Build the Wall!

[funinspace]

But look at everyone else in congress. Look at Nancy Pelosi who is better at stock trading than Warren Buffet. She has become internet famous at insider trading and when you have redit followers who do nothing else but track what Pelosi buys and sells for their own personal gain, that's when you know the corruption has arrived.

I literally have no fucking idea what this is supposed to mean. Pelosi is using redit for insider trading so therefore she is no different than Trump? Wake me when she starts gassing protestors for a photo op.

Second me on WTF? Buffett worth over $100 billion; Pelosi around $50 million, who better at what? Pelosi famous trader....ROTFLMAO...evidence??? Nah, bat shit alt-right delusions....

She is worth $114.7 million https://thesuccessbug.com/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/

But to be fair, there are people claiming she is worth anywhere from 50 million to 250 million searching google. Finding an unbiased source of anything on the internet is pretty difficult but this guy strikes me as only interested in making money and not spinning for political purpose. Here:



For all of us peons, there are supposed to be laws against trading on insider information; example Martha Stewart. In general, society considers it unfair for the people (such as CEO's) to take unfair advantage in the stock market from their insider information. But those laws don't seem to matter to the elites in Washington. Those same elites who make the laws that only we have to follow! Perhaps they are even following the supposed laws they crafted to get around.....but if you want to apologize for them then you are clearly part of the problem!

Sometimes you really are your own worst enemy on trying to get any point across. You said multiple outlandish things, but now you spend time on maybe Pelosi is worth $114.7 million (like listing the $700,000 part of it was useful). Whether she is worth $40M or $240M, it is a drop in the bucket compared to Buffett. 2 things make this silly out of the gate. First the public doesn't get to know Congressional critters net worth down to the exact amount; and secondly, at that net worth it changes daily anyway. Hell, my net worth is down 1% this morning. So how about dropping such silly shit?

So some Youtuber, is quoting another Youtuber, and all of a sudden, Pelosi is more followed than Buffett? Again, WTF? Do you know how many people follow what Buffett's Berkshire? I only watched about 2 minutes of that silly Youtube, and wow Pelosi purportedly made $16 million that year. I did well in 2020, as even from 3,000 miles away, I recognized the threat to the economy and the BS from Clownstick. It wasn't a tough year to make good money on the markets, so so what?

I recently commented specifically on the subject on whether Congressional Critters aught to be restricted on owning stocks (my short view is that they should be restricted from owning individual stock), see linky:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Congresspeople owning corporate stock: "We're a free market economy"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes banning stock buys by Congress members House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scoffed Wednesday at the idea of banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from owning shares of individual companies, despite the possibilities for conflicts of interest between their...

iidb.org

The Critters have always been corrupt at this level, and over the years, the Repugs have certainly been the more significant defender of such allowances. Hell, it was just a few cycles ago, that the Repugs selected a hedge fund manager (scamming the system legally as if the money he was getting to paid, was only taxed as long term capital gains) as their nominee to be president...

 

[RVonse]

But what Trump actually did was more than pretend. His tariff policies actually DID help the poor to middle class of the US.

www.nwitimes.com/business/local/region-steelworkers-to-get-bonuses-of-as-much-as-16-500/article_fcdf9532-0b79-5f69-aebd-4a41964a591a.html
$16,500 is a drop in the bucket for an elite congresswoman such as Nancy, but it is a very large sum of money for many living in the US middle class. $16,500 bonuses that were a direct result of the increase price of steel resulted from Trump's tariff. ...

I read The Economist when I want to know if tariffs helped Americans overall. (Hint: They didn't.) I read posts like this to understand American political thought. In particular, I wonder what "Nancy" has to do with these steelworkers' bonuses? Is it only cosmopolitan coastal Democrats like Nancy for whom $16k is a pittance, with all QOP Congresscritters hard-working and struggling to make do?

Furthermore unlike plastic, steel is now a very green material that can be recycled. The government should protect steel just for that very reason alone.When the price of steel goes up Whirlpool will think twice about making a shoddy cheap product that will end up in the landfill rather than a durable appliance. So when that dishwasher does go bad, it will be remelted instead of ending up in our oceans.

Steel's recycling value depends on its WEIGHT, not its "shoddiness."

But it sounds like you think steel use should INCREASE, since unlike plastic it is a "green" material. So you believe a HIGHER price of steel will encourage its use? I'm afraid we'll need a cite for this novel economic idea.

I said the government should encourage the manufacture of steel because it is a green building material. And thankfully so far, both Trump and Biden have done so by enacting and leaving the tariff in place.

The higher price (by itself) will not encourage its use and if excessive could even result being substituted for something else. But a moderate price hike (caused by the tariff) will only encourage the manufacturer to sell at a higher quality point. Which means lower sales but more durable appliances with a higher unit profit margin; also being better for the environment.

 

[RVonse]

But look at everyone else in congress. Look at Nancy Pelosi who is better at stock trading than Warren Buffet. She has become internet famous at insider trading and when you have redit followers who do nothing else but track what Pelosi buys and sells for their own personal gain, that's when you know the corruption has arrived.

I literally have no fucking idea what this is supposed to mean. Pelosi is using redit for insider trading so therefore she is no different than Trump? Wake me when she starts gassing protestors for a photo op.

Second me on WTF? Buffett worth over $100 billion; Pelosi around $50 million, who better at what? Pelosi famous trader....ROTFLMAO...evidence??? Nah, bat shit alt-right delusions....

She is worth $114.7 million https://thesuccessbug.com/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/

But to be fair, there are people claiming she is worth anywhere from 50 million to 250 million searching google. Finding an unbiased source of anything on the internet is pretty difficult but this guy strikes me as only interested in making money and not spinning for political purpose. Here:



For all of us peons, there are supposed to be laws against trading on insider information; example Martha Stewart. In general, society considers it unfair for the people (such as CEO's) to take unfair advantage in the stock market from their insider information. But those laws don't seem to matter to the elites in Washington. Those same elites who make the laws that only we have to follow! Perhaps they are even following the supposed laws they crafted to get around.....but if you want to apologize for them then you are clearly part of the problem!

Sometimes you really are your own worst enemy on trying to get any point across. You said multiple outlandish things, but now you spend time on maybe Pelosi is worth $114.7 million (like listing the $700,000 part of it was useful). Whether she is worth $40M or $240M, it is a drop in the bucket compared to Buffett. 2 things make this silly out of the gate. First the public doesn't get to know Congressional critters net worth down to the exact amount; and secondly, at that net worth it changes daily anyway. Hell, my net worth is down 1% this morning. So how about dropping such silly shit?

So some Youtuber, is quoting another Youtuber, and all of a sudden, Pelosi is more followed than Buffett? Again, WTF? Do you know how many people follow what Buffett's Berkshire? I only watched about 2 minutes of that silly Youtube, and wow Pelosi purportedly made $16 million that year. I did well in 2020, as even from 3,000 miles away, I recognized the threat to the economy and the BS from Clownstick. It wasn't a tough year to make good money on the markets, so so what?

I recently commented specifically on the subject on whether Congressional Critters aught to be restricted on owning stocks (my short view is that they should be restricted from owning individual stock), see linky:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Congresspeople owning corporate stock: "We're a free market economy"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes banning stock buys by Congress members House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scoffed Wednesday at the idea of banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from owning shares of individual companies, despite the possibilities for conflicts of interest between their...

iidb.org

The Critters have always been corrupt at this level, and over the years, the Repugs have certainly been the more significant defender of such allowances. Hell, it was just a few cycles ago, that the Repugs selected a hedge fund manager (scamming the system legally as if the money he was getting to paid, was only taxed as long term capital gains) as their nominee to be president...

So we all agree they are all crooks. Or at best, they are using their office as a profit making enterprise for themselves.. Sounds like what the Democrats said about Trump.....

 

[ZiprHead]

So we all agree they are all crooks. Or at best, they are using their office as a profit making enterprise for themselves.. Sounds like what the Democrats said about Trump.....

Oh, but we said so much more.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But look at everyone else in congress. Look at Nancy Pelosi who is better at stock trading than Warren Buffet. She has become internet famous at insider trading and when you have redit followers who do nothing else but track what Pelosi buys and sells for their own personal gain, that's when you know the corruption has arrived.

I literally have no fucking idea what this is supposed to mean. Pelosi is using redit for insider trading so therefore she is no different than Trump? Wake me when she starts gassing protestors for a photo op.

Second me on WTF? Buffett worth over $100 billion; Pelosi around $50 million, who better at what? Pelosi famous trader....ROTFLMAO...evidence??? Nah, bat shit alt-right delusions....

She is worth $114.7 million https://thesuccessbug.com/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/

But to be fair, there are people claiming she is worth anywhere from 50 million to 250 million searching google. Finding an unbiased source of anything on the internet is pretty difficult but this guy strikes me as only interested in making money and not spinning for political purpose. Here:



For all of us peons, there are supposed to be laws against trading on insider information; example Martha Stewart. In general, society considers it unfair for the people (such as CEO's) to take unfair advantage in the stock market from their insider information. But those laws don't seem to matter to the elites in Washington. Those same elites who make the laws that only we have to follow! Perhaps they are even following the supposed laws they crafted to get around.....but if you want to apologize for them then you are clearly part of the problem!

Sometimes you really are your own worst enemy on trying to get any point across. You said multiple outlandish things, but now you spend time on maybe Pelosi is worth $114.7 million (like listing the $700,000 part of it was useful). Whether she is worth $40M or $240M, it is a drop in the bucket compared to Buffett. 2 things make this silly out of the gate. First the public doesn't get to know Congressional critters net worth down to the exact amount; and secondly, at that net worth it changes daily anyway. Hell, my net worth is down 1% this morning. So how about dropping such silly shit?

So some Youtuber, is quoting another Youtuber, and all of a sudden, Pelosi is more followed than Buffett? Again, WTF? Do you know how many people follow what Buffett's Berkshire? I only watched about 2 minutes of that silly Youtube, and wow Pelosi purportedly made $16 million that year. I did well in 2020, as even from 3,000 miles away, I recognized the threat to the economy and the BS from Clownstick. It wasn't a tough year to make good money on the markets, so so what?

I recently commented specifically on the subject on whether Congressional Critters aught to be restricted on owning stocks (my short view is that they should be restricted from owning individual stock), see linky:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Congresspeople owning corporate stock: "We're a free market economy"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes banning stock buys by Congress members House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scoffed Wednesday at the idea of banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from owning shares of individual companies, despite the possibilities for conflicts of interest between their...

iidb.org

The Critters have always been corrupt at this level, and over the years, the Repugs have certainly been the more significant defender of such allowances. Hell, it was just a few cycles ago, that the Repugs selected a hedge fund manager (scamming the system legally as if the money he was getting to paid, was only taxed as long term capital gains) as their nominee to be president...

So we all agree they are all crooks. Or at best, they are using their office as a profit making enterprise for themselves.. Sounds like what the Democrats said about Trump.....

Fair enough. They are all crooks. To be honest, I feel that any person running for office today is also probably a looney tune or something. But here's a critical difference: Trump tried to steal our election. I can put up with a politician who is a crook, as I think that they are all. I can tolerate a politician whom I didn't vote for, and don't support, but who won his/her election. But a politician who wants to be my dictator, FORGET IT. Sorry for derail, but I remain shocked that anyone can continue to support Trump today.

 

[laughing dog]

Inflation is simply a measure of the rate of rising prices and goods. If you read the link above, the tarrifs increased consumer costs by $51 billion a year annually. How could it not be a contributor to inflation? As the cost of steel increases, the cost of every product that relies on steel increases.

I'm not saying the cost of steel has not gone up. Of course the cost of steel has gone up, that is why the steel firms are finally making money. And I'm also not saying the cost of Whirlpool dishwashers have not gone up (I haven't checked prices recently). If Whirlpool has to buy steel then they either raise their price or make less profit themselves, no argument there.

What I am saying is that steel has inflated far less than other items which bear a much higher societal cost for all of us. If you can not afford to buy a Whirlpool dishwasher, whats going to happen? Probably wash them by hand. But if you can not afford to buy a critical drug you might actually die. Yet you and others will make a big deal out of union workers finally making middle class money while nothing gets said about the drug pirate pharmaceuticals who are really raking it in right now. Or the education system who over charges way too much for providing too little.

What is the inflation rate of medicine right now compared to steel? What is the societal damage done by having labor going broke while the monopoly medical industry rakes it? I'm saying it is time to use some common sense and that the US is not in danger of union workers making too much money right now.

This is not rocket science. The cost of the people you support getting what you consider decent wages is that other people have to pay more for things they wish or need to buy. Clearly in your view, the increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone (including union workers) have to pay.

I have no problem with anyone getting higher wages. But there are better policies to improve wages than by hurting others. For example, real pro-union candidates would support better labor laws to even the playing field - something the GOP has never done. Pro-labor candidates would support better and less costly training in the trades - something GOP has not done. Pro-labor candidates would support better infrastructure spending and a tax structure that does burden the lower classes to pay for it - something the GOP has never done.

 

[funinspace]

But look at everyone else in congress. Look at Nancy Pelosi who is better at stock trading than Warren Buffet. She has become internet famous at insider trading and when you have redit followers who do nothing else but track what Pelosi buys and sells for their own personal gain, that's when you know the corruption has arrived.

I literally have no fucking idea what this is supposed to mean. Pelosi is using redit for insider trading so therefore she is no different than Trump? Wake me when she starts gassing protestors for a photo op.

Second me on WTF? Buffett worth over $100 billion; Pelosi around $50 million, who better at what? Pelosi famous trader....ROTFLMAO...evidence??? Nah, bat shit alt-right delusions....

She is worth $114.7 million https://thesuccessbug.com/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/

But to be fair, there are people claiming she is worth anywhere from 50 million to 250 million searching google. Finding an unbiased source of anything on the internet is pretty difficult but this guy strikes me as only interested in making money and not spinning for political purpose. Here:



For all of us peons, there are supposed to be laws against trading on insider information; example Martha Stewart. In general, society considers it unfair for the people (such as CEO's) to take unfair advantage in the stock market from their insider information. But those laws don't seem to matter to the elites in Washington. Those same elites who make the laws that only we have to follow! Perhaps they are even following the supposed laws they crafted to get around.....but if you want to apologize for them then you are clearly part of the problem!

Sometimes you really are your own worst enemy on trying to get any point across. You said multiple outlandish things, but now you spend time on maybe Pelosi is worth $114.7 million (like listing the $700,000 part of it was useful). Whether she is worth $40M or $240M, it is a drop in the bucket compared to Buffett. 2 things make this silly out of the gate. First the public doesn't get to know Congressional critters net worth down to the exact amount; and secondly, at that net worth it changes daily anyway. Hell, my net worth is down 1% this morning. So how about dropping such silly shit?

So some Youtuber, is quoting another Youtuber, and all of a sudden, Pelosi is more followed than Buffett? Again, WTF? Do you know how many people follow what Buffett's Berkshire? I only watched about 2 minutes of that silly Youtube, and wow Pelosi purportedly made $16 million that year. I did well in 2020, as even from 3,000 miles away, I recognized the threat to the economy and the BS from Clownstick. It wasn't a tough year to make good money on the markets, so so what?

I recently commented specifically on the subject on whether Congressional Critters aught to be restricted on owning stocks (my short view is that they should be restricted from owning individual stock), see linky:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Congresspeople owning corporate stock: "We're a free market economy"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes banning stock buys by Congress members House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scoffed Wednesday at the idea of banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from owning shares of individual companies, despite the possibilities for conflicts of interest between their...

iidb.org

The Critters have always been corrupt at this level, and over the years, the Repugs have certainly been the more significant defender of such allowances. Hell, it was just a few cycles ago, that the Repugs selected a hedge fund manager (scamming the system legally as if the money he was getting to paid, was only taxed as long term capital gains) as their nominee to be president...

So we all agree they are all crooks. Or at best, they are using their office as a profit making enterprise for themselves..

That is all you got out of that...sigh...

Sounds like what the Democrats said about Trump.....

Not really in reality...but what's reality got to do with it, right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sometimes you really are your own worst enemy on trying to get any point across. You said multiple outlandish things, but now you spend time on maybe Pelosi is worth $114.7 million (like listing the $700,000 part of it was useful). Whether she is worth $40M or $240M, it is a drop in the bucket compared to Buffett. 2 things make this silly out of the gate. First the public doesn't get to know Congressional critters net worth down to the exact amount; and secondly, at that net worth it changes daily anyway. Hell, my net worth is down 1% this morning. So how about dropping such silly shit?

So some Youtuber, is quoting another Youtuber, and all of a sudden, Pelosi is more followed than Buffett? Again, WTF? Do you know how many people follow what Buffett's Berkshire? I only watched about 2 minutes of that silly Youtube, and wow Pelosi purportedly made $16 million that year. I did well in 2020, as even from 3,000 miles away, I recognized the threat to the economy and the BS from Clownstick. It wasn't a tough year to make good money on the markets, so so what?

I recently commented specifically on the subject on whether Congressional Critters aught to be restricted on owning stocks (my short view is that they should be restricted from owning individual stock), see linky:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Congresspeople owning corporate stock: "We're a free market economy"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes banning stock buys by Congress members House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scoffed Wednesday at the idea of banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from owning shares of individual companies, despite the possibilities for conflicts of interest between their...

iidb.org

The Critters have always been corrupt at this level, and over the years, the Repugs have certainly been the more significant defender of such allowances. Hell, it was just a few cycles ago, that the Repugs selected a hedge fund manager (scamming the system legally as if the money he was getting to paid, was only taxed as long term capital gains) as their nominee to be president...

So we all agree they are all crooks. Or at best, they are using their office as a profit making enterprise for themselves.. Sounds like what the Democrats said about Trump.....

Moore-Coulter, and a lazy one at that!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no problem with anyone getting higher wages. But there are better policies to improve wages than by hurting others. For example, real pro-union candidates would support better labor laws to even the playing field - something the GOP has never done. Pro-labor candidates would support better and less costly training in the trades - something GOP has not done. Pro-labor candidates would support better infrastructure spending and a tax structure that does burden the lower classes to pay for it - something the GOP has never done.

Fundamentally, unions work by restricting the supply of labor. Things which actually benefit labor as a whole are going to hurt unions.

Thus we have the Republicans who hate both labor and unions and we have the Democrats that like the union contributions. Labor doesn't make meaningful campaign contributions and thus it's nobody's priority.

 

[Patooka]

So we all agree they are all crooks

Of course. What we also clearly disagree upon is the existence of the word equivalent. We also disagree on levels of extremity. You are clearly ignorant of such words I suspect, let me know if you want a lesson.

I am always happy to help.

 

[RVonse]

I have no problem with anyone getting higher wages. But there are better policies to improve wages than by hurting others. For example, real pro-union candidates would support better labor laws to even the playing field - something the GOP has never done. Pro-labor candidates would support better and less costly training in the trades - something GOP has not done. Pro-labor candidates would support better infrastructure spending and a tax structure that does burden the lower classes to pay for it - something the GOP has never done.

Fundamentally, unions work by restricting the supply of labor. Things which actually benefit labor as a whole are going to hurt unions.

Thus we have the Republicans who hate both labor and unions and we have the Democrats that like the union contributions. Labor doesn't make meaningful campaign contributions and thus it's nobody's priority.

I 100% agree with you on both counts. Unions do work by restricting labor, and non organized labor will not be represented in our political structure.

Which is exactly why all the middle class needs to be unionized before whats left of them gets entirely slaughtered.

 

[RVonse]

Inflation is simply a measure of the rate of rising prices and goods. If you read the link above, the tarrifs increased consumer costs by $51 billion a year annually. How could it not be a contributor to inflation? As the cost of steel increases, the cost of every product that relies on steel increases.

I'm not saying the cost of steel has not gone up. Of course the cost of steel has gone up, that is why the steel firms are finally making money. And I'm also not saying the cost of Whirlpool dishwashers have not gone up (I haven't checked prices recently). If Whirlpool has to buy steel then they either raise their price or make less profit themselves, no argument there.

What I am saying is that steel has inflated far less than other items which bear a much higher societal cost for all of us. If you can not afford to buy a Whirlpool dishwasher, whats going to happen? Probably wash them by hand. But if you can not afford to buy a critical drug you might actually die. Yet you and others will make a big deal out of union workers finally making middle class money while nothing gets said about the drug pirate pharmaceuticals who are really raking it in right now. Or the education system who over charges way too much for providing too little.

What is the inflation rate of medicine right now compared to steel? What is the societal damage done by having labor going broke while the monopoly medical industry rakes it? I'm saying it is time to use some common sense and that the US is not in danger of union workers making too much money right now.

This is not rocket science. The cost of the people you support getting what you consider decent wages is that other people have to pay more for things they wish or need to buy. Clearly in your view, the increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone (including union workers) have to pay.

Yes, you are right to say I believe an increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone pays. But the price increases are only temporary because the reduction in sales drives management to increase productivity with technology and automation. The end result is that everyone is better off.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My emphasis

This is not rocket science. The cost of the people you support getting what you consider decent wages is that other people have to pay more for things they wish or need to buy. Clearly in your view, the increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone (including union workers) have to pay.

Yes, you are right to say I believe an increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone pays. But the price increases are only temporary because the reduction in sales drives management to increase productivity with technology and automation. The end result is that everyone is better off.

*spit take*

You should be barred from discussing what benefits labor with that one.

 

[laughing dog]

Inflation is simply a measure of the rate of rising prices and goods. If you read the link above, the tarrifs increased consumer costs by $51 billion a year annually. How could it not be a contributor to inflation? As the cost of steel increases, the cost of every product that relies on steel increases.

I'm not saying the cost of steel has not gone up. Of course the cost of steel has gone up, that is why the steel firms are finally making money. And I'm also not saying the cost of Whirlpool dishwashers have not gone up (I haven't checked prices recently). If Whirlpool has to buy steel then they either raise their price or make less profit themselves, no argument there.

What I am saying is that steel has inflated far less than other items which bear a much higher societal cost for all of us. If you can not afford to buy a Whirlpool dishwasher, whats going to happen? Probably wash them by hand. But if you can not afford to buy a critical drug you might actually die. Yet you and others will make a big deal out of union workers finally making middle class money while nothing gets said about the drug pirate pharmaceuticals who are really raking it in right now. Or the education system who over charges way too much for providing too little.

What is the inflation rate of medicine right now compared to steel? What is the societal damage done by having labor going broke while the monopoly medical industry rakes it? I'm saying it is time to use some common sense and that the US is not in danger of union workers making too much money right now.

This is not rocket science. The cost of the people you support getting what you consider decent wages is that other people have to pay more for things they wish or need to buy. Clearly in your view, the increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone (including union workers) have to pay.

Yes, you are right to say I believe an increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone pays. But the price increases are only temporary because the reduction in sales drives management to increase productivity with technology and automation. The end result is that everyone is better off.

In my experience, losses in sales usually means losses of jobs in those industries. Plus, why wouldn't you think that the increase in productivity also means fewer union jobs? For example, the largest contributing factor outside of falls in demand r to the loss of mining jobs is increased productivity.

 

[RVonse]

Inflation is simply a measure of the rate of rising prices and goods. If you read the link above, the tarrifs increased consumer costs by $51 billion a year annually. How could it not be a contributor to inflation? As the cost of steel increases, the cost of every product that relies on steel increases.

I'm not saying the cost of steel has not gone up. Of course the cost of steel has gone up, that is why the steel firms are finally making money. And I'm also not saying the cost of Whirlpool dishwashers have not gone up (I haven't checked prices recently). If Whirlpool has to buy steel then they either raise their price or make less profit themselves, no argument there.

What I am saying is that steel has inflated far less than other items which bear a much higher societal cost for all of us. If you can not afford to buy a Whirlpool dishwasher, whats going to happen? Probably wash them by hand. But if you can not afford to buy a critical drug you might actually die. Yet you and others will make a big deal out of union workers finally making middle class money while nothing gets said about the drug pirate pharmaceuticals who are really raking it in right now. Or the education system who over charges way too much for providing too little.

What is the inflation rate of medicine right now compared to steel? What is the societal damage done by having labor going broke while the monopoly medical industry rakes it? I'm saying it is time to use some common sense and that the US is not in danger of union workers making too much money right now.

This is not rocket science. The cost of the people you support getting what you consider decent wages is that other people have to pay more for things they wish or need to buy. Clearly in your view, the increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone (including union workers) have to pay.

Yes, you are right to say I believe an increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone pays. But the price increases are only temporary because the reduction in sales drives management to increase productivity with technology and automation. The end result is that everyone is better off.

In my experience, losses in sales usually means losses of jobs in those industries. Plus, why wouldn't you think that the increase in productivity also means fewer union jobs? For example, the largest contributing factor outside of falls in demand r to the loss of mining jobs is increased productivity.

In the very short term, automation does result in a loss of jobs. Management will try to tell you otherwise... that their robot jobs will be offset by technician jobs. But the reality is that the technology would not help if it did not reduce overall overhead. So in the very short run there will be job loses no argument. But in the longer run, the automation increases productivity which increases everyone's standard of living which then leads to more sales and more job hiring.

Contrast such a business model using technology with your prefered liberal business model making profit by flooding the country with cheap labor. We get less technology, less automation, less standard of living, and EVERYONE is poorer except those at the very top.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the very short term, automation does result in a loss of jobs. Management will try to tell you otherwise... that their robot jobs will be offset by technician jobs. But the reality is that the technology would not help if it did not reduce overall overhead. So in the very short run there will be job loses no argument. But in the longer run, the automation increases productivity which increases everyone's standard of living which then leads to more sales and more job hiring.

Except in the field said workers were actually trained for! Coal workers have been displaced by automation since the 1980s, not cheap labor. Yet, coal miners are first to blame Obama and Hilary Clinton for killing coal. And the right-wingers love to echo the sentiment. And few of those workers want to shift over to the hospitality industry.

Contrast such a business model using technology with your prefered liberal business model making profit by flooding the country with cheap labor. We get less technology, less automation, less standard of living, and EVERYONE is poorer except those at the very top.

Liberal business model, the one that is adopted and loved by corporations regardless of political standing?

 

[RVonse]

Liberal business model, the one that is adopted and loved by corporations regardless of political standing?

Like it or not, its the liberals who prevented Trump from putting up his wall. And the wall might not have fixed the problem of labor flooding the country anyway. But because of the liberals we will never know.

 

[laughing dog]

Inflation is simply a measure of the rate of rising prices and goods. If you read the link above, the tarrifs increased consumer costs by $51 billion a year annually. How could it not be a contributor to inflation? As the cost of steel increases, the cost of every product that relies on steel increases.

I'm not saying the cost of steel has not gone up. Of course the cost of steel has gone up, that is why the steel firms are finally making money. And I'm also not saying the cost of Whirlpool dishwashers have not gone up (I haven't checked prices recently). If Whirlpool has to buy steel then they either raise their price or make less profit themselves, no argument there.

What I am saying is that steel has inflated far less than other items which bear a much higher societal cost for all of us. If you can not afford to buy a Whirlpool dishwasher, whats going to happen? Probably wash them by hand. But if you can not afford to buy a critical drug you might actually die. Yet you and others will make a big deal out of union workers finally making middle class money while nothing gets said about the drug pirate pharmaceuticals who are really raking it in right now. Or the education system who over charges way too much for providing too little.

What is the inflation rate of medicine right now compared to steel? What is the societal damage done by having labor going broke while the monopoly medical industry rakes it? I'm saying it is time to use some common sense and that the US is not in danger of union workers making too much money right now.

This is not rocket science. The cost of the people you support getting what you consider decent wages is that other people have to pay more for things they wish or need to buy. Clearly in your view, the increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone (including union workers) have to pay.

Yes, you are right to say I believe an increase in nominal wages is more important than the increased prices that everyone pays. But the price increases are only temporary because the reduction in sales drives management to increase productivity with technology and automation. The end result is that everyone is better off.

In my experience, losses in sales usually means losses of jobs in those industries. Plus, why wouldn't you think that the increase in productivity also means fewer union jobs? For example, the largest contributing factor outside of falls in demand r to the loss of mining jobs is increased productivity.

In the very short term, automation does result in a loss of jobs. Management will try to tell you otherwise... that their robot jobs will be offset by technician jobs. But the reality is that the technology would not help if it did not reduce overall overhead. So in the very short run there will be job loses no argument. But in the longer run, the automation increases productivity which increases everyone's standard of living which then leads to more sales and more job hiring.

We are all dead in the long run.

Contrast such a business model using technology with your prefered liberal business model making profit by flooding the country with cheap labor. We get less technology, less automation, less standard of living, and EVERYONE is poorer except those at the very top.

You have no idea what my preferred method is. But clearly your description is inaccurate because the cheap labor is made better off, otherwise they will leave or not have come in the first place.

My point is the wall is a simple and ineffective panacea.

 

[Elixir]

the wall might not have fixed the problem of labor flooding the country anyway. But because of the liberals we will never know.

Since lack of walls was never the problem in the first place, it’s rather fantastical to think a wall would solve it. The Wall remains a vanity project and a populist political tool, erected with taxpayer money to unite Republican racists in xenophobic paroxysms of fear of The Others.

 

[ZiprHead]

Which is exactly why all the middle class needs to be unionized before whats left of them gets entirely slaughtered.

Yet you support Trump and the righties who are all highly anti union.