# Does it take a pitchfork?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

No one earning the current minimum wage of about $15,000 per year can aspire to live decently, much less raise a family. As a result, almost all workers subsisting on those low earnings need panoply of taxpayer-supported benefits, including the earned income tax credit, food stamps, Medicaid or housing subsidies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government spent $316 billion on programs designed to help the poor in 2012.

That means the current $7.25 minimum wage forces taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and other large employers, effectively socializing their labor costs. This is great for Wal-Mart and its shareholders, but terrible for America. It is both unjust and inefficient.

A higher minimum wage would also make low-income families less dependent on government programs: The CBO report shows that the federal government gives about $8,800 in annual assistance to the lowest-income households but only $4,000 to households earning $35,500, which would be about the level of earnings of a worker making $15 an hour.

An objection to a significant wage increase is that it would force employers to shed workers. Yet the evidence points the other way: Workers earn more and spend more, increasing demand and helping businesses grow.

Critics of raising the minimum wage also say it will lead to more outsourcing and job loss. Yet virtually all of these low-wage jobs are service jobs that can neither be outsourced nor automated.

Raising the earnings of all American workers would provide all businesses with more customers with more to spend. Seeing the economy as Henry Ford did would redirect our country toward a high-growth future that works for all.

(Nick Hanauer *[the guy in the video]* is a founder of Second Avenue Partners, a venture capital company in Seattle specializing in early-stage startups and emerging technology. He has founded or financed dozens of companies, including aQuantive Inc. and Amazon.com, and is the co-author of two books, “The True Patriot” and “The Gardens of Democracy.”)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/capitalism-minimum-wage_n_3472118.html


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

If booming, high cost-of-living Seattle had a hard time absorbing a $13 an hour minimum wage last year without experiencing negative employment effects (reduced hours, jobs and earnings for low-wage workers), it will have an even more difficult time dealing with the additional $2 an hour increase that took place on January 1,2017 without even greater negative consequences. 

And if Seattle’s risky experiment with a $15 an hour minimum wage represents the “canary in the coal mine” for cities around the country that want to increase their minimum wages to $15 an hour, those cities may want to hold off for a few years to get a final count of the “dead canaries” in Seattle before proceeding.

https://fee.org/articles/seattles-1...3aT0zxTR88f7S5zYPxme0FbI0aC7ql14aAschEALw_wcB


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

It is called 'minimal' wage for a reason. it always should be the minimal. All models generated show that raising minimal wage harms the poor, as it raises costs and thus more people are shoved down into it. period. It does not lift the poor up. those making $15/hr now would then be making minimal wage if it was raised to $15/hr. that is horrible. basically, it is working for seattle, because they are the only ones doing it, so therefor of course people want to go there. if his model ever worked, then why not raise the minimal wage to $50/hr? why not make everyone a millionaire? Of course plutocrats didnt make the country everyone knows the working class is what does the work, thus it is them/us who make the country. but to do that, it has to be reasonable costs involved.
plutocrats are always worried about pitchforks. always. who , who has is not worried about those who do not? just common sense. those who do not have nothing to worry about at all, they have nothing to lose. This guy is just a ponce imo. It certainly can lastt, and certainly has lasted for pretty much the entire history of the world. even if one has a lot of money they do not have to go around showing it around or flashing it..so his argument is really mostly moot. but hey, I'm not going to convince the
guy not to give me all his money to free himself from such burdens... I say lets encourage it.

in the thread about the median wage increases we mentioned the truth of inflation, why, is because that always happens and always will happen. bet it is happening in seattle also. it just does not work as a real sustainable model, nor can it work. Simple supply and demand. the more money people have, the less it is really worth. The less it is worth, the more people will charge for it to buy something of whatever value. period.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

LA, San Fran, DC, NYC, Seattle have new pitchforks. Maybe other places do too.

http://time.com/3969977/minimum-wage/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Why was Henry Ford so bold? No law (pitchfork) forced him to raise wages.

In 1914, Henry Ford raised his workers' pay to $5 a day, more than doubling wages.

This is equivalent to $123 in 2018 dollars, or about $15.41 per hour.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

If all employees at Amazon were paid equally they would make over $207,000 per year. The average employee at Amazon makes $30,000 per year today.

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bezos' net worth on Jan. 1 was *$99 billion*. On May 1, it was $132 billion, meaning it rose $33 billion. If you divide that difference by the 120 days in that period, you find that he made $275 million a day as of May 2, 2018


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Ok. I don’t buy into the argument that all employees should be paid equally.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Ok. I don’t buy into the argument that all employees should be paid equally.


Nor do I


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Ok. I don’t buy into the argument that all employees should be paid equally.


For the sake of argument, do you agree that Bezos should make $275 million a day while the average Amazon worker makes $30,000?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Not biting on that.

I will state that the government should not mandate redistribution of his wealth.

The whole situation is a social experiment. Some states are getting on that bandwagon early, which gives us the opportunity to see what happens. 

I am perfectly content to watch and wait.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Not biting on that.
> 
> I will state that the government should not mandate redistribution of wealth.


I am not suggesting that either.

If I were King there would be no minimum wage laws.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Not biting on that.
> 
> I will state that the government should not mandate redistribution of his wealth.
> 
> ...


Now that you edited you comment. I'll amend my reply.

You are missing my point, and I think the point of the vid guy. I can understand why you did. He went right to the use of law to raise wages, and never even hinted at altruistic (for lack of a better term) efforts of the mega wealthy. He took us right to a pitchfork. He made the point very poorly.

A society will rebel, either by law, or by force, when income disparity hits a tipping point. Full bellies forestall the tipping point, but might not prevent the death of the capitalist by a thousand cuts (new laws).

Henry Ford was wise (I would argue against his magnanimity) to pay his workers more and stick less in his own pocket.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

I am not majorly for minimal wage laws, but I am ok with them, to prevent exploitation. but that is it...merely to prevent exploitation, not to force people to be paid what they deem is comfortable wages or enough to get what they want when they want it, or this or that. I also do not believe in telling others what their ceilings should be and limits they can earn. this is America....there shouldnt be ceilings if they can achieve it. The people are the ones who do the speaking and decide how it should be. We decide if we buy a companies products for the amount they are selling them for and thus pay their CEO's and such what they pay them. or we can decide to simply not buy the products of companies that pay their CEOs too much.
We can also have consumer watch dog groups that inform the public of how much products are worth and how much they are paying their CEO's/etc. especially compared to their regular workers. nothing wrong with that, imo.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

HDRider said:


> A society will rebel, either by law, or by force, when income disparity hits a tipping point. Full bellies forestall the tipping point, but might not prevent the death of the capitalist by a thousand cuts (new laws).
> 
> Henry Ford was wise (I would argue against his magnanimity) to pay his workers more and stick less in his own pocket.


you are sort of all over the map here. it is called a tipping point for that very reason so of course, society rebelling is part of the cycle and fine, but these so called plutocrats being wise by doing this, means they are really serving themselves anyways, so it isn't like they are doing it for anyone else's benefit...and if they stave off rebellion that way, then they will also find numerous other ways to stave it off, be it by making it appear they really are not gaining the money they are gaining and covering it up, or some other means. usually more diversification. This guy didnt become he billionaire he is by giving his money away to others, so he is just talking out of the side of his mouth. The reality is more than likely this guy knows he is above average. when you are above average, you really want to flood the world with money...why? because you know when it comes down to it you will get more than your share of it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am against a giant income gap. I do believe that working people can be exploited by employers.

As an alternative to minimum wage laws - 

What if there was a law that said no employee can make more than 100 times the lowest paid worker? 100 is an arbitrary number, it might should be 10, or 1,000, I don't know.

For example, say I own HD Inc. I make $100 per hour, and the law says I can pay you no less than $1 per hour.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think I was editing for clarity while you were posting. 

I have so solutions because I believe that unintended consequences will result, no matter what laws are enacted on the minimum wage.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I am against a giant income gap. I do believe that working people can be exploited by employers.
> 
> As an alternative to minimum wage laws -
> 
> ...


What happens when the work you do produces income of 200% compared to the guy making the buck? What about the entrepreneur that plows his profit back into the business?

Income ceilings seem like they could stifle growth.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

a simplification I know. It is an argument I,ve made before. Some times I take one side sometimes the other. If Walmart (I generally use Weyerhaeuser as an example because my BIL works for Weyerhaeuser) is required to raise wages the corporation raises the price of 2x4's or whatever it is they sell.

I would gladly work for $1.50 an hour if milk was .27 a litre eggs were .55 a dozen as the prices were in the early 1960's. My first job paid $.85 an hour running a scythe cutting grass on an air force base. 

Somehow we need to convince corporations that dividends and other corporate payouts need not be so large. We are our own worst enemy if we were to stop buying cars, computers, baseball tickets, gasoline, whatever it is we buy, prices would drop. A brand new Suzuki Alto in India sells retail for around $3,500.00 USD or 2.7 lakh Ruppees.

We consumers are too often sucked in by advertising paying a premium for the newest or latest product.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think I was editing for clarity while you were posting.
> 
> I have so solutions because I believe that unintended consequences will result, no matter what laws are enacted on the minimum wage.


It won't work so we should ignore the growing income gap.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> What happens when the work you do produces income of 200% compared to the guy making the buck? What about the entrepreneur that plows his profit back into the business?
> 
> Income ceilings seem like they could stifle growth.


So there is no answer


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think I was editing for clarity while you were posting.
> 
> I have so solutions because I believe that *unintended consequences* will result, no matter what laws are enacted on the minimum wage.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> So there is no answer


If it truly bothered people I think folks might revolt, I mean look at the early 20th century with the advent of labor revolting for wages working conditions etc.

I'm no fan of the system myself so I opted early on to employ myself.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> If it truly bothered people I think folks might revolt, I mean look at the early 20th century with the advent of labor revolting for wages working conditions etc.
> 
> I'm no fan of the system myself so I opted early on to employ myself.


Again, you missed my main point, there is a "revolt" of sorts now in these new minimum wage laws.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Not sure if that was a question or a statement when HDRider said to ignore the gap. 

I simply said that I am not offering a solution.

There are plenty of other folks to do that. I don’t think any of those other folks know all of the consequences of any of the solutions.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Again, you missed my main point, there is a "revolt" of sorts now in these new minimum wage laws.


I don't see revolt so much as feel good appeasement, with corporations just as culpable as the politicos.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Not sure if that was a question or a statement when HDRider said to ignore the gap.
> 
> I simply said that I am not offering a solution.
> 
> There are plenty of other *folks to do that*. I don’t think any of those other folks know all of the consequences of any of the solutions.


They are in the form new minimum wage laws. I see them as placebo, and it is having negative effects, such as work hours being reduce.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> I don't see revolt so much as feel good appeasement, with corporations just as culpable as the politicos.


There is no shortage of culpability.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Yes, I have seen that, too, and the order kiosks instead of employees.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> There is no shortage of culpability.


Nope probably not.

It's the chances you take putting your well being in the hands of others.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

It seems many here are seeing the "mandated" minimum wage and stopping their thought process there. A point that I took away from his talk is something so basic it is unavoidable to realize that it is a major component of the solution. I do not know if Henry Ford ever did what he did solely to turn his employees into future customers but look, every business is constantly looking to increase the number of customers to/of their product, which, if successful requires more productivity or more workers. If these people are turned into customers then there is more production needed. 

It seems that turning employees into those that bolster the liquidity of our currency by allowing them to purchase more that they would if they were stuck with the $.14 raise rather than the $1.14 raise [hypothetical numbers] then that would seem to pull those that are poor by choice or by circumstance out of the doldrums of having to decide to join the work force and make just a little bit more than welfare or the possibility of joining the workforce to earn a substantially larger wage thereby leaving the welfare roles behind.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> Nope probably not.
> 
> It's the chances you take putting your well being in the hands of others.


Everyone, to some degree, is dependent on others.

Your pursuit of self employment is great. Everyone should do it


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Years ago I was talking with a friend telling them the world be better off without Minimum Wage that other stuff would go down.

I know around here wage went from $14 an Hour down to $8 and Hour for several years. Stuff actually went up with people wanting more off what little they sold.

Now most making between $15 - $20 an Hour starting out and of course more stuff is being sold.

big rockpile


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Shine said:


> It seems many here are seeing the "mandated" minimum wage and stopping their thought process there. A point that I took away from his talk is something so basic it is unavoidable to realize that it is a major component of the solution. I do not know if Henry Ford ever did what he did solely to turn his employees into future customers but look, every business is constantly looking to increase the number of customers to/of their product, which, if successful requires more productivity or more workers. If these people are turned into customers then there is more production needed.
> 
> It seems that turning employees into those that bolster the liquidity of our currency by allowing them to purchase more that they would if they were stuck with the $.14 raise rather than the $1.14 raise [hypothetical numbers] then that would seem to pull those that are poor by choice or by circumstance out of the doldrums of having to decide to join the work force and make just a little bit more than welfare or the possibility of joining the workforce to earn a substantially larger wage thereby leaving the welfare roles behind.


In addition, government subsidies could be removed by paying the working poor enough to make them the working middle class.

Good to see that some folks can think.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

In November Michigan voters were posed to raise the minum wage by a considerable amount.

The republican majorty rulers in lansings state house past laws and the republican governor signed the bill over rulling what the voters could vote for.


https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hit...o-gut-12-per-hour-minimum-wage-paid-sick-time

 Al


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> It won't work so we should ignore the growing income gap.





Alice In TX/MO said:


> Not sure if that was a question or a statement when HDRider said to ignore the gap.
> 
> I simply said that I am not offering a solution.
> 
> There are plenty of other folks to do that. I don’t think any of those other folks know all of the consequences of any of the solutions.


That’s how I took your last response, Alice. 

Unintended consequences are inevitable, and could easily make things a lot worse for a lot of people (and not just those greedy 1%ers who have it coming to them).

At the risk of going nuclear in my first response, just for the perspective of the extreme, look at the “unintended consequences” of communism. The system with the most planned-in equality ends up with the highest inequity of wealth- every single time. 


Even after examining can we/should we do anything to fix it, though, I think we ask if we really need to. Wealth-distribution is somewhat cyclic. This is the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% and 0.5% from 1912 through 2012. 

The distribution rate of today that raises so many hackels is about what it was 80 years ago. 








https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...ics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

The important thing, in my opinion, for us to keep sight of is the fact that the economy is not a fixed-sum pool. All the while that the rich have been getting richer, the poor have been getting richer too. 

Earlier in the discussion, @HDRider , you brought up how Henry Ford magnanimously raised the wages of his work force. There were several things going on in that dynamic, though. First, Ford dramatically brought the cost of an automobile down, partly through increased efficiency, and partly through increased volume. 

Second, Ford was intentionally and overtly manipulating the market. In order to get his plant’s volumes up to peak-efficiency, he needed his workers to be able to buy the product they were making. His manipulation worked, and it ended up making things better for all slices of the economy. 

Automaking became a pillar of the US economy for decades, and the autoworker had dependable, high-paying jobs. 

...and the Ford family became horrendously filthy-rich. 


Ford’s gambit put the automobile in more carriages, put garages on more construction company’s bills, and put tons of money in Ford’s bank account. That’s the story of how the “pie” of the economy keeps getting bigger. 

When I was a kid, kids having their own television, in their rooms, was just becoming a thing that a child’s imagination could entertain. When my dad was a kid, having a single TV in the living room was something they could wish for. 

Now, even our poor have TVs, cell phones, a chance at going to college....



After we answer whether there really is a problem that _needs_ to be addressed, we have to confront the question of whether it would really be worth the risk of the unintended consequences.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> If all employees at Amazon were paid equally they would make over $207,000 per year. The average employee at Amazon makes $30,000 per year today.
> 
> According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bezos' net worth on Jan. 1 was *$99 billion*. On May 1, it was $132 billion, meaning it rose $33 billion. If you divide that difference by the 120 days in that period, you find that he made $275 million a day as of May 2, 2018


You have touched on two points that are near to my heart and I have spoken about them numerous times.
1.)Minimal workers, earning minimal wages, subsidized by the taxes paid by the working poor and middle class. 2.)while the ultra rich earn billions.

While I'm a strong supporter of Capitalism, the influence in laws and regulation are controlled by the top .1%, tipping the scales and stealing any chances for the 99.9% to reach their goals.
The super wealthy, decades ago, sought to shut up a political activist, an outsider, by making him the Vice President, generally the best way to silence anyone. But the unexpected death of their guy, put this outsider into the Oval Office. He broke up the monopolies in steel, oil and rail.

It is long past time to do it again and I'm afraid it cannot happen.

Interesting talk of pitchforks. That is a lesson the Jews in Germany won't forget. You can control an economy without having your name on the building. Plus, insure that the folks with the torches and pitchforks cannot touch your wealth.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Worth repeating @haypoint 

1.)Minimal workers, earning minimal wages, subsidized by the taxes paid by the working poor and middle class. 
2.)while the ultra rich earn billions.

While I'm a strong supporter of Capitalism, the influence in laws and regulation are controlled by the top .1%, tipping the scales and stealing any chances for the 99.9% to reach their goals.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

ydderf said:


> I would gladly work for $1.50 an hour if milk was .27 a litre


milk is $1.27/gallon here....so make sure you go tell your boss he got lucky.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

As mentioned earlier, Ford paid a good wage. Those wage earners began the consumer society that fueled the industrial revolution. More people owned homes, children got an education, lives got a whole lot better. Thee US was an industrial giant, encouraging innovation to a waiting consumer. When the poor didn't starve, their care came from neighbors or relatives. Welfare was a sack or rice or the Poor Farm.

When WWII broke out, our industrial capacity and inventiveness turned efforts to planes, tanks and munitions. Every able bodied man went to war. He had a tangible reason to support this country. A home, a family, a belief that hard work brought a better life to his family.

Today, much of our manufacturing capacity has been exported. Half of the population are on the government dole. Few are willing to lay down their life for this country. We have lost what it took to win 75 years ago.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

There needs to be a "don't like that fact, but sadly I agree with you" button


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

no there doesn't, at least not for this. the argument and premise doesn't even make sense. At the time, ford had only like 63k people working for it (only like 14k prior to the pay raise, which is why he did it.) that is it. Sorry but 63k people didnt start a consumer society, they didn't make the difference in buying fords products either, and that is not why Ford paid them that at all. the reason Ford paid them that mostly was due to him pissing people off, and needing the influx of workers at the time. He had a bulldozer mentality, and grandois plans, ergo when he decided to do what he was doing, he went all in and basically forced it. in his case it paid off 'that' time, mostly because he just bulldozed it through frankly.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

Tim worstall makes another valid point in a analysis he published:
"
Car production in the year before the pay rise was 170,000, in the year of it 202,000. As we can see above the total labour establishment was only 14,000 anyway. Even if all of his workers bought a car every year it wasn't going to make any but a marginal difference to the sales of the firm.

We can go further too. As we've seen the rise in the daily wage was from $2.25 to $5 (including the bonuses etc). Say 240 working days in the year and 14,000 workers and we get a rise in the pay bill of $9 1/4 million over the year. A Model T cost between $550 and $450 (depends on which year we're talking about). 14,000 cars sold at that price gives us $7 3/4 million to $6 1/4 million in income to the company.

It should be obvious that paying the workforce an extra $9 million so that they can then buy $7 million's worth of company production just isn't a way to increase your profits. It's a great way to increase your losses though."


So...ya...there is that too.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> For the sake of argument, do you agree that Bezos should make $275 million a day while the average Amazon worker makes $30,000?


Why not?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Now that you edited you comment. I'll amend my reply.
> 
> You are missing my point, and I think the point of the vid guy. I can understand why you did. He went right to the use of law to raise wages, and never even hinted at altruistic (for lack of a better term) efforts of the mega wealthy. He took us right to a pitchfork. He made the point very poorly.
> 
> ...


Henry was indeed wise.... Paying better wages and providing more bennies to his labor force reduced his costs overall be reducing the turnover rate and having to retrain employees constantly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> If all employees at Amazon were paid equally they would make over $207,000 per year. *The average employee at Amazon makes $30,000 per year today.*
> 
> According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bezos' net worth on Jan. 1 was *$99 billion*. On May 1, it was $132 billion, meaning it rose $33 billion. If you divide that difference by the 120 days in that period, you find that he made $275 million a day as of May 2, 2018


which is roughly half again what I make and live comfortably on.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> which is roughly half again what I make and live comfortably on.


True. I do make a little more, but by planning ahead, all my income, is basically tax free. Thanks to the doubling of the standard deduction. If you owe no one nothing, 30k a year is a lot of spending money.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

hardrock said:


> True. I do make a little more, but by planning ahead, all my income, is basically tax free. Thanks to the doubling of the standard deduction. If you owe no one nothing, 30k a year is a lot of spending money.


So true. $20k keeps me in essentials, liquor, smokes and gravy makins..... Plenty leftover for luxuries like toilet paper, coffee, pinto beans and hog jowl.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Why was Henry Ford so bold? No law (pitchfork) forced him to raise wages.
> 
> In 1914, Henry Ford raised his workers' pay to $5 a day, more than doubling wages.
> 
> This is equivalent to $123 in 2018 dollars, or about $15.41 per hour.


Not before he killed some of his workers and he was a rabid anti unionist.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bob M. said:


> no there doesn't, at least not for this. the argument and premise doesn't even make sense. At the time, ford had only like 63k people working for it (only like 14k prior to the pay raise, which is why he did it.) that is it. Sorry but 63k people didnt start a consumer society, they didn't make the difference in buying fords products either, and that is not why Ford paid them that at all. the reason Ford paid them that mostly was due to him pissing people off, and needing the influx of workers at the time. He had a bulldozer mentality, and grandois plans, ergo when he decided to do what he was doing, he went all in and basically forced it. in his case it paid off 'that' time, mostly because he just bulldozed it through frankly.


Henry ford paid more so that his workers would all buy fords. It's a take on the company store.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

That is why the 99% movement was steped on and squashed.

 Al


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> That is why the 99% movement was steped on and squashed.
> 
> Al


Could you explain what you mean by your comment.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Simply how the goverments ruled by the rich put a stop to the 99% movement. In Flint Michigan in public parks supposedly owned by the people for the peoples use the city ordered city police and the state police removed all the 99% protesters.
When they attemped to return they were arrested for vagrancy.

It happened in many citys across America.

 Al


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Thank you.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

well ya they were being idiots. parks 'owned' by the people are not owned just by 'those' people...ergo they do not deserve the right to control them, nor ruin them, nor live on them. Those parks are also owned by other people, like you and I, and well I don;t want them living in them or causing problems on them, and neither do many others. They can use them for their intended purposes which is ideal a place of beauty, tranquility and peace. you can walk on a sidewalk, you have no business forming a mob or being unruly and preventing others from walking on that sidewalk by bullying them or attempting to force your will upon them by making them feel uncomfortable because you believe one thing and they believe another.
And that applies to everyone fairly. we do not want or allow the police to setup and maintain riot barricades continuously to force others to do their will either, or religious groups, or politicians. peaceful demonstrations are fine, people are required to get a permit and keep within those permits. the KKK cannot move into a park and live in it by setting up tents. In times of emergency, we can allow people use public facilities, but it isn't a shelter for the homeless or vagrants to come and go as they wish, merely because they wish.
owned by the people does not mean owned by specific people. Ideally if it was legitimately owned by the people then those who pay more in taxes should actually own more of such things than those who do not clearly. If you pay for 75% of a business then you get 75% of the benefit and control of that business by right. I bet plenty of the goofs who were removed do not pay squat.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

There are many types of pitchforks - Laws and

As Amazon’s workforce has more than doubled over the past three years, workers at Amazon fulfillment center warehouses in the United States have started organizing and pushing toward forming a union to fight back against the company’s treatment of its workers.

Amazon’s global workforce reached more than 613,000 employees worldwide according to its latest quarterly earnings report, not including the 100,000 temporary employees the company hired for the holiday season.

Just a few months after Amazon opened its first New York-based fulfillment center in Staten Island, workers announced on 12 December the launch of a union push with help from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-warehouse-employees-union-new-york-minnesota


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ford paid more for the same reason almost any other company pays more to get reliable dedicated workers.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If we shut off immigration at some point there will come a working man shortage. At that point wages will go up. 
At that point those wages will decide what kind of work gets done in this country.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I have danced around it, and no one has even hinted at it as a possibility, I will throw it out there, and I expect most will reply with a resounding "NO WAY".

Could we ever expect a business owner to raise wages to *much* higher levels based on nothing but altruism?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> If we shut off immigration at some point there will come a working man shortage. At that point wages will go up.
> At that point those wages will decide what kind of work gets done in this country.


That should be a rallying point for a lot of people in the USA, but it is co-opted or suppressed by media and other social forces.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> I have danced around it, and no one has even hinted at it as a possibility, I will throw it out there, and I expect most will reply with a resounding "NO WAY".
> 
> Could we ever expect a business owner to raise wages to *much* higher levels based on nothing but altruism?


''NO WAY''. I don't have full time employees but I do pay more than their going rate if things get done in a timely and professional matter.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Clearly, Ford's far higher wage had the result in raising everyone's wage. Hard to tell if that was his intent. He paid a high wage to attract the best workers and insure a hard working team. Along with that high wage, he set guidelines that included caring for your family and other requirements that reached beyond the assembly line.

Interesting that just as the economy is picking up, thousands of new jobs, there is talk of politically raising the minimum wage. Seems that supply and demand would shove up wages on their own.

There is a risk of inflation when wages go up. In 1969 I earned $3.33 an hour and bought a new car for $2700. Clearly it is wages that pry people of the couch and out into the work force. I'd like to attack it from the other direction. Lower the amount of care the taxpayer provides the working poor. Make, "just getting by" less comfortable. People would be incentivized to seek out jobs with longer hours or higher pay, outside of the shrinking government hammock.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> ''NO WAY''. I don't have full time employees but I do pay more than their going rate if things get done in a timely and professional matter.


I have followed your postings for quite some time, and we seem of like mind. I respect your opinion and you seem very fair minded.

That said, do you see a further widening of the social gap to match the furthering income gap? Do you see disruptive forces coming into play driven, either emotionally or factually, because of the income gap reaching a tipping point?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Clearly, Ford's far higher wage had the result in raising everyone's wage. Hard to tell if that was his intent. He paid a high wage to attract the best workers and insure a hard working team. Along with that high wage, he set guidelines that included caring for your family and other requirements that reached beyond the assembly line.
> 
> Interesting that just as the economy is picking up, thousands of new jobs, there is talk of politically raising the minimum wage. Seems that supply and demand would shove up wages on their own.
> 
> There is a risk of inflation when wages go up. In 1969 I earned $3.33 an hour and bought a new car for $2700. Clearly it is wages that pry people of the couch and out into the work force. I'd like to attack it from the other direction. *Lower the amount of care the taxpayer provides the working poor. Make, "just getting by" less comfortable. People would be incentivized to seek out jobs with longer hours or higher pay, outside of the shrinking government hammock*.


I would consider that a pitchfork. BTW - I agree with the idea.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

In my '' line of work'' rental homes everything is supply and demand. When pay goes up so does the rent. When things slow down it's a buyers market for me in new purchases. I had two last year who became home owners. This is a pretty poor county with a lot of people on welfare.
There are a lot of people who just live here because they cant afford to live in Charlotte and just drive there and back to work. A decent handyman is $25 an hour. I had two yesterday change out a heat pump. That saved me over three grand. They were happy as well as I...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I have danced around it, and no one has even hinted at it as a possibility, I will throw it out there, and I expect most will reply with a resounding "NO WAY".
> 
> Could we ever expect a business owner to raise wages to *much* higher levels based on nothing but altruism?


Yes Ive seen it happen a few times.
It usually happens when he sells out, leaving the new owners to pay the higher wages.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> In my '' line of work'' rental homes everything is supply and demand. When pay goes up so does the rent. When things slow down it's a buyers market for me in new purchases. I had two last year who became home owners. This is a pretty poor county with a lot of people on welfare.
> There are a lot of people who just live here because they cant afford to live in Charlotte and just drive there and back to work. A decent handyman is $25 an hour. I had two yesterday change out a heat pump. That saved me over three grand. They were happy as well as I...


I lived in Fort Mill for 10 years. Worked in South Park


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes Ive seen it happen a few times.
> It usually happens when he sells out, leaving the new owners to pay the higher wages.


Not sure I'd call that "altruism".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

what would you call it?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Ford paid more for the same reason almost any other company pays more to get reliable dedicated workers.


If you read my earlier post you'll see why ford payed higher wages.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> I lived in Fort Mill for 10 years. Worked in South Park


I'm not sure I answered your questions. When things are good I will steal help from other landlords. When things go down hill those same people will be begging for work....


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

TripleD said:


> In my '' line of work'' rental homes everything is supply and demand. When pay goes up so does the rent. When things slow down it's a buyers market for me in new purchases. I had two last year who became home owners. This is a pretty poor county with a lot of people on welfare.
> There are a lot of people who just live here because they cant afford to live in Charlotte and just drive there and back to work. A decent handyman is $25 an hour. I had two yesterday change out a heat pump. That saved me over three grand. They were happy as well as I...


I guess you wouldn't like my solution. Cutting back on welfare (government subsidized housing) would put your rentals out of reach. Families faced with being homeless would have to seek employment (longer hours or higher pay) or double up in your rentals.
Seems that our elected officials aren't listening to the middle class, but are content in trading welfare benefits for votes. Slashing benefits for the able bodied non-contributing class might have the positive effect of getting them to take up pitchforks.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

haypoint said:


> I guess you wouldn't like my solution. Cutting back on welfare (government subsidized housing) would put your rentals out of reach. Families faced with being homeless would have to seek employment (longer hours or higher pay) or double up in your rentals.
> Seems that our elected officials aren't listening to the middle class, but are content in trading welfare benefits for votes. Slashing benefits for the able bodied non-contributing class might have the positive effect of getting them to take up pitchforks.


I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you mean in my purchases because I don't do section 8 . Dad does and I only rent to the ones who have jobs...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

TripleD said:


> I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you mean in my purchases because I don't do section 8 . Dad does and I only rent to the ones who have jobs...


I assumed that their rent was subsidized. But it works either way. Reduce any of (or all of) their subsidies and your rent starts to become a burden. Interesting that you rent to people that have jobs, yet receive taxpayer support. Cut that support and their 32 hours at minimum wage becomes not enough. All sorts of options. Move to obtain a higher pay. Get a second job. Screw the landlord out of his rent money. What I'm saying is that the current safety net has become a comfortable hammock for too many. Like the tween that gets spanked for the first time, likely be a lot of loud crying.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I have danced around it, and no one has even hinted at it as a possibility, I will throw it out there, and I expect most will reply with a resounding "NO WAY".
> 
> Could we ever expect a business owner to raise wages to *much* higher levels based on nothing but altruism?


Business owner yes it's possible and has happened, but a publicly traded company can't be altruistic


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

haypoint said:


> I assumed that their rent was subsidized. But it works either way. Reduce any of (or all of) their subsidies and your rent starts to become a burden. Interesting that you rent to people that have jobs, yet receive taxpayer support. Cut that support and their 32 hours at minimum wage becomes not enough. All sorts of options. Move to obtain a higher pay. Get a second job. Screw the landlord out of his rent money. What I'm saying is that the current safety net has become a comfortable hammock for too many. Like the tween that gets spanked for the first time, likely be a lot of loud crying.


I get the idea of the subsidies. Section 8 actively tries to get landlords including me to evict a tenant because they will pay more. I wont evict a family paying $750 per month on time who takes care of the place just to take a chance on $900 and not know...


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> That should be a rallying point for a lot of people in the USA, but it is co-opted or suppressed by media and other social forces.


Scial? Get rea,l the real driving force is business.

That's why we are talking about a stupid wall instead of holding employers accountable


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

TripleD said:


> I get the idea of the subsidies. Section 8 actively tries to get landlords including me to evict a tenant because they will pay more. I wont evict a family paying $750 per month on time who takes care of the place just to take a chance on $900 and not know...


How sweet of you. But those paying $750 a month won't if their utility subsidy goes away or their food stamps get cut. I'm talking a weaning process. Budgeting adjustments seem far away as long as the taxpayer funded subsidy checks show up on time. Some will seek better pay, some will work more hours, some will find areas with lower rent.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> Business owner yes it's possible and has happened, but a publicly traded company can't be altruistic


For a myriad of reasons.


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

HDRider said:


> Could we ever expect a business owner to raise wages to *much* higher levels based on nothing but altruism?


I do not think one can expect altruism ever really.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Every time I read the thread title, I think about unloading trucks full of dead babies.
Some will get the reference, but many won't.
You had to be there...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Every time I read the thread title, I think about unloading trucks full of dead babies.
> Some will get the reference, but many won't.
> You had to be there...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

For you BFF


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


>


You got it!
Congratulations!!!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SRSLADE said:


> If you read my earlier post you'll see why ford payed higher wages.


I read it. 
It was wrong.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

*Wages Up, Sales Up*

As for charges that Ford raised pay in pursuit of publicity, there’s no question that the Five-Dollar Day brought a spotlight on Ford Motor Company. But publicity is fleeting, and the Five-Dollar Day’s impact was far greater than newspaper headlines. Other automakers soon boosted their own wages to keep pace with Ford. Automobile parts suppliers followed suit. In time, workers in any number of fields were earning genuine “living wages” that afforded them comfort and security above basic food, shelter and clothing needs.

It’s no small detail that, as Henry Ford slyly observed, in the course of improving his employees’ standard of living, Ford also created a new pool of customers for his Model T. The Five-Dollar Day helped to bring members of America’s working class into its middle class. Better wages, combined with the affordable goods produced by the assembly line, are cornerstones of the prosperity that has characterized American life for so many of the past 100 years.

_Matt Anderson is Curator of Transportation of The Henry Ford._

wages


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

HDRider said:


> No one earning the current minimum wage of about $15,000 per year can aspire to live decently, much less raise a family. As a result, almost all workers subsisting on those low earnings need panoply of taxpayer-supported benefits, including the earned income tax credit, food stamps, Medicaid or housing subsidies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government spent $316 billion on programs designed to help the poor in 2012.
> 
> That means the current $7.25 minimum wage forces taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and other large employers, effectively socializing their labor costs. This is great for Wal-Mart and its shareholders, but terrible for America. It is both unjust and inefficient.
> 
> ...


i make $16/hr...and i'm living in a shack because i can not cover all the expenses of rent and the commute...it's a myth that we can eliminate poverty with money...it's also a myth that poor people get lots of support from the government...more government money goes into price support programs ...with example being the money being paid to folks to grow rice in California...things like $250 THOUSAND wells to irrigate the fields...rice is a water crop...cali is a desert...dates and olives are also subsidized; as is almost all food crops grown in the USA...most of these monies are funneled through USAid...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

@jerry arnold I put a high value on your opinion on this subject because of your choices and circumstances.

I do have to ask, how, other than money, does one eliminates poverty?


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

help those who help themselves...if we are gonna to give monies away to corporations then encourage said corporations to develop carpools/vanpools to help employees with their commute...not a free ride but a ride...subsidize employee housing for those employees who make less than $40k AND choose to live within say 10mi of their work place...again, since it's easy to get corporations onboard when they are getting money, work with grocery stores to develop buyer clubs for workers making less $40k (to also include non-food items, but not booze and nicotine-containing products)


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Government Pretty well does that now.


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Government Pretty well does that now.


I must've missed the line...i don't get/qualify for any federal aid and no employers down here do van shuttles that I'm aware of


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I assumed that their rent was subsidized. But it works either way. Reduce any of (or all of) their subsidies and your rent starts to become a burden. Interesting that you rent to people that have jobs, yet receive taxpayer support. Cut that support and their 32 hours at minimum wage becomes not enough. All sorts of options. Move to obtain a higher pay. Get a second job. Screw the landlord out of his rent money. What I'm saying is that the current safety net has become a comfortable hammock for too many. Like the tween that gets spanked for the first time, likely be a lot of loud crying.


I too have rental properties. Most, if not all, of my current tenants do not receive government aid. They work for their livings in the private sector making well above minimum wage. I do have to agree with you on one point though.... Far too many in this country have turned the safety nets into hammocks. Hoover warned FDR that would happen when he designed our welfare system back in the thirties.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jerry arnold said:


> help those who help themselves...if we are gonna to give monies away to corporations then encourage said corporations to develop carpools/vanpools to help employees with their commute...not a free ride but a ride...subsidize employee housing for those employees who make less than $40k AND choose to live within say 10mi of their work place...again, since it's easy to get corporations onboard when they are getting money, work with grocery stores to develop buyer clubs for workers making less $40k (to also include non-food items, *but not booze and nicotine-containing products)*


whoa there! If you want luxuries paid for why not essentials!?!


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Ditto what Yvonne’s hubby said.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

jerry arnold said:


> i make $16/hr...and i'm living in a shack because i can not cover all the expenses of rent and the commute...it's a myth that we can eliminate poverty with money...it's also a myth that poor people get lots of support from the government...more government money goes into price support programs ...with example being the money being paid to folks to grow rice in California...things like $250 THOUSAND wells to irrigate the fields...rice is a water crop...cali is a desert...dates and olives are also subsidized; as is almost all food crops grown in the USA...most of these monies are funneled through USAid...


Guess it depends on where you live and how you handle money. I have a 20 year old grandson who saved up $9K while working during high school but he never spent a dime. He wanted to go to college but insisted on paying his own way without borrowing any money. He got a job paying $17 an hour in the next town over after graduation and used his $9K to buy a decent dodge truck to drive to work. Rented a nice small 1 bedroom apt for $450 a month including utilities. He is very frugal and lives on about $1K a month not counting car insurance. He told me over Christmas that he has saved over $20K in 2 years and plans to quit and go to college in 1 more year.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The old truth that Socialism works until you run out of other peoples' money is true here.
Those that do have skills that garner a good wage get some of it snatched up in taxes and given to those that don't earn enough to live on.
This changes the role of the employer and the economics of a living wage.

As an employer, I can get people to work for a wage that they cannot survive on. That's new. IAs an employee, I may be able to cut my work week by 20% and after the increased taxpayer subsidized "aid", my wage may stay the same. Sweet. I don't care if my employer or the government provides my health care. It maters not where the money comes from for rent.

I don't know where the poverty line is, but I know there is an over lap between the poor and their government benefits and the working poor and no benefits.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Today, I listened to a guy talk about a class of 16 year old students that he was substitute teaching for. This was a while after Katrina. He poised a question, When the news reports a hurricane, what should you do. He wrote a list of choices. Cover windows with plywood. Stock up on food and water. Evacuate. Ask the government for help.

He was surprised by the answers.

Two students said buy more food. The other 30 students chose asking the government for help.

So, in every way, the government takes care of you and you pick up a job, for luxuries and something to do to fill the day?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

You wait for the hurricane and loot for the luxuries.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> You wait for the hurricane and loot for the luxuries.


I've been doing it backwards.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

You know it. I know it. And my dog knows it. If we keep going down the same path there will soon be no middle class. There will only be the lower class living in hovels outside factories making things for the rich. And people will keep falling, in ever expanding droves, off the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

I don't have any studies to cite nor websites to link, I just know it in the seat of my pants.


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

gilberte said:


> You know it. I know it. And my dog knows it. If we keep going down the same path there will soon be no middle class. There will only be the lower class living in hovels outside factories making things for the rich. And people will keep falling, in ever expanding droves, off the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
> 
> I don't have any studies to cite nor websites to link, I just know it in the seat of my pants.


Yep...for sure


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

jerry arnold said:


> I must've missed the line...i don't get/qualify for any federal aid and no employers down here do van shuttles that I'm aware of


 Yep that’s one of the complaints of the poor. If you want the money you have to get the right line and you have to stand it in forever then you got a jump through hoops and more and more hoops. 
Many don’t think it’s worth the effort, that’s your choice.


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Yep that’s one of the complaints of the poor. If you want the money you have to get the right line and you have to stand it in forever then you got a jump through hoops and more and more hoops.
> Many don’t think it’s worth the effort, that’s your choice.


It's really not worth it...especially when one watch's the super rich get billions in handouts


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think it is more complex than we understand, and none of us have a crystal ball.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

jerry arnold said:


> It's really not worth it...especially when one watch's the super rich get billions in handouts


It was interesting a few years ago when lists of how much each farmer got in subsidies came out. 
At the cafe in my town the farmers would complain about the lazy welfare moms even as two of them worked their butts off cooking and waiting on them. 
Afraid the cafe lost some business the day I dropped the list for our town on the table and started calling out just how much welfare each local got.


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think it is more complex than we understand, and none of us have a crystal ball.


True... but I do see tons of food stuffs being exported through USAid


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> It was interesting a few years ago when lists of how much each farmer got in subsidies came out.
> At the cafe in my town the farmers would complain about the lazy welfare moms even as two of them worked their butts off cooking and waiting on them.
> Afraid the cafe lost some business the day I dropped the list for our town on the table and started calling out just how much welfare each local got.


The 3 largest food producers in the USA control most of the foodstuffs being produced by "family" farms


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Who would they be ?


----------



## jerry arnold (Dec 1, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Who would they be ?


Conagra, ADM, and general mills


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gilberte said:


> You know it. I know it. And my dog knows it. If we keep going down the same path there will soon be no middle class. There will only be the lower class living in hovels outside factories making things for the rich. And people will keep falling, in ever expanding droves, off the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
> 
> I don't have any studies to cite nor websites to link, I just know it in the seat of my pants.


I agree with you. Our system has evolved to concentrate the majority of wealth in the fewer hands.

From Cato
Most rich people got that way by providing us with goods and services that improve our lives.
Few fortunes survive for multiple generations, while the poor are still able to rise out of poverty.

According to the U.S. economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.”



















The top 1 percent of America’s income earners have more than doubled their share of the nation’s income since the middle of the 20th century. American top 1 percent incomes peaked in the late 1920s, right before the onset of the Great Depression.



















https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I don't worry much about how much other people have or earn. I have plenty to eat, warm place to sleep, liquor in the cabinet.... That's enough for me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't worry much about how much other people have or earn. I have plenty to eat, warm place to sleep, liquor in the cabinet.... That's enough for me.


I do too. If I was any more lucky I'd be crapping gold nuggets. 

I was trying (and failing I guess) to point what is perceived to be a societal problem.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

You can raise the minimum wage to $85 an hour, but it's still going to be the minimum.
Everybody else will be making $150 or better and you'll be carrying your lunch money in a 5 gallon bucket.
You can raise the bottom of a barrel, but it's still going to be the bottom.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> You can raise the minimum wage to $85 an hour, but it's still going to be the minimum.
> Everybody else will be making $150 or better and you'll be carrying your lunch money in a 5 gallon bucket.
> You can raise the bottom of a barrel, but it's still going to be the bottom.


I agree. I think that whole exercise is just pandering to stupid people with a stupid idea.

That said, I do think even worse things might happen if income inequality reaches a tipping point


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't worry much about how much other people have or earn.


Yeah, it seem kind of pointless.

I've never been "rich" but I've got more stuff than I can use, and I'm better off than most people, if you believe what they say in the news.

I don't have room to complain if someone else has more, and it's not my fault if someone else has less either.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I don't think I know anyone who isn't middle class. Many of my friends think I am wealthy, but I'm not in the lofty realms of the rich. A lot of money passes through my accounts with the rental properties, etc. Most of it goes out to the IRS and insurance companies. I get to keep enough to live on. It's all good.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't worry much about how much other people have or earn. I have plenty to eat, warm place to sleep, liquor in the cabinet.... That's enough for me.


 But wait a minute there hubby army you the one that’s always against the dynasty tax cause you wanna leave a dynasty to your kids ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> But wait a minute there hubby army you the one that’s always against the dynasty tax cause you wanna leave a dynasty to your kids ?


Yep. That would be me. I do hope I can leave them whatever I have accumulated over the years. Be it twenty dollars or twenty billion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, it seem kind of pointless.
> 
> I've never been "rich" but I've got more stuff than I can use, and I'm better off than most people, if you believe what they say in the news.
> 
> I don't have room to complain if someone else has more, and it's not my fault if someone else has less either.


Exactly
What other people make has no bearing on what I make, as long as the company I work for is healthy.
If I complained about what our CEO made, or the plant manager, it wouldn't get me any more money, I'd just sound petty and ridiculous.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep. That would be me. I do hope I can leave them whatever I have accumulated over the years. Be it twenty dollars or twenty billion.


Lol. Then warm dry and well fed ISNT enough for you ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol. Then warm dry and well fed ISNT enough for you ?


Of course it is, but it takes a certain amount of "wherewithal" to maintain those conditions, especially when mom nature and Father Time conspire to take your ability to work from you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol yeah the but’s have got me in trouble a time or two


----------



## Bob M. (Nov 5, 2018)

I think far too many people concentrate on what others have and what others get as a comparison, instead of what they can achieve themselves. That in part is of course what brings on the pitch forks, but it is easily solved by stopping the envy. This whole grass is greener on the other side is usually just that, when you are not living it, you do not know what other issues the owner of that lawn is dealing with, just best to worry about your own grass and working on your own issues. By doing that you then learn to solve your own problems, and that you really can achieve anything, if you actually do what is necessary to achieve it. Things are really not rigged. They are to small extents, ie, I will as well as others, hire someone who we know or trust before hiring someone randomly usually. and that extends to friends of someone I trust who bring people to my attention/etc. I will look after family members usually before strangers,etc. but other wise it is and always has been putting yourself in a productive environment, and doing what it takes, contacting the right people at the right time, taking the initiative, earning a dependable reputation and having the skills needed at the right time, to do it that matters, and most of all making sure others know you have these things, because the world doesn't and wont come to you sitting on your couch smoking weed and playing video games(Or talking on facebook or some forum) you have to go out to it. If you make yourself useful, you will be useful. if you don;t you won't. it is that simple. who cares what the other guy makes or does, you do you.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

HDRider said:


> If all employees at Amazon were paid equally they would make over $207,000 per year. The average employee at Amazon makes $30,000 per year today.
> 
> According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bezos' net worth on Jan. 1 was *$99 billion*. On May 1, it was $132 billion, meaning it rose $33 billion. If you divide that difference by the 120 days in that period, you find that he made $275 million a day as of May 2, 2018


The pursuit of "equality" is pointless, fruitless, and serious dumb. There is not, never has been, nor shall there ever be, much equality in the world. get over it and adapt.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think I have found my tribe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think I have found my tribe.


Scary, huh??


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I think I have found my tribe.


Is it a diatribe?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

1948CaseVAI said:


> The pursuit of "equality" is pointless, fruitless, and serious dumb. There is not, never has been, nor shall there ever be, much equality in the world. get over it and adapt.


While all of that is true it doesn’t mean that it’s not a worthy goal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> While all of that is true it doesn’t mean that it’s not a worthy goal.


That depends entirely upon what one is willing to do to obtain it. So far the only close attempts have resulted in abject poverty for everyone.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Is the unobtainable goal a worthy goal? 

Worth what? Your time? Your money?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That depends entirely upon what one is willing to do to obtain it. So far the only close attempts have resulted in abject poverty for everyone.


 If you look at the charts of wealth distribution in the USA you will find a strong correlation of greater wealth for the majority with union membership. 
Apparently unions were a strong factor in creating a equality .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Is *the unobtainable goal* a worthy goal?


Sure.
It gives you something to strive for, even when subconsciously you know it can't be reached.
It makes you give it your best effort as opposed to settling for less than perfection.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure.
> It gives you something to strive for, even when subconsciously you know it can't be reached.
> It makes you give it your best effort as opposed to settling for less than perfection.


We called that a "stretch goal"


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Equality sounds real good if you are below the median and you will actually gain something from it, however if you are already above the median it will mean that you have to give up something so that others can do as well as you, and suddenly that doesn't sound near as good or very fair.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I never meant to imply any form of "equality", that crazy talk.

At most I may be searching for the answer of "less scale of inequality" Or, "bigger piece of the pie"

The biggest pitchfork today is minimum wage laws, or maybe earned income credit. I think EIC is mostly for not - or barely-working people. I am asking more about full-time working people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I never meant to imply any form of "equality", that crazy talk.
> 
> At most I may be searching for the answer of "less scale of inequality" Or, "bigger piece of the pie"
> 
> The biggest pitchfork today is minimum wage laws, or maybe earned income credit. I think EIC is mostly for not - or barely-working people. I am asking more about full-time working people.


Everyone makes their own pie, if they want a bigger slice, they should bake a bigger pie.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I never meant to imply any form of "equality", that crazy talk.
> 
> At most I may be searching for the answer of "less scale of inequality" Or, "bigger piece of the pie"
> 
> The biggest pitchfork today is minimum wage laws, or maybe earned income credit. I think EIC is mostly for not - or barely-working people. I am asking more about full-time working people.


How do you see either of these a pitchfork,

Both just seem gimme program's for elected officials running for reelection


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Everyone makes their own pie, if they want a bigger slice, they should bake a bigger pie.


 I see this more about the equality of who gets to use how much of the ingredients.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I see this more about the equality of who gets to use how much of the ingredients.


They are there for anyone who works for them.
You have to give up that fantasy of "equality".

There is no such thing in the real world.
Everyone and everything is unique in some way or another.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> How do you see either of these a pitchfork,
> 
> Both just seem gimme program's for elected officials running for reelection


Force, by force of law, at the point of a pitchfork


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I see this more about the equality of who gets to use how much of the ingredients.


Who do you see placing any limits on how many ingredients you wish to use?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It’s simple really the government picks who gets the most by the laws it creates. 
Simple example. 
Laws against marijuana use and possession have created winners of a certain type of farmer who seems to thrive best in small secluded conditions. Changing laws will create conditions faverable for a different type of farmer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> It’s simple really the government picks who gets the most by the laws it creates.
> Simple example.
> Laws against marijuana use and possession have created winners of a certain type of farmer who seems to thrive best in small secluded conditions. Changing laws will create conditions faverable for a different type of farmer.


Everyone still gets to choose which type of farmer they want to be though don't they? I've not heard of anyone passing any laws limiting the amount of land a person can buy or own.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Everyone still gets to choose which type of farmer they want to be though don't they? I've not heard of anyone passing any laws limiting the amount of land a person can buy or own.


No not at all 
People are what they are buying Land doesn’t change that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> No not at all
> People are what they are buying Land doesn’t change that.


So, people limit themselves. That sounds like freedom to me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Everyone still gets to choose which type of farmer they want to be though don't they? I've not heard of anyone passing any laws limiting the amount of land a person can buy or own.


I understand the futility of this discussion, but it is a kind of entertainment.

I want to summarize what I have read and understood after so many pages. The sides are drawn and for the most part the debate is becoming repetitive.

Some see a problem with the income gap, some don't.

Some think it should be addressed and narrowed (by a very anemic effort, if not a downright illusion) via our tax code and laws. Some think it is the nature of things, and to the victor goes the spoils, rule of the jungle kind of thing.

Please feel free to correct me if you feel the need.

NOW - I want to take another stab at TRYING to prove there is a problem, and it might lead to a disruptive event, or not. Who knows.

@Yvonne's hubby , unknowingly you have struck at the heart of the problem with an ever widening income gap. I quote you here "_*I've not heard of anyone passing any laws limiting the amount of land a person can buy or own.*_"

I propose there have been many such laws passed preventing pursuit of wealth, but the one most exacerbated by the income gap is a natural law, *The law of supply and demand.*

As the supply dwindles, and the demand grows (and with a growing population, etc) the *law of supply and demand prices many things, and more things every day, out of reach for more and more people.*

Anyway, I think this thread has proven that altruism will not win out. As more and more people learn to vote for those that promise to take from the rich, and give to the poor, we are in for a contentious ride.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I agree with you about the law of supply and demand. However I never found it to be a negative thing. What money I ever made beyond eeking out a modest living I made by capitalizing on that very thing. Buying land and reselling for profit. As with stocks or other commodities the trick is buying low then selling for a good profit. As time went on I was able to buy larger farms, increasing my profits as I went. I literally started with nothing. Not even a credit card. My first two properties I bought with a $500 down payment and owner financing. By the end of my short career (11years) I was able to borrow half a million bucks with little effort on my part, had bankers calling me wanting me to take over properties at cost rather than go through for closures on bad loans they had made. I still beleive using ones head is the key to success. The sky is the limit in this country. I just love America.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Excellent analysis.

Here in the Austin area, we are seeing a couple of things that illustrate your points.

1. So many people have moved here and are moving here that affordable housing is very difficult to find. Rent prices are astronomical. The land value is high. I bought an acre and a half for $34,000, and that was a GOOD deal.

2. The voting population here has shifted so far to the left and demanding California programs so that taxes have risen and stifle the little folks out of buying land or houses. Example: property tax in the 2 bedroom/two bath home that my dad built in 1957 are $10,000. 

I don’t think there is anyway to forsee exactly how it’s going to change.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Think of other laws passed to prevent someone from earning a living. I know you will laugh, but think about days gone by. You did not need a license (required by law) to:
Cut hair
Pull teeth
Doctor someone
Do plumbing
Do electrical work
Child care
Lawyer
Undertaker

I could go on and on


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

As soon as you need a license to do whatever it is you do you are forced into a union or Quasi-union. The main focus of any union is to keep the rabble out and the wages high. It doesn't matter if you call yourselves the college of dental surgeons or the I.B.E.W. the main aim is to keep most of us out as the union members enjoy many benefits.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Texas is a right to work state. Unions don’t have the power here.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ydderf said:


> As soon as you need a license to do whatever it is you do you are forced into a union or Quasi-union. The main focus of any union is to keep the rabble out and the wages high. It doesn't matter if you call yourselves the college of dental surgeons or the I.B.E.W. the main aim is to keep most of us out as the union members enjoy many benefits.


I found that the real estate business requires licenses in an effort to limit crooked dealings. Not to limit the number of honest agents.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I found that the real estate business requires licenses in an effort to limit crooked dealings. Not to limit the number of honest agents.


AS I said to keep the crooks out of the business. By the way who determines the percentage charged by realtors. I have a $500,00.00 piece of property to sell one realtor told me he wanted %7 of the whole deal I said no thanks. The next realtor wants %7 of the first $100,000.00 %3 of the balance.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ydderf said:


> AS I said to keep the crooks out of the business. By the way who determines the percentage charged by realtors. I have a $500,00.00 piece of property to sell one realtor told me he wanted %7 of the whole deal I said no thanks. The next realtor wants %7 of the first $100,000.00 %3 of the balance.


Commissions are set by the principle broker. They vary from one agency to the next. 5 to7% is very common but some brokers get ten percent or even more.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

There is a new company in Austin that charges 2%.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> There is a new company in Aothat charges 2%.


I have only paid real estate fees once in my life. The guy was a flat 4% and he, and his associates, were wonderful.

I don't view licenses as any way related to unions, just like I don't view property taxes like rent.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I have only paid real estate fees once in my life. The guy was a flat 4% and he, and his associates, were wonderful.
> 
> I don't view licenses as any way related to unions, just like I don't view property taxes like rent.


Being in the game I've paid realtor commissions many times. I've always considered it money well spent.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Being in the game I've paid realtor commissions many times. I've always considered it money well spent.


My employer always paid them


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I have bought and sold properties without realtors. Get a good title company to do the work. Save thousands.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> I have bought and sold properties without realtors. Get a good title company to do the work. Save thousands.


That is perfectly legal and I've bought and sold without a realtor too. Putting a qualified buyer at the table can also be worth thousands. Buying at public auction can save thousands too, in my state that requires a realtor, barring buying at the court house steps at a masrecommissioner sale. I know lots of folks think realtors are nothing but greedy hucksters deserving of a short rope and a tall tree but we do earn our keep in numerous ways.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)




----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've not heard of anyone passing any laws limiting the amount of land a person can buy or own.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is perfectly legal and I've bought and sold without a realtor too.
> 
> Buying at public auction can save thousands too, in my state that requires a realtor, barring buying at the court house steps at a masrecommissioner sale.







Yvonne's hubby said:


> I found that the real estate business requires licenses in an effort to limit crooked dealings. Not to limit the number of honest agents.


That might have been the original goal, but as the top posts show, the laws can rig the game, even if it doesn't affect you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> That might have been the original goal, but as the top posts show, the laws can rig the game, even if it doesn't affect you.


I'm not quite sure I understand how keeping the game honest and above board is "rigging" it?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not quite sure I understand how keeping the game honest and above board is "rigging" it?


You're right, but a piece of paper (RE license) won't keep the game from being rigged.
It might help a little, but what else does it do?
You stated that you knew of no law that prevented someone from buying as much land as they wanted.
Then a few posts later you posted a good example of one.
???
All those public auctions in your state aren't open to everyone, are they?
Well, sure they are........if you pay the percentage to the middleman with the admission ticket.
Of course being a member of that select group, you probably won't see it that way, right?

There are hundreds of laws like that all over the place, which I think is what another poster was alluding to when they mentioned getting a professional license was like joining a union.
No one got what they meant by that.
But it keeps people without that piece of paper from doing the same job even if they have the skills and are "above board".

I see it all the time.
In NC you can't be a "property manager" without a RE license. And I know it's all about keeping the so called riff raff out because a realtor warned my wife not to call herself that without a license, so she says "housekeeper or caretaker" to prevent a teed off realtor from turning her in to the state because she's cutting into their pie. 
I read the statutes and the only difference is she can't touch the money being exchanged between owner and renter, which she never does anyway.
But she still can't use that title even though she manages every aspect of the property for that out of town owner(s).
The other difference is she does that job for less than half of what the other guys charge.

Here's another.
I knew the last judge elected in the state of Florida who wasn't an attorney. He was just a good honest man, which is what you're really after in a judge.
You can't do that job anymore without passing the Bar exam. That piece of paper and all the rest have one thing in common - it comes with a price tag.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> You're right, but a piece of paper (RE license) won't keep the game from being rigged.
> It might help a little, but what else does it do?
> You stated that you knew of no law that prevented someone from buying as much land as they wanted.
> Then a few posts later you posted a good example of one.
> ...


a public auction in my state is indeed open to everyone. No special permits required whatsoever to bid. No hidden fees, no hidden percentage to middle men, no admission ticket required whatsoever. Show up on sale day, bid as high as you so desire, if you wish to bow out nobody is going to try to force anyone to bid more than they want to bid, no secret handshakes, no special club. Just a common ordinary public auction where anyone can bid or not. The person that bids the most buys the property. So no, I don't really see it like you do. I see it as keeping the playing feild level. 

And I know of no laws that denies anyone the right to buy all the property they want.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But it keeps people without that piece of paper from doing the same job even if they have the skills and are *"above board"*.


The ones without a license have nothing to lose when they lie.
Many only think and pretend they "have the skills".
That's not "above board".
That's a con game.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> a public auction in my state is indeed open to everyone. No special permits required whatsoever to bid. No hidden fees, no hidden percentage to middle men, no admission ticket required whatsoever. Show up on sale day, bid as high as you so desire, if you wish to bow out nobody is going to try to force anyone to bid more than they want to bid, no secret handshakes, no special club. Just a common ordinary public auction where anyone can bid or not. The person that bids the most buys the property. So no, I don't really see it like you do. I see it as keeping the playing feild level.


Ok.......then I guess you didn't read this post the way I did?


Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is perfectly legal and I've bought and sold without a realtor too. Putting a qualified buyer at the table can also be worth thousands.* Buying at public auction can save thousands too, in my state that requires a realtor,* barring buying at the court house steps at a masrecommissioner sale. I know lots of folks think realtors are nothing but greedy hucksters deserving of a short rope and a tall tree but we do earn our keep in numerous ways.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The ones without a license have nothing to lose when they lie.
> Many only think and pretend they "have the skills".
> That's not "above board".
> That's a con game.


I'm certain you believe that........no matter if it's true or not.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Ok.......then I guess I didn't read this post the way I did?


The realtor is not required for the buyer, sorry for the confusion there. The auction company is required to have a real estate broker on the grounds if real estate is being sold. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the very types shenanigans that would possibly take place without someone having a license at risk.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm certain you believe that........no matter if it's true or not.


I know con games when I see them.
Someone saying they are just as good as the professionals is a good indication.
Someone once told me "liars always lie".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The realtor is not required for the buyer, sorry for the confusion there. The auction company is required to have a real estate broker on the grounds if real estate is being sold.


Thanks, that clarifies it.
It doesn't bar the buyers in that way , just the sellers. In that case, the sellers would probably make more profit from selling somewhere else rather than a public auction.
Does the realtor selling at those auctions still get their 3-7% commission from the buyers?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know con games when I see them.
> Someone saying they are just as good as the professionals is a good indication.
> Someone once told me "liars always lie".


Yep.
That's what I call a "liar" - when you never tell the truth.
Of course if you use that standard to apply to anyone that's ever told a lie, even once, then be careful you don't get any paint on you using that broad of a brush.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The ones without a license have nothing to lose when they lie.
> Many only think and pretend they "have the skills".
> That's not "above board".
> That's a con game.


But where is that line drawn? I think the regulation/licensing is often used by existing companies to keep the competition out. Things like requiring licenses for braiding hair (you know how dangerous that is, if left to non-professionals), or hack companies petitioning the government to reduce competition from Uber and Lyft in certain areas.

I think the real con game is the government confiscating our rights and selling them back to us. Assuming we can afford it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks, that clarifies it.
> It doesn't bar the buyers in that way , just the sellers. In that case, the sellers would probably make more profit from selling somewhere else rather than a public auction.
> Does the realtor selling at those auctions still get their 3-7% commission from the buyers?


That depends entirely upon the broker and how she/he opts to be compensated. Some brokers handle the whole sale including personal property, handle all the advertising, pay the help required to set up the sale.... Everything from start to finish. Others may just handle the official paperwork required for the real estate portion of the sale letting the auction company handle all the work, and other combinations. Commissions vary, sometimes buyers pay the commissions, other times sellers pay. Just all depends on how they work things on a given sale. Those particulars are most often published in the pre sale advertising as well as being announced publicly at the beginning of the sale.
As to more or less profit? That too is tough to answer. I've seen auction bidders get carried away, bid twice fair market value, other days not a single bidder show up. Yeah, I'm no better than the rest, tried to auction a nice little house in town once... No bids at all. Last property I bought at auction I got carried away, paid $45k for a $25k house in need of lots of repairs. I now have $65 k in it!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> But where is that line drawn?


With the legislature.
The laws generally came about due to complaints.

Why should Uber or Lyft avoid paying for a taxi license when that's what they really are?



Mish said:


> I think the real con game is the government confiscating *our rights* and selling them back to us.


The customers have rights to real professionals, not someone who just hangs up a sign and starts doing the work for half the price. 

You have no inherent right to declare yourself something you're not, even though some make that a lifestyle.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> With the legislature.
> The laws generally came about due to complaints.
> 
> Why should Uber or Lyft avoid paying for a taxi license when that's what they really are?
> ...



Is that so?
Where is that "right" written?
I'd like to see it, along with all the people who thought that it was also a "right" to make a living as long as it's not by theft.
Capitalists and Entrepreneurs would be interested in hearing about this customers' right you speak of.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Is that so?
> Where is that "right" written?
> I'd like to see it, along with all the people who thought that it was also a "right" to make a living as long as it's not by theft.
> Capitalists and Entrepreneurs would be interested in hearing about this customers' right you speak of.


Ninth amendment. It's right between the eighth and tenth. Can't miss it.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> With the legislature.
> The laws generally came about due to complaints.
> 
> Why should Uber or Lyft avoid paying for a taxi license when that's what they really are?
> ...


If I get my hair braided, and they do a terrible job, I don't go back. Most people won't, and said hair braider will go out of business. Same with Uber and Lyft, if they suck, people will stop using them and they'll go out of business. Especially with the advent of ratings websites like Yelp, this is even more true. I can find out if a service is any good before I even step foot in the place.

Licensing tells me nothing other than that they have done their time and paid their government tithe. No idea how proficient that person/business actually is, except they they are proficient at jumping through government hoops, or paying them off.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> With the legislature.
> The laws generally came about due to complaints.
> 
> Why should Uber or Lyft avoid paying for a taxi license when that's what they really are?
> ...


Are you telling us that larger competitors do not bribe legislation into existence as a barrier to entry for potential competitors?

Are you telling us that being licensed guarantees competence?

Are you telling us that legal remedies for unacceptable work are not adequate therefore paid permission to work is necessary?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ninth amendment. It's right between the eighth and tenth. Can't miss it.


The 9th says a customer has a right to a licensed professional, but a worker who can do the job without that paper doesn't have a right to bid on it?
I guess you can read it that way, I wasn't sure where that was coming from, lol.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> Are you telling us that larger competitors do not bribe legislation into existence as a barrier to entry for potential competitors?
> 
> Are you telling us that being licensed guarantees competence?
> 
> Are you telling us that legal remedies for unacceptable work are not adequate therefore paid permission to work is necessary?


Allow me this time, lol.


> No, you're posting things I never said.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> The 9th says a customer has a right to a licensed professional, but a worker who can do the job without that paper doesn't have a right to bid on it?
> I guess you can read it that way, I wasn't sure where that was coming from, lol.


The ninth states that people have lots of rights that didn't get jotted down individually. Those rights are every bit as valid and real as the few that did get mentioned. Customers have the right to "competent" services when paying for them. That means a level of competence that one can normally expect when asking for a haircut, a meal, representation in court, having a tooth pulled etc. in order to assure that basic level of competence we issue licenses to individuals who have provided evidence to the state they indeed possess these skills. At least to the level of some minimum established requirements.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The ninth states that people have lots of rights that didn't get jotted down individually. Those rights are every bit as valid and real as the few that did get mentioned. Customers have the right to "competent" services when paying for them. That means a level of competence that one can normally expect when asking for a haircut, a meal, representation in court, having a tooth pulled etc. in order to assure that basic level of competence we issue licenses to individuals who have provided evidence to the state they indeed possess these skills. At least to the level of some minimum established requirements.


Except that, as in all things governmental, it has expanded to the point of ridiculousness. The line is always a foot or two past the last line. And since we've given up those rights (you know, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to the government to decide who can and can't pursue said happiness depending on licensure...are they really rights anymore?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Mish said:


> Except that, as in all things governmental, it has expanded to the point of ridiculousness. The line is always a foot or two past the last line. And since we've given up those rights (you know, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to the government to decide who can and can't pursue said happiness depending on licensure...are they really rights anymore?


Of course they are still rights! Wanna pursue? Have at it! Just don't step on the next fellers rights in the process! It's not really that difficult to understand is it?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course they are still rights! Wanna pursue? Have at it! Just don't step on the next fellers rights in the process! It's not really that difficult to understand is it?


Does a "pay to play" scheme help the rights of anyone other than those who are paying to stifle competition?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> Does a "pay to play" scheme help the rights of anyone other than those who are paying to stifle competition?


I think pay to play schemes are pretty much illegal.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think pay to play schemes are pretty much illegal.


Tell that to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course they are still rights! Wanna pursue? Have at it! Just don't step on the next fellers rights in the process! It's not really that difficult to understand is it?


So you are saying that we need a license to practice, as opposed to letting the free market determine who practices?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course they are still rights! Wanna pursue? Have at it! Just don't step on the next fellers rights in the process! It's not really that difficult to understand is it?


I think that's the whole point, a right is not something the government is supposed to decide as far as who qualifies to have that right and who doesn't. 

I'm not sure whose rights I'm stepping on if I feel qualified to braid hair, drive people in my car, or even sell lemonade or eggs or raw milk on my curb without asking "Mother, may I?" to the government first. I trust that most people are smart enough to figure out whether they want to take the risk of purchasing my services/products without nanny government deciding for them. 

I don't think I'm the one we need to worry about as far as stepping on others' rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'd like to see it


I'd like to see some things myself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> *That's what I call a "liar"* - when you *never* tell the truth.


Liars *sometimes* tell the truth.
That doesn't mean they aren't still liars.
Your definition is intentionally misleading and doesn't really match what I said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Licensing tells me nothing other than that *they have done their time* and paid their government tithe.


It tells you they have met the requirements to be called a professional as opposed to pretending to be something they aren't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> *I trust that most people are smart enough* to figure out whether they want to take the risk of purchasing my services/products without nanny government deciding for them.


If they were there would be no need for those laws.
The idea is to *prevent* them from having to find out the hard way rather than letting them be scammed first.

Without licensing and regulation, the con men would just change their names and start all over as if they had never been caught.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It tells you they have met the requirements to be called a professional as opposed to pretending to be something they aren't.


No, it tells you they have met some arbitrary requirements that some bureaucrat has come up with so that the government can keep its finger in your pie.

In the case of hair braiding, because it's a good example of extreme stupidity:

https://reason.com/archives/2016/08/03/do-you-have-a-license-to-braid-that-hair

"A new Institute for Justice report titled Barriers to Braiding details the various occupational licensing rules that affect African hair braiders. The report shows that licensing African hair braiders has real-world costs—and no public safety benefits.

African hair braiding is a natural process of caring for hair that does not require scissors, heat, or chemicals. Yet, despite its substantial differences from cosmetology, 16 states still force African hair braiders to go through onerous, time-consuming cosmetology training programs. *Getting a cosmetology license takes between 1,000 and 2,100 hours to complete and costs thousands of dollars.*

Though cosmetology courses teach students how to cut and use chemicals on hair, a possible justification for some sort of licensing scheme, these skills are entirely unrelated to African hair braiding. This type of braiding is not even taught in cosmetology schools.

The District of Columbia and 14 states require specific licenses for hair braiders that are separate from cosmetology licenses. These licenses come with mandated training that takes between six hours and 600 hours, depending on the state."

The whole cosmetology licensing scheme is a mystery to me. At various points in my life, I've cut, colored and permed my own hair (as well as my daughter's, sister's and mother's hair, just to have full disclosure that I've broken the law), and none of it actually required a license - our hair turned out cut, colored and permed without the government even knowing about it. I've also gone to fully licensed cosmetologists that shouldn't be practicing on animals, more than once. It's stupid and wasteful and is a huge barrier to entry.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It tells you they have met the requirements to be called a professional as opposed to pretending to be something they aren't.


Not everyone share a your unlimited faith in government.

Does it make you feel safer when you travel the highways knowing that there are onerous regulations controlling who may or may not operate a truck, driving it or operating it in the administrative sense?

What if I were to tell you that the standards are not apportioned per truck by rather by comparison by similar-sized companies? In other words, Schneider, Werner, J.B. Hunt and others among the largest can have ten times the accidents per truck or per driver than a company with ten trucks, and as long as they are all new or less equally bad, they are golden. Generally, smaller operators are more careful and overall have fewer accidents per driver and by extension are held to a higher standard than the large operators who bought the regulations they bought for a reason. Oh, and for an added bonus, the standards are based on accidents a truck is involved in, NOT at fault for, including it counting against me just as much to have some fool run into my truck while I am parked taking a nap as if I were to be 100% at fault running someone down on the highway. In other words, bad luck has been made illegal.

Now, do you really expect to be taken seriously as you pontificate that government imprimatur makes a supplier of goods or services superior to an unlicensed provider?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> In the case of hair braiding


None of them are *only* braiding.
The licensing also means they are subject to health inspections.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Mish said:


> No, it tells you they have met some arbitrary requirements that some bureaucrat has come up with so that the government can keep its finger in your pie.
> 
> In the case of hair braiding, because it's a good example of extreme stupidity:
> 
> ...


Awesome, isn't it. Makes the universe so much safer. Seriously, the hair braiding requirements make as much sense as requiring a plumber's license to trim hedges.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Not everyone share a your unlimited faith in government.


You're pretending I said I had faith in Govt.



IndyDave said:


> Does it make you feel safer when you travel the highways knowing that there are onerous regulations controlling who may or may not operate a truck, driving it or operating it in the administrative sense?


It's been proven training increases safety.
It's been proven inspections increase safety.
License fees help pay for those.



IndyDave said:


> What if I were to tell you that the standards are not apportioned per truck by rather by comparison by similar-sized companies?


I'd think you're just complaining as always.



IndyDave said:


> Now, do you really expect to be taken seriously as you pontificate that government imprimatur makes a supplier of goods or services superior to an unlicensed provider?


I never said it made their *service* superior.
I said it *shows* they have at least met the training requirements.

Once again you've shown you mostly just want to argue.
You'll probably repeat yourself again, thinking the end result will change.
But it won't, so don't bother


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they were there would be no need for those laws.
> The idea is to *prevent* them from having to find out the hard way rather than letting them be scammed first.
> 
> Without licensing and regulation, the con men would just change their names and start all over as if they had never been caught.


I've been disappointed, and probably conned, by more than a few licensed companies/individuals over my lifetime. I'm sure you have, too. We all have. I'm not sure what the license prevented. Not the multiple misdiagnosis, and guessing at treatments, over decades my kid got from licensed medical doctors (a few of which almost killed her, and some of which have left her with chronic medical problems). Not the foundation of my new house suddenly sprouting a waterfall after a licensed home inspector gave it the OK. Not the many times my identity has been put at risk by licensed companies being unsafe with it. Not the food poisoning I got at a licensed and inspected restaurant. Not the constant recalls of food that was sold by licensed groceries that purchased from licensed vendors that purchased from licensed farms. Not the multiple bad haircuts I've gotten over my lifetime. On and on and on.

A better solution is a professional group that vets and backs up their members in good standing. Private groups. It is in their best interest to accept and back people who actually are professionals instead of some arbitrary goalpost and onerous, random standards that are inevitable when done by the government. And then you can choose whether you want to go with someone who is backed by, I don't know, the African Hair Braiders Association, or some independent braider that you know who lives next door.



Bearfootfarm said:


> None of them are *only* braiding.
> The licensing also means they are subject to health inspections.


Yes, they do. I have a few girlfriends who will do your hair in exchange for some money as a side hustle. I'll be completely honest and say I've never used them for braiding because I have white girl hair and it's a waste of time since the braids just fall right out, plus I look ridiculous, but as far as I know, none of them have ever caused death or dismemberment. And they all have all the business they can handle, even without the governmental stamp of approval. Just have to be careful the hair cops don't find out.

Hang out with some women, most of us have at least a little dabbling experience with the shadowy and dangerous world of black market hairdressing.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're pretending I said I had faith in Govt.
> 
> 
> It's been proven training increases safety.
> ...


Well, you have reinforced my belief in your lack of reasoning capabilities when you can't even see that there is anything wrong with entirely different sets of standards for different people plying the same trade under the same regulations. Of course you wouldn't see a problem since you consider the government to be the arbiter of right and wrong as you have consisently demonstrated over time.

Why are training requirements documented to an arbitrary standard so important to you while actual performance in practice is not? Do you have any idea how nonsensical that sounds?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> I've been disappointed, and probably conned, by more than a few licensed companies/individuals over my lifetime.


I'm sure you think that.



Mish said:


> I'm not sure what the license prevented.


It *helps* prevent. There is always the human variable.



Mish said:


> I have a few girlfriends who will do your hair in exchange for some money as a side hustle.


A real friend would do it for nothing.
A real professional would get a license and pay taxes.
A con artist would do it illegally.



Mish said:


> *as far as I know*, none of them have ever caused death or dismemberment.


I'm certain they wouldn't tell you if they had.
But that doesn't make what they are doing legal either.
The license is a requirement for operating a legal business, not a side hustle.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm sure you think that.
> It *helps* prevent. There is always the human variable.


Or it gives a false sense of security. Either way.



Bearfootfarm said:


> A real friend would do it for nothing.
> A real professional would get a license and pay taxes.
> A con artist would do it illegally.


A real professional is an interesting concept. What makes a professional? Someone who sat through classes, took tests, paid tuition, licensing fees, etc? Or someone who has a passion and aptitude for something, who enjoys what they do and takes pride in doing it well? One does not exclude the other, unless we're in the lockstep group think march that "only the government knows and can let YOU know" which is which.

The "real friend" comment is a hoot. The first time or two, maybe I'll give you a freebie on something that costs me time and that normally costs you money anywhere else. After that, you're coming to me for a service. If you don't understand that, you're probably the one that's not a real friend. 

I'm not overly concerned about the taxes or legality. The government gets more than its fair share of everyone's earnings. The legality issue is what we're discussing, and it's unreasonable and stupid. Dumber than dumb. Pointless. Unless you're trying to control people.



Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm certain they wouldn't tell you if they had.
> But that doesn't make what they are doing legal either.
> The license is a requirement for operating a legal business, not a side hustle.


I'm pretty sure any death or dismemberment by braiding would be national news, so I can be confident in my assessment. Unless you're suggesting they hid the bodies?! 

See my previous musings about legality. Wish I could blow raspberries in type.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Mish said:


> Or it gives a false sense of security. Either way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In order to truly understand, it is necessary to expand one's political line. We generally think in terms of a left right paradigm, but here we need to add a y axis which, rather than liberal/conservative is a libertarian/statist line. Our neighbor here has proven to be a conservative-leaning statist.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> What makes a professional?


The pay is one part.
The certification is another.
It's not rocket science.



Mish said:


> I'm pretty sure any death or dismemberment by braiding would be national news, so I can be confident in my assessment. Unless you're *suggesting* they hid the bodies?!


I'm suggesting no one running a real, legitimate business does braiding only.
I said that to begin with.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The pay is one part.
> The certification is another.
> It's not rocket science.


Neither the pay nor the certification predicts the abilities of the person you are going to for service. 

Not tooting my own horn, but I'm awesome at short term memorization and I tend to do very well on tests because of that (even physical exams like welding certification or being able to assemble and disassemble mechanical bits). I'm pretty sure, if I studied the right things (what would we do without the internet?), I could pass just about any certification exam. That doesn't mean I'd actually be a good nurse, hairdresser, car mechanic, welder, cheese maker or lawyer. It just means I passed that test and can now tell YOU that I'm a professional, look, the government said so! Need your hair braided? Hand me a fiver and I'm a professional now!



Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm suggesting no one running a real, legitimate business does braiding only.
> I said that to begin with.


So, a business is only legitimate if I am certified? So the unlicensed people aren't running a real business, and therefore shouldn't fall under the laws for hairdressers or have to pay taxes. Problem solved.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The pay is one part.
> The certification is another.
> It's not rocket science.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this direct and honest explanation of your understanding of a professional.

Personally, I consider a service provider knowing what in the universe he or she is doing and supplying me with quality workmanship far more important than the imprimatur of a government I don't trust in the first place or his or her financial and tax-paying arrangements.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Neither the pay nor the certification *predicts the abilities* *of the person* you are going to for service


I never said it did. You asked what makes them "professional". That has little to do with individual "abilities".
I specifically said there was always a human variable.
I don't think you're reading what I post.



Mish said:


> So, a business is only legitimate if I am certified? So the unlicensed people aren't running a real business, and therefore shouldn't fall under the laws for hairdressers or have to pay taxes. Problem solved.


I'm sure the IRS will accept that as a defense for not reporting income.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *Personally, I consider* a service provider knowing what in the universe he or she is doing and supplying me with quality workmanship far more important than the imprimatur of a government I don't trust in the first place or his or her financial and tax-paying arrangements.


That makes no difference to me.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That makes no difference to me.


If you want to hire a jackleg because he comes with government imprimatur, as far as I am concerned, you are entirely within your rights to do so. When you and the .gov want to tell me I have to settle for the service providers of the government's choice regardless of their ability to provide acceptable work or the inflated costs largely produced by artificial barriers to entry, be prepared for instructions about taking a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said it did. You asked what makes them "professional". That has little to do with individual "abilities".
> I specifically said there was always a human variable.
> I don't think you're reading what I post.


Trust me, I'm reading what you post. I'm trying to point out how nonsensical it is.

If, by your own words, being a professional has little to do with abilities, what is the point of licensure or certification proclaiming that this person is a professional? What protection are you gaining? What is the point?

I don't think you're reading what _I_ post.



Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm sure the IRS will accept that as a defense for not reporting income.


I'm just reading what you posted and taking the next logical step. Did you mean something else by your "I'm suggesting no one running a real, legitimate business does braiding only" comment? Did you mean if they're only doing braiding it's not a real, legitimate business? Or if they're not licensed, it's not a real, legitimate business? Either way, if it's not a real, legitimate business, then it shouldn't fall under the laws for real, legitimate businesses. 

If you meant that no one just gets paid money to simply braid hair, then you're wrong and it has nothing to do with the argument one way or another because it's based on an erroneous assumption.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The ninth states that people have lots of rights that didn't get jotted down individually. Those rights are every bit as valid and real as the few that did get mentioned. Customers have the right to "competent" services when paying for them. That means a level of competence that one can normally expect when asking for a haircut, a meal, representation in court, having a tooth pulled etc. in order to assure that basic level of competence we issue licenses to individuals who have provided evidence to the state they indeed possess these skills. At least to the level of some minimum established requirements.


Yep, I got that. 
The 9th and 10th are the last of the children of that 1st batch of 10 and tend to be overlooked, which is a shame.
I was sparring with BF who likes to see exact specific wording whenever a statute is referenced instead of common sense, so I was playing along.

Hey, I can't argue with a fact and we agree, it IS legal to require those licenses.
And it DOES make difference in who gets to make those pies we all love.
I'm just glad to see we both understand that not everyone that wants a big ole pie for themselves can do it without jumping thru the hoops that the gov't puts up to keep those pies from being available to everyone when they want some.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Mish said:


> Except that, as in all things governmental, it has expanded to the point of ridiculousness. The line is always a foot or two past the last line. And since we've given up those rights (you know, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to the government to decide who can and can't pursue said happiness depending on licensure...are they really rights anymore?


Yeah, it's kinda sad that most famous of American quotes never made into the Constitution.
That's the old battle between the letter and spirit of laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> That works for not having to defend the reasoning behind something unreasonable. I guess.


Nothing I said needs to be defended.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Mish said:


> I think that's the whole point, a right is not something the government is supposed to decide as far as who qualifies to have that right and who doesn't.
> 
> I'm not sure whose rights I'm stepping on if I feel qualified to braid hair, drive people in my car, or even sell lemonade or eggs or raw milk on my curb without asking "Mother, may I?" to the government first. I trust that most people are smart enough to figure out whether they want to take the risk of purchasing my services/products without nanny government deciding for them.
> 
> I don't think I'm the one we need to worry about as far as stepping on others' rights.


Lots of folks feel they should not need a license to drive on our hi ways too, but I don't really mind a few minimum standards when it comes to public safety. I am one of the public. How are you with licensing for commercial aircraft pilots? Might be a good time to bring up "hold my beer and watch this!".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lots of folks feel they should not need a license to drive on our hi ways too, but I don't really mind a few minimum standards when it comes to public safety. I am one of the public. How are you with licensing for commercial aircraft pilots? Might be a good time to bring up "hold my beer and watch this!".


You can build an ultralight airplane and fly it without a license.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> You can build an ultralight airplane and fly it without a license.


Yup, and you can run for public office without a license. I think we all know what that gets us.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lots of folks feel they should not need a license to drive on our hi ways too, but I don't really mind a few minimum standards when it comes to public safety. I am one of the public. How are you with licensing for commercial aircraft pilots? Might be a good time to bring up "hold my beer and watch this!".


That's part of it, we all have different views on how much we want gov't control over what we do.
But the other part is acknowledging that there IS some control over these things and it isn't as free to "make your own pie" as some people like to say it is.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yup, and you can run for public office without a license. I think we all know what that gets us.


MAGA?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> That's part of it, we all have different views on how much we want gov't control over what we do.
> But the other part is acknowledging that there IS some control over these things and it isn't as free to "make your own pie" as some people like to say it is.


True, it's not free to bake a pie, but most anyone is free to do so if they follow the recipe.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> MAGA?


Sometimes good things happen, but can you honestly say it's the norm?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True, it's not free to bake a pie, but most anyone is free to do so if they follow the recipe.


Yup.
No DIY recipes allowed in the Land of the Free.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sometimes good things happen, but can you honestly say it's the norm?


Oh no, I could never say that!


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lots of folks feel they should not need a license to drive on our hi ways too, but I don't really mind a few minimum standards when it comes to public safety. I am one of the public. How are you with licensing for commercial aircraft pilots? Might be a good time to bring up "hold my beer and watch this!".


Having a few certified pilots in my family, you may be surprised to hear that I'm ok with it. There's a world of difference between learning how to safely operate a vehicle that hurtles through the air and learning how to safely braid hair. Know what it is? 

It actually takes more instruction/practice time to earn a cosmetology license (~1,600 hours of training) than a private pilot's certification (35-40 hours of flight time for the basic private pilot cert, 200 hours for a commercial pilot). 

So apparently hair braiders are a bigger threat to public safety than someone flying an aircraft. Nutty. Nutty. Nutty.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Mish said:


> Having a few certified pilots in my family, you may be surprised to hear that I'm ok with it. There's a world of difference between learning how to safely operate a vehicle that hurtles through the air and learning how to safely braid hair. Know what it is?
> 
> It actually takes more instruction/practice time to earn a cosmetology license (~1,600 hours of training) than a private pilot's certification (35-40 hours of flight time for the basic private pilot cert, 200 hours for a commercial pilot).
> 
> So apparently hair braiders are a bigger threat to public safety than someone flying an aircraft. Nutty. Nutty. Nutty.


Sorry... I've seen a few, they all have that look in their eye, you can see them from a mile away...


lol


----------

