're talking about. That guy once had an idea that saved this company a million dollars a year. And as i recall, he was in exactly that position when he got the idea. He stays.'

Nothing in the story, absolutely nothing, would need to be changed to set the story in an employee-owned company.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,882
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
For Halfie's perusal:


Before the Trump tax cuts___________________________________________________After the Trump tax cuts
89254134_3116250095066415_1123757675939627008_n.jpg
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,813
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Disagree--if more people get the skills for better jobs it will raise the pay for the shit jobs also because you won't have as many people available who can't do better.

(And it will cut down on the number of shit jobs as some will be automated.)

Somebody has to serve tables, cook, clean make beds, etc....not everyone can be doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs. Doing necessary work should pay well.

In a wealthy nation such as America, nobody should be struggling if working full time.

You're completely missing my point. If more people have higher skills there won't be so much competition at the low end and thus wages will go up.

And expect to see automation reduce the demand for some of those jobs, also.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,813
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Everyone should be making enough money to provide the opportunity to invest in their own future. We can't say we have capitalism unless everyone gets to have capital. Just like any of the other isms. Communal ownership for everyone except the elite isn't communism. Government ownership for everyone but the oligarchs isn't socialism. I'm a capitalist and we have to fix our system so everyone makes enough money to have a savings account and has the opportunity to increase their financial security.

Reality check: More people choose not to save/invest than truly don't have the money to do so.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,813
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I believe the budget was balanced under Clinton.

The republican hypocrisy is stunning. They have completely abandoned the usual anti democrat position on reckless spending and handing debt down to future generations.

Because it's common knowledge that "the debt" is meaningless. It's a boogeyman. Republicans raise the debt to pay for things, Democrats raise taxes to pay for things. "The savior" Bernie even wants to raise taxes on the middle class and poor!

No one wants taxes raised, that's why the majority of U.S. states are Republican. Republican states also have cheaper cost of living.

It's not a bogeyman, that borrowing has to be repaid at some point. So long as the amount isn't too great politicians can get away with kicking the can, but eventually that doesn't work. See Greece for an example.

And note that while Republican states tend to have a lower cost of living they also tend to have a lower standard of living. A low cost of living is to a large degree an indication that it's not a desirable place to live.
 
Top Bottom