# The Declining Labor Force



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/

Finally the university/think tanks whiz bangs have noticed the shrinking labor force and have recognized its problems for the economy.

And while they're still confused as to why this is happening, it is really pretty simple. People have found out, with increased welfare from food stamps to obamacare subsidies, they can continue life just as well with half the trouble as- gasp- working. Especially with illegal immigration being willing to take up the more unpleasant jobs, so far society is only slowing accomodating itself to the lower living standard.

The problem in the end is that more people on welfare means less taxes and the wage suppression due to a flood of immigrants combined with less native born workers means that it takes increasing taxes from the fewer and fewer workers to keep the whole system limping along. But that increase in taxes means that those workers find it more and more appealing to join the non-workers too. 

A downward spiral.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Millions of baby boomers started retirement earlier than planned. Some resorted to lax enforcement of disability requirements and used disability as a bridge until they reached Social Security retirement age.

It's not just that these people left the workforce, but that a large number of them are receiving government payments. So the government and social security receive less income and ss taxes and pay out more money.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Millions of baby boomers started retirement earlier than planned. Some resorted to lax enforcement of disability requirements and used disability as a bridge until they reached Social Security retirement age.
> 
> It's not just that these people left the workforce, but that a large number of them are receiving government payments. So the government and social security receive less income and ss taxes and pay out more money.


Yes the article pointed out that about half of the decrease is due to retirement- in one form or the other. But the other half of the decline "has experts puzzled." This is an ever increasing percentage of the population that "worries them.

Social Security should have been ok as the reforms done in the early 1980s increased the savings into the trust fund with the knowledge that it would be needed for the baby boomers. But that was of course not what the government did with that money burning a hole in their collective pockets.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

What did you think a deep recession would be like?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Could their be a silver lining? Might help with wage stagnation, employers have to offer more to fill their positions. 

And, could it be that couples are trending back to one wage earner? I have wondered for a long time if having both mom and dad in the workforce really paid off. There is a lot of extra expense from childcare, eating out, transportation, clothing, etc. when both mom and dad with younger children are working.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Also in places only one in 16 can pass a drug test :facepalm:


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Millions of baby boomers started retirement earlier than planned. Some resorted to lax enforcement of disability requirements and used disability as a bridge until they reached Social Security retirement age.
> 
> It's not just that these people left the workforce, but that a large number of them are receiving government payments. So the government and social security receive less income and ss taxes and pay out more money.


I can't say what's going on elsewhere, but here people are being ran into the ground just trying to survive. Most of the industrial jobs have been relocated over seas leaving the work force to work at minimum wage jobs doing hard manual labor 50+ hours a week. 

Now couple that with the high stress and the unavailability of funds for proper healthcare and you too would see a decline of available healthy people to continue in the work force. 

Then when you see the youngest generations to reach working age standing in line at the local food stamp office... many of use do indeed throw our hands up in the air and say I QUIT. I quit believing in a system that was meant to protect us in our aging years, but in fact, is teaching the younger generation to walk to the mail box for their pay. When doing so has caused our own government to raise the age limit of when I can start receiving my benefits it I HAVE WORKED MY ENTIRE LIFE to be entitled to..

So, YES, I QUIT feeding the mouth that has bitten me more than once!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> Could their be a silver lining? Might help with wage stagnation, employers have to offer more to fill their positions.


I doubt it. If jobs are available, many people who retired early or just dropped out will get back in again.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Part of the decline in job participation rate is once you exhaust your unemployment insurance, and still can't find a job you are no longer counted as unemployed. It is a government accounting trick to make people think the economy is better than it really is. There are people who want to work but can't find a decent job. Yes all the welfare/ food stamp benefits may contribute, but when you can only get a minimum wage job and you have to pay gas/ child care ect.. to hold the job, you end up taking home so little that the "dole line" looks better (ok "dole line" is British but it applies here) In the end it is the whole free trade agreements instead of tariffs (that protect your workers and your economy by keeping slave labor from competing with a decent paid work force) that's the problem.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What did you think a deep recession would be like?


According to you, we are in a recovery. And have been. Obama agrees with you.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> Could their be a silver lining? Might help with wage stagnation, employers have to offer more to fill their positions.
> 
> And, could it be that couples are trending back to one wage earner? I have wondered for a long time if having both mom and dad in the workforce really paid off. There is a lot of extra expense from childcare, eating out, transportation, clothing, etc. when both mom and dad with younger children are working.


I agree but unfortunately a sahm does not pay taxes and all levels of government have become very cozy with the idea of ever more taxes and spending.
A whole lot of people not in direct government services also rely on taxes for support. 

If wages had increased, there the hope for 1 income middle class life would be nice but wages haven't gone up even before the recession- a decade or two before. I think immigration, especially the illegal kind plus the ability to export jobs is the reason.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

The whole article is a joke. They are confused about why the numbers say one thing, and the reality points to something else. The reason is that the numbers are phony, they are part of the spin campaign designed to help create the impression of a recovery that doesn't exist. So sure it's confusing when you have the government posting numbers and interpretations that point to upside recovery, but all the realities don't match.

Let's take the very opening statement from the article:



> America's jobs picture is seeing huge improvement, with robust numbers that are giving investors confidence in the economy. The U.S. added 248,000 jobs last month, bringing the unemployment rate below 6 percent.
> 
> But one part of that picture is still a puzzle: People continue to stop looking for work, and in doing so, are dropping out of the labor pool. In fact, the participation rate in the labor force has fallen to 62.7 percent -- its lowest level since early 1978.
> 
> How can this be?


Hard to tell if the author is really that ignorant as to how these numbers are calculated or if he is willfully misrepresenting the reality. Unemployment numbers only count people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. When enough time passes and your unemployment runs out you don't get counted as unemployed anymore. That doesn't mean you got a job!

So the media spin is the unemployment rates have dropped and we are supposed to interpret that as people are getting jobs. Yet the labor participation rate is dropping and they don't understand why.

The author then goes on to tell us that we gained almost 250k jobs this month. But again they fail to consider how these numbers are calculated or what they really mean. More part time jobs to take the place of full time jobs is not an improvement in the economy. The simple "jobs" numbers make no distinction between full time, part time, low wage, minimum wage, or high wage. When we look a little deeper we find that MOST of the new jobs are part time minimum wage jobs, the true reality of the economy becomes clearer. 

The author, and many in the media, government, and even many economists are confused, scratching their heads because their numbers and the media spin aren't matching what we see in the real economy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> According to you, we are in a recovery. And have been. Obama agrees with you.


I never said we are in a recovery. On the contrary, I've been warning of 4 to 5 more years of recession. Where did you get the idea that I thought we were in a recovery?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I never said we are in a recovery. On the contrary, I've been warning of 4 to 5 more years of recession. -*Where did you get the idea that I thought we were in a recovery?*


Just a guess here.... reading your posts in many other threads where you seem to think we are well into the recovery stage? :shrug:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Trainwrek said:


> Hard to tell if the author is really that ignorant as to how these numbers are calculated or if he is willfully misrepresenting the reality. Unemployment numbers only count people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. When enough time passes and your unemployment runs out you don't get counted as unemployed anymore. That doesn't mean you got a job!
> 
> So the media spin is the unemployment rates have dropped and we are supposed to interpret that as people are getting jobs. Yet the labor participation rate is dropping and they don't understand why.
> 
> ...


But it is progress, if you see a relationship between the economist's thinking and its effect on government policy, that they even mentioned the still dropping percentage figures. Or maybe it's just reporters are now noticing. Either way, it's different to see the issue not simply ignored.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I never said we are in a recovery. On the contrary, I've been warning of 4 to 5 more years of recession. Where did you get the idea that I thought we were in a recovery?



"Of course the president can create jobs. That's what public works programs are all about.-Obama-spends money on a project, even a project you believe is nonsense, someone gets a job. It's called demand-side economics. Why not give it a chance?- Nevada 2012"

The point of the article was the lack of upward trend in the percentage. In every previous recession, there has been a sharp decline in employment followed by a sharp increase, leading to a recovery. That is what I thought a recession looked like. If I thought about how it looked at all.

But this is different. There has been a continuous downward in this stat trend for 15 years. It was exacerbated by the recession but not caused by it- it existed prior to the recession.

My fear is that if the causes of this are not addressed, the every recession will lead to a recovery that rises only to a lower level than previous to the recession. 
And that means less opportunity for most, who will only see they continuously have less than the previous generation. And that leads to instablity - even more than normal in life. If not worse.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Our socialist leaders want a smaller workforce, and less economic opportunities. Nafta did not happen by accident! The more people they can make dependent upon the government the better they like it. When the masses have no other way to feed themselves they are perfectly willing to vote for the same socialists that created their misery. FDR figured this out nearly ninety years ago.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

where I want to said:


> But it is progress, if you see a relationship between the economist's thinking and its effect on government policy, that they even mentioned the still dropping percentage figures. Or maybe it's just reporters are now noticing. Either way, it's different to see the issue not simply ignored.


True, at least they are talking about it but its spun as though its such a mystery nobody can figure this thing out.

It reminds me of back in '07 the reports were that people's confidence in the economy was low, yet all their numbers and models showed that the economy was strong. They were wondering why there was a "disconnect" between what people thought about the economy and what all the data showed.

Of course, the people could feel that the economy was turning, they saw their jobs disappearing and prices rising while wages stayed stagnant. These things are a mystery to people who are only looking at the data and listening to the government upside spin. They're always taken by surprise when things turn south or confused about why the reality doesn't match the numbers. They've got their heads buried in statistics and they only see the statistics that they want.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

where I want to said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/
> 
> Finally the university/think tanks whiz bangs have noticed the shrinking labor force and have recognized its problems for the economy.
> 
> ...


I see another facet to this argument.

I see jobs out there, and no qualified people to fill them.

Companies now seem to want employees ready to go from Day 1. They don't want to invest in training programs and promotion from within the ranks. By doing so, I think they are cutting their own throats.

In WWII, we turned out some pretty decent welders, riveters and even machinists through intensive company training. It might not be the same mix of jobs, but we can still do the same today.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Trainwrek said:


> The whole article is a joke. They are confused about why the numbers say one thing, and the reality points to something else. The reason is that the numbers are phony, they are part of the spin campaign designed to help create the impression of a recovery that doesn't exist. So sure it's confusing when you have the government posting numbers and interpretations that point to upside recovery, but all the realities don't match.
> 
> Let's take the very opening statement from the article:
> 
> ...


About 80% of the jobs created last month were minimum wage or low wage jobs, or part time. A married woman working for that has nothing left after working expense and child care. She's just as well off staying home. I'd wager most of those low paying, part time jobs were taken by people already working those kinds of jobs and wanting more income and very few unemployed took those jobs. It's easier to be on the dole and the hours are excellent.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

poppy said:


> About 80% of the jobs created last month were minimum wage or low wage jobs, or part time. A married woman working for that has nothing left after working expense and child care. She's just as well off staying home. I'd wager most of those low paying, part time jobs were taken by people already working those kinds of jobs and wanting more income and very few unemployed took those jobs. It's easier to be on the dole and the hours are excellent.


Yes, of course. As we move from a labor force of full time workers to a labor force of part time workers jobs numbers will go up. Replacing one full time worker with two part time workers will double the amount of raw "jobs" in the economy. And again the "jobs numbers" make no distinction between full time, part time, minimum wage or high salary jobs.

The government, media, and federal reserve report 'job numbers' and intentionally ignore the underlying data. They always want to give you the impression that the economy is doing better than it is, they call that 'upside bias'. And if you buy it, your going to be confused about why the government says one thing, but everything you see says something else.

They deliberately ignore the bad news or spin it away. Data such as the fact that most of the jobs gains are going to people in the 55-65 age group;



> Indeed, of the 4.3 million jobs created in the past three years, nearly 3 million have gone to people over the age of 55


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/older-workers-snapping-up-all-the-jobs/

Of course, again, the article fails to connect the dots between a tragically failing economy and people at retirement age coming out of early retirement and going back to work to take jobs ( many of them taking minimum wage part time jobs) because they can't afford to retire anymore.

And they gloss over the fact that the young people, the future of our economy, the people who are supposed to be gaining valuable experience and saving money to buy houses and start families, are 25% unemployed! And thats using their phony unemployment numbers the real number is probably closer to 50%.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Tighten thy belt, and learn to live on a lot less.(1/2 cup please)


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Yes the article pointed out that about half of the decrease is due to retirement- in one form or the other. But the other half of the decline "has experts puzzled."


That is because the experts in their ivory towers don't keep statistics on the cash economy, which is flourishing and ever-growing right under their noses!

A couple of years ago, my (then) husband and I got a bid on a new roof from one of the biggest construction companies in the area. We were mildly surprised when the estimator gave us two prices, one (substantially lower) being a cash price. I guess when the contractor isn't paying taxes on his profits, he can afford to charge less, eh? And yes, we jumped at that deal.

Last year I quit a job with a franchise of a nationwide cleaning company. Again was mildly surprised when the owner offered to start paying me in cash if I'd stay on. 

The guy I hired to build my run-in shed a couple of years ago mentioned in conversation that he'd been drawing unemployment for more than a year. Had just gotten an extension that would keep him on the dole for a couple more months. I had to wait a few weeks for him to start my job as he had 2 others lined up before it. I didn't even ask him whether I could pay by check ... I already knew the answer. ound:

I could go on, but you get the picture. Cash is King!


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Another reason for lingering high unemployment:

Some companies keep their positions "open" for many months. Have any of you really looked at the in depth requirements these days? College degrees for basic secretarial work, and similar. The breadth of required skills seems to grow with the wage to be discussed. A person hardly ever sees "x number of years in lieu of degree" these days. 

I've often wondered why employers insist on a candidate with a degree, as opposed to someone with actual experience at the position. Seriously, all a degree shows is you have the determination to get one. Period. It does not prove your ability to actually perform....unlike someone who has, say, five years experience. And another thing I've also noticed: The descriptions and requirements are so tight, that only a very tiny fraction of people could possibly even remotely qualify, even those within the same industry. I understand that companies want the best person (who doesn't?) but on the other hand, if the job is sitting there unfilled, maybe it is time to revisit your qualifications


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Nevada said:


> What did you think a deep recession would be like?


Me thinks that we are yet to find out.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> That is because the experts in their ivory towers don't keep statistics on the cash economy, which is flourishing and ever-growing right under their noses!
> 
> A couple of years ago, my (then) husband and I got a bid on a new roof from one of the biggest construction companies in the area. We were mildly surprised when the estimator gave us two prices, one (substantially lower) being a cash price. I guess when the contractor isn't paying taxes on his profits, he can afford to charge less, eh? And yes, we jumped at that deal.
> 
> ...


You Rascal, you.


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

It isn't even an "underground" economy any more - many companies in my city openly advertise discounts for people paying in cash - even the gas stations at Circle K



willow_girl said:


> That is because the experts in their ivory towers don't keep statistics on the cash economy, which is flourishing and ever-growing right under their noses!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

where I want to said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/
> 
> Finally the university/think tanks whiz bangs have noticed the shrinking labor force and have recognized its problems for the economy.
> 
> ...


How do you know that they are all on welfare, Especially men?

It's not rocket science really.

Assuming you made $8/hr. that's a whopping $64(about a tank of gasoline) for an 8 hour day and taxes/SS, etc. will be deducted. Likely part time no benefits

A pickup truck load of scrap metal easily gets $100 cash. $35 each for mowing lawns. Certainly some will hire for cash.

Right or wrong, maybe people are choosing no "job" over a lousy paying one.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I understand that companies want the best person (who doesn't?) but on the other hand, if the job is sitting there unfilled, maybe it is time to revisit your qualifications


It's possible they don't really want to fill the position; they're just keeping the job posted so the workers who are busting their humps right now to pick up the slack of their departed colleague have some assurance that the situation is only temporary and they'll get some relief soon. Maybe! 

Meanwhile, the company is saving money every day the position goes unfilled.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> That is because the experts in their ivory towers don't keep statistics on the cash economy, which is flourishing and ever-growing right under their noses!
> 
> A couple of years ago, my (then) husband and I got a bid on a new roof from one of the biggest construction companies in the area. We were mildly surprised when the estimator gave us two prices, one (substantially lower) being a cash price. I guess when the contractor isn't paying taxes on his profits, he can afford to charge less, eh? And yes, we jumped at that deal.
> 
> ...


Which is why we need to abolish the IRS, assign all taxing duties to the Treasury Department and allocate about 100 employees to make sure the national sales tax is adequately collected.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Which is why we need to abolish the IRS, assign all taxing duties to the Treasury Department and allocate about 100 employees to make sure the national sales tax is adequately collected.


Oh boy, more sales tax? Isn't easier to get spending under control?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Eagle-eye said:


> Oh boy, more sales tax? Isn't easier to get spending under control?


That's not the point. The point is that a sales tax is better for the country than an income tax. A sales tax will encourage saving instead of discouraging increased income. The result will be more productivity and less consumption.

If you can lower spending then fine, but I don't see that on our horizon.


----------



## Eagle-eye (Sep 16, 2014)

Nevada said:


> That's not the point. The point is that a sales tax is better for the country than an income tax. A sales tax will encourage saving instead of discouraging increased income. The result will be more productivity and less consumption.
> 
> If you can lower spending then fine, but I don't see that on our horizon.


I don't see it on our horizon either but neither is abolishing the income tax. So as long as we are discussing what should be but never will, why not do it right?

If the crux of the problem is spending, lets strike at the root instead of hacking away at the branches. Why bother trying to find new ways to fund our spending problem without ever confronting the problem itself? It's like a junkie dreaming of new ways to avoid coming down instead of even considering that his problem is that he is addicted to getting high in the first place!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's not the point. The point is that a sales tax is better for the country than an income tax. A sales tax will encourage saving instead of discouraging increased income. The result will be more productivity and less consumption.
> 
> If you can lower spending then fine, but I don't see that on our horizon.



Hmmm.

Take an income tax, in which revenue stream is fairly stable and replace it with increased sales tax, whose revenue levels are at the whim, or the available spendable income, of the general public.

If another recessions hits and consumerism slows way down, where does the money come from to run the government?

Just curious.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Take an income tax, in which revenue stream is fairly stable and replace it with increased sales tax, whose revenue levels are at the whim, or the available spendable income, of the general public.
> 
> ...


The same problem exists with income tax during a recession, since people lose jobs and take lower paying jobs in a recession. The result is lower income taxes collected and decreased federal revenue.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The same problem exists with income tax during a recession, since people lose jobs and take lower paying jobs in a recession. The result is lower income taxes collected and decreased federal revenue.


Which is why we need to reduce spending. It becomes obvious that is the only real solution. Increasing taxes isnt going to work no matter which end you tax.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

I've kinda scanned over responses and I can't find one mention of the changing attitude about work that we have noticed.

A friend who owns a profitable farm equipment company selling grain storage equipment and silos cannot get help. They pay good wages and treat their help well but many simply do not want to work.The wife confided in me recently that her husband who isn't a young man anymore, is doing a lot of the aerial work that the younger employees usually does simply because they cannot find help. New hires show up when and if they want to and do their best to do as little work as possible as long as they get a paycheck. We have been told that the ones who are responsible are the Hispanics that they hire. If they have three or four that are working in a team and one messes up or doesn't show up for work the team's 'boss' replaces him with a more willing worker. That doesn't shine well on the non-Hispanics who show up late or not at all to do a day's work.

I have heard this from more than one business owner.

I'm not saying that this trend is absolute. There are people who believe in working for 8 hours. But when the attitude is 'oh well, if I don't work, I can always get on Welfare' is way to prevalent in today's society. Many feel that it is 'beneath them' to work flipping burgers at Micky D's. They want a job that will pay them 15 dollars an hour without any type of college or trade school education. Any wonder why the Hispanics (at least a percentage of them) are wanting to com here? Work as a hotel maid? Flip burgers? Sure, to them, making 8.75 or whatever the current minimum wage is big money to them while the non Hispanic is waiting for that 15.00 dollar an hour job that they feel they are entitled to in their own mind.

I'm not surprised to hear that the work force is down. Nor am I surprised to read that many are working for 'cash only'. Good deal if you can get away with it, unfortunately the IRS has a way of sneaking up behind you and biting you on the butt if they catch you as a business owner doing that.

What I wonder is just how long we can go on as a society with things the way they are. We aren't young any more and I worry about the world we leave behind once we are gone.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

badlander said:


> I've kinda scanned over responses and I can't find one mention of the changing attitude about work that we have noticed.
> 
> A friend who owns a profitable farm equipment company selling grain storage equipment and silos cannot get help. They pay good wages and treat their help well but many simply do not want to work.The wife confided in me recently that her husband who isn't a young man anymore, is doing a lot of the aerial work that the younger employees usually does simply because they cannot find help. New hires show up when and if they want to and do their best to do as little work as possible as long as they get a paycheck. We have been told that the ones who are responsible are the Hispanics that they hire. If they have three or four that are working in a team and one messes up or doesn't show up for work the team's 'boss' replaces him with a more willing worker. That doesn't shine well on the non-Hispanics who show up late or not at all to do a day's work.
> 
> ...



Theres alot of other anecdotal evidence that suggest just the opposite. Recently in my area the power company had an opening for 50 new full time hires. These are what I call "real jobs" because they are full time, good pay, and benefits. 2,500 people showed up. The line was blocks long. 2,500 applicants for 50 positions. That suggests to me that the demand for real employment far outweighs the supply.

Everyone I know is struggling for employment. I know people putting out resumes for months, even YEARS with no responses. Eventually the unemployment runs out and they end up taking a part time job ( or two ) with no benefits. I wish I lived where you live, because around here, and in the other state that I have lived in the past 5 years, the job market is BAD. Really, really BAD.

The labor statistics indicate that this is the norm throughout most of the country. Wages have remained stagnant. Now if the demand for labor was high, and they just couldn't fill those positions because 'people just dont want to work', the price of labor would have to go up. It hasn't. Supply and demand doesn't lie. I think these ideas of 'young people not wanting to work' just aren't true. If it were, wages would be higher, they'd have to offer more money, more benefits, etc In order to entice people back into the labor market. The reality is there just aren't enough jobs.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Trainwrek said:


> Theres alot of other anecdotal evidence that suggest just the opposite. Recently in my area the power company had an opening for 50 new full time hires. These are what I call "real jobs" because they are full time, good pay, and benefits. 2,500 people showed up. The line was blocks long. 2,500 applicants for 50 positions. That suggests to me that the demand for real employment far outweighs the supply.
> 
> Everyone I know is struggling for employment. I know people putting out resumes for months, even YEARS with no responses. Eventually the unemployment runs out and they end up taking a part time job ( or two ) with no benefits. I wish I lived where you live, because around here, and in the other state that I have lived in the past 5 years, the job market is BAD. Really, really BAD.
> 
> The labor statistics indicate that this is the norm throughout most of the country. Wages have remained stagnant. Now if the demand for labor was high, and they just couldn't fill those positions because 'people just dont want to work', the price of labor would have to go up. It hasn't. Supply and demand doesn't lie. I think these ideas of 'young people not wanting to work' just aren't true. If it were, wages would be higher, they'd have to offer more money, more benefits, etc In order to entice people back into the labor market. The reality is there just aren't enough jobs.


How many of those 2500 people who showed up to apply for the job, would have given a good performance? Everybody wants a job, but less people want to actually work. 

I do think we have lost some of the work ethic from the past. We were so worried about self-esteem, we gave trophies to everyone who showed up. So the low performers got the same reward as the high performers, why should they try any harder? We let kids lounge around the house and watch tv and play video games. When I was a kid, you wanted to go outside and play - because if you hung around the house you would be given more work to do! Not all young people, of course, you can still find examples of young people achieving things to make you proud. But the average younger person today has a set of life experiences that didn't teach them the correlation between work and its reward.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

Perhaps it is a regional difference. Midwestern verses Eastern nUS. I know in the city we retired from, the public aide population was 64% in the local school. Think of it! More than 50% of the general population on welfare. Trust me, I've dealt with individuals who were capable of working and being off the dole but instead are driving new cars and bragging about their Australian vacations that were upcoming. This isn't inner city, this is small town mid-western America. The jobs are there in this town but there isn't a work force that is willing to fill them.


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

Sorry for the link bomb, but these are worth knowing:

Welfare System Pays More than Work in 35 States

More Welfare Recipients Than Full-Time Workers

US Spends 20% More Money on a Household on Welfare Than Median US Income

Family on Welfare Capable of Collecting More Disposable Income than Middle Class Family Working for 60K

Median Income Plummeting - at Lowest Point in 15 Years

Income Gap Growing for First Time in 3 Decades

This is why the work ethic has gone to ----- and why those who still have a work ethic are applying for jobs that are beneath them; in my field, there are people with 15+ years experience doing entry-level work that someone a decade younger than them should be doing.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The same problem exists with income tax during a recession, since people lose jobs and take lower paying jobs in a recession. The result is lower income taxes collected and decreased federal revenue.


Hmmm.

A 6.5% unemployment rate, means a 93.5% employment rate, most at a stable income. 

That still does not even explain how an increased sales tax, which presumably will encourage personal saving, will improve the economy.

How does less spending improve a consumer driven economy, which we absolutely do have?


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> How many of those 2500 people who showed up to apply for the job, would have given a good performance? Everybody wants a job, but less people want to actually work.
> 
> I do think we have lost some of the work ethic from the past. We were so worried about self-esteem, we gave trophies to everyone who showed up. So the low performers got the same reward as the high performers, why should they try any harder? We let kids lounge around the house and watch tv and play video games. When I was a kid, you wanted to go outside and play - because if you hung around the house you would be given more work to do! Not all young people, of course, you can still find examples of young people achieving things to make you proud. But the average younger person today has a set of life experiences that didn't teach them the correlation between work and its reward.


I agree that the way alot of kids have been raised in the past 30 years is atrocious. I blame alot of it on the schools that are supposed to be preparing kids for the world but spend 12 years with very little to show for it.

I just don't believe that locking a kid away from the real world, in a brick building for 12 years, can possibly prepare them for the real world. When you think about a kid sitting down for 8 hours at a desk and then being forced to sit down at table for another two hours for homework at night, it's got to seem unnatural. When they rebel and want to actual MOVE and do something they are labeled ADHD and put on dope.

When they leave the artificial brick building that has no correlation to the real world, what do they immerse themselves in? TV, another fake world. Or internet, 'virtual reality'. It's no wonder they get out into the world and have no clue what to do in it. They've never been exposed to it!

Me and the wife have our first on its way ( God willing ). We have been reading everything we can get our hands on about homeschooling and alternative education. We are determined to raise a functioning, productive human being.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> A 6.5% unemployment rate, means a 93.5% employment rate, most at a stable income.


..:umno:A 6.5% unemployment rate means 6.5% collecting unemployment benefits. Nothing more. It does not consider all the underemployed either. I would also question the 'stable income' since inflation has risen much faster and higher than wages.

*A labor force participation rate of 62 percent means 38% percent UNEMPLOYED. This is the lowest participation rate since 1978*.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Trainwrek said:


> ..:umno:A 6.5% unemployment rate means 6.5% collecting unemployment benefits. Nothing more. It does not consider all the underemployed either. I would also question the 'stable income' since inflation has risen much faster and higher than wages.
> 
> *A labor force participation rate of 62 percent means 38% percent UNEMPLOYED. This is the lowest participation rate since 1978*.


What's your point?

"underemployed" are also going to spend less, so replacing income tax with a higher sales tax, still makes no sense, as for having money to run the Government, or improve the economy.


Considering "work force participation"

It is an absolute fact, that if people don't look for a job, they are _never_ going to find one.

There are plenty of jobs out there for people that actually want to work. If they live somewhere where there are no jobs, they are going to have to relocate. It has alwasy been this way.

*The Massive Trucker Shortage Could Hit Your Wallet Soon*



*



According to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the industry is about 30,000 short of qualified drivers. Over the next 10 years, that number is set to rise to 200,000.

Click to expand...

*

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal...-trucker-shortage-could-hit-your-wallet-soon/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our socialist leaders want a smaller workforce, and less economic opportunities. Nafta did not happen by accident! The more people they can make dependent upon the government the better they like it. When the masses have no other way to feed themselves they are perfectly willing to vote for the same socialists that created their misery. FDR figured this out nearly ninety years ago.


Cochise and the Chokonen-Chiricahua lived in the area that is now the northern Mexican region of Sonora, New Mexico, and Arizona, which they had moved into sometime before the coming of the Europeans. As Spain and later Mexico attempted to gain dominion over their lands, the various Chiricahua groups became increasingly resistant. Cycles of warfare developed, which the Apaches mostly won. Eventually, *the Spanish tried a different approach; they tried to make the Apaches dependent *(thereby placating them) upon poor-quality firearms and liquor rations issued by the colonial government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochise


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our socialist leaders want a smaller workforce, and less economic opportunities. Nafta did not happen by accident! The more people they can make dependent upon the government the better they like it. When the masses have no other way to feed themselves they are perfectly willing to vote for the same socialists that created their misery. FDR figured this out nearly ninety years ago.


LOL. NAFTA is the work of socialists, indeed! 



> Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. *U.S. President George H. W. Bush,* Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch





> With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. *The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrat*s. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. *Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. *Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[


3][4] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Interesting that NAFTA was was all about socialism, so who wanted it?

Canadian Liberals hated it and American Organized Labor, fought NAFTA tooth-and-nail.

Conservative capitalists, perhaps?


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> Considering "work force participation"
> 
> It is an absolute fact, that if people don't look for a job, they are _never_ going to find one.
> 
> There are plenty of jobs out there for people that actually want to work


People are not all deciding at once not to participate in the labor market. These low numbers are occurring for a reason, it's a reflection of a systemic problem within the labor market and the economy.

The problem is, simply, that there are NOT "plenty of jobs out there for people that want to work". If there were then they would take them. Now the reasons WHY the jobs don't exist are whole different discussion.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Trainwrek said:


> People are not all deciding at once not to participate in the labor market. These low numbers are occurring for a reason, it's a reflection of a systemic problem within the labor market and the economy.
> 
> The problem is, simply, that there are NOT "plenty of jobs out there for people that want to work". If there were then they would take them. Now the reasons WHY the jobs don't exist are whole different discussion.


Sorry, not buying the excuses.

I'm seeing "now hiring" signs everywhere in IN and KY, manufacturing work, warehousing, lawn care.,etc. Probably $8-10/hr jobs, but so what?

Call up one of the hundreds of national trucking companies, tell them you want company paid CDL school and drive for them.

My experience that getting a lousy job is always the first step in getting a better job. Perhaps I'm old fashioned.

People are Dropping out, because they either don't want to work at all, it's not the field they want to work in, or they don't want to work unless the job pays $32/hr. None are valid excuses, IMO.

They just said the U.S. unemployment rate is 5.9% the lowest in years. either it getting a little better, or it's just more lies.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> Sorry, not buying the excuses.
> 
> I'm seeing "now hiring" signs everywhere in IN and KY, manufacturing work, warehousing, lawn care.,etc. Probably $8-10/hr jobs, but so what?
> 
> ...


OK LOL :hysterical:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Trainwrek said:


> OK LOL :hysterical:


If the economy of VT is not improving at all, that is a shame.

It is around here. Wonderful? hardly, but there are jobs. Resteraunts were packed, tonight with newer cars in the parking lots.

My own county's unemployment rate is 5.3%, down from 14.5%, in 2009. I'm sure that all lies, also and the help wanted signs are a figment of my imagination.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> Sorry, not buying the excuses.
> 
> I'm seeing "now hiring" signs everywhere in IN and KY, manufacturing work, warehousing, lawn care.,etc. Probably $8-10/hr jobs, but so what?
> 
> ...


 You do realize $8.00 an hour is not even close to a living wage, don't you? Its easy for someone to say so what, when there not the one's that have to survive on that amount. I have to laugh when conservative farmers talk about others being on the dole, yet they wont turn down that large government grain subsidy check will they?:umno:


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> If the economy of VT is not improving at all, that is a shame.
> 
> It is around here. Wonderful? hardly, but there are jobs. Resteraunts were packed, tonight with newer cars in the parking lots.
> 
> My own county's unemployment rate is 5.3%, down from 14.5%, in 2009. I'm sure that all lies, also and the help wanted signs are a figment of my imagination.


lol, you can say what you want about "now hiring" signs that you want too.. they are hanging everywhere here..

Most have hiring freezes and only taking applications incase they need someone a month from now.. AND IF you do get hired in at $8 an hour, you just pushed an older employee making $12 out the door as soon as they can make an excuse..


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

cedarvalley said:


> You do realize $8.00 an hour is not even close to a living wage, don't you? Its easy for someone to say so what, when there not the one's that have to survive on that amount. I have to laugh when conservative farmers talk about others being on the dole, yet they wont turn down that large government grain subsidy check will they?:umno:


LOL

Ok, so how much does not working at all, pay?

Yes, I know it is not very much, but my experience shows that having a lousy job is a step towards a better one. Besides,having a low paying job, still qualifies for EBT and other Govt assistance.

Not even trying is unacceptable IMO, but completely acceptable, in todays world.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kycountry said:


> lol, you can say what you want about "now hiring" signs that you want too.. they are hanging everywhere here..
> 
> Most have hiring freezes and only taking applications incase they need someone a month from now.. AND IF you do get hired in at $8 an hour, you just pushed an older employee making $12 out the door as soon as they can make an excuse..


Ok, then by all means, do not try at all, LOL. Just more excuses.

Everyone I know around that has been looking for a job, has found one fairly, quick, because there are real jobs available.

Not taking and $8/hr joib, bacuse you might push someone making $12/hr out the door, just seems absurd, IMO. Sorry.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Ok, so how much does not working at all, pay?
> 
> ...


when you drive 30 miles each way to work for $8 an hour for part time work... your better off picking up pop cans on the side of the road.... and if it gets real bad, one could always pick up rocks and sell them on Ebay.. :hobbyhors


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> Ok, then by all means, do not try at all, LOL. Just more excuses.
> 
> Everyone I know around that has been looking for a job, has found one fairly, quick, because there are real jobs available.
> 
> Not taking and $8/hr joib, bacuse you might push someone making $12/hr out the door, just seems absurd, IMO. Sorry.


I don't have to make excuses... I'm stating FACTS..

Am I employed in the public work force?? NOPE... 
Is the government keeping my sorry butt up?? NOPE....
Am I footing the bill for them to keep other sorry butts up?? NOT if I can help it...

I am SELF EMPLOYED, a word many Americans only dream of... and if I'm going to work my butt off, I want my efforts and the "fruits of my labor" to go in my pocket.. not some half wit owner's pocket that could care less about their workers eating bologna sandwiches counting pennies just for gas money..


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Ok, so how much does not working at all, pay?
> 
> ...


 I would of agreed with you several years ago, now I see college graduates taking the same job as HS graduates used to. Unfortunately the labor market we are in as a nation has shifted, opportunities for increasing pay and position have deteriated rapidly. Let me give you a couple examples.
My sister is about 47 yrs. old, and has worked for the university hospital for many years, and she makes a lot more than the new employees. Now they are making it miserable for here, as they are wanting her to quit, so they can hire a new employee, and save money on wages. This is happening on a lot of positions within this organization.
I have a cousin and his wife who are pharmacist for the last 25 years, they work for one of the nation wide popular pharmacy's. This company wants them to quit and is making hard on them, because the new pharmacist they are hiring, they are paying about $ 35,000 less per year, than what they are making.
My whole point being, there are very few company's that back a loyal long time employee any more for pay and advancement. We now live in a corporate America, where the race for higher profits and lower wages is the norm.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

cedarvalley said:


> I would of agreed with you several years ago, now I see college graduates taking the same job as HS graduates used to. Unfortunately the labor market we are in as a nation has shifted, opportunities for increasing pay and position have deteriated rapidly. Let me give you a couple examples.
> My sister is about 47 yrs. old, and has worked for the university hospital for many years, and she makes a lot more than the new employees. Now they are making it miserable for here, as they are wanting her to quit, so they can hire a new employee, and save money on wages. This is happening on a lot of positions within this organization.
> I have a cousin and his wife who are pharmacist for the last 25 years, they work for one of the nation wide popular pharmacy's. This company wants them to quit and is making hard on them, because the new pharmacist they are hiring, they are paying about $ 35,000 less per year, than what they are making.
> My whole point being, there are very few company's that back a loyal long time employee any more for pay and advancement. We now live in a corporate America, where the race for higher profits and lower wages is the norm.


I agree things have changed drastically, not necessarily for the better.

The Unions are gone. No one want to raise the minimum wage and since it's an employer's game now, in most fields, they are taking advantage of it - big time..

My point is, as likely productive citizens, we have to do _something_, as sitting, doing _nothing_ and waiting for better times, is not going to cut it.

I have a great job now, but I have had plenty of lousy one's during my lifetime. Many were barely livable wages, for sure. One thing i did experience, that several of these lousy job, were a stepping stone, for a higher paying job later, either at that company, or elsewhere, when I learned a new skill, or task.

A lot of job promotions still come from within, as they always have. Show up for work on time, sober and with a shred of ambition. Wow!

Frankly I think it can still be done. That's what i will be doing, if I need to.

Will it be easy? No, it will not.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Show up for work on time, sober and with a shred of ambition. Wow!


Wow indeed! You are asking an awful lot of todays work force!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Wow indeed! You are asking an awful lot of todays work force!


Looking at some of the replies here, I might be. 

Nearly every business, that has lousy, low paying, part time jobs, has better jobs, up somewhere else in the company.

A "lousy job", means that you at least have your foot in the door, a massive advantage, for those who do not.

For some reason - don't ask me why, hiring people, will almost hire someone who is working - anywhere, verses someone who is working nowhere. Just the way that it is IME. I felt the same way when I was on the other side of the hiring desk.

This is not really breaking news, I know, but many people now believe that if they can't have a great job - *now*, they don't want a job at all.

That's not what made America great.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

There is definitely some logic to that, especially for someone changing careers or just starting out. But most people have bills to pay NOW, that's why they need the better job NOW. Once you have had that good job, bought a house based on it and so forth, you can't really go back to $8 hour and tell your creditors to just hang on a few years while you climb the ladder again. That's the crush so many people are in since the recession, just trying to get back to what they once had. And, age has a lot to do with it. People 45, 50 and over just aren't as likely to get hired. 

So while it might be good advice for kids just starting out, for the millions of "displaced workers", not so much.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> There is definitely some logic to that, especially for someone changing careers or just starting out. But most people have bills to pay NOW, that's why they need the better job NOW. Once you have had that good job, bought a house based on it and so forth, you can't really go back to $8 hour and tell your creditors to just hang on a few years while you climb the ladder again. That's the crush so many people are in since the recession, just trying to get back to what they once had. And, age has a lot to do with it. People 45, 50 and over just aren't as likely to get hired.
> 
> So while it might be good advice for kids just starting out, for the millions of "displaced workers", not so much.


I am sure the bookies hear much the same arguments down at the pony track.... "but but but.... that horse has been winning for so long! How was I sposed to know it was going to break a leg now.... "

We all place our bets and takes our chances in life... some are just poor gamblers. Me? I never lived above that 8 bucks an hour.... as a matter of fact I seldom ever earned that much to begin with. Those poor folks who have "lost everything they had" obviously didnt have anything... they were only renting from the banks and mortgage companies... had they actually owned it, they would not have lost it. I have often wondered why so many people borrow so much money against their jobs... if they lose their job, they know they will lose whatever collateral they have put up as security.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am sure the bookies hear much the same arguments down at the pony track.... "but but but.... that horse has been winning for so long! How was I sposed to know it was going to break a leg now.... "
> 
> We all place our bets and takes our chances in life... some are just poor gamblers. Me? I never lived above that 8 bucks an hour.... as a matter of fact I seldom ever earned that much to begin with.


Do you know the difference between playing the ponies and the stock market?

It's a 100% guaranteed sure thing......









that one of those horses will be declared the winner. 

Someone who got an education, worked hard, planned for their children, saved and invested, basically did all the responsible things in life, but then had the rug yanked out from under them because of the recession, was hardly a "poor gambler".


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Adapt, improvise and overcome.

Until Gabriel grabs his horn off the shelf, there is nothing certain in this old world. There is more opportunity in this country for economic advancement, than there ever has been, in any country, at any point in time.

There is no set such thing as doing all the right economic things in life, because aspects of doing the right economic thing changes with the economy.

You just do the best you can and always be prepared for change.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am sure the bookies hear much the same arguments down at the pony track.... "but but but.... that horse has been winning for so long! How was I sposed to know it was going to break a leg now.... "
> 
> We all place our bets and takes our chances in life... some are just poor gamblers. Me? I never lived above that 8 bucks an hour.... as a matter of fact I seldom ever earned that much to begin with. Those poor folks who have "lost everything they had" obviously didnt have anything... they were only renting from the banks and mortgage companies... had they actually owned it, they would not have lost it. I have often wondered why so many people borrow so much money against their jobs... if they lose their job, they know they will lose whatever collateral they have put up as security.


Perhaps you just had better luck than some.

I had a friend who worked hard, saved, had money. His wife died and could not collect on insurance (for some reason), he lost his job and therfore his healtchare, then developed Multiple Sclerosis, which now has him in extreme pain, penniless, confined to a wheel chair, with no use of his legs. He tried to commit suicide, just to get checked into a VA hospital.

I know of several women, who worked hard and saved for the future, only to have the husband, kick them out - penniless. divorce them and file for bankruptcy, hide assets, or find other ways to get put of paying alimony.

Some people worked hard their whole lives - at lousy $8/hr thinking that there was at least a decent company pension with insurance, waiting for them until the plant closed and moved to China.

At one time they probably thought they had things handled financially, too.

Sometime it does not take much.

Do many live above their means? For sure.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Do you know the difference between playing the ponies and the stock market?
> 
> It's a 100% guaranteed sure thing......
> 
> ...


They musta missed class the day the instructor told them never to stand on the other fellers rug.  A lot of folks are now getting an education thanks to that recession.... nope, no degrees nor diplomas to hang on their walls, just a good old fashioned education. The kind my grampa and granny gave my dad, and he passed on down to me. Little things like aways sit with your back to a wall... never tell anyone everything you know, and if it looks too good to be true... it aint. and most importantly.... if you ever get hit with a bucket of soot,,,, be sure and shut your eyes!


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

I don't have the time it would take to type the half page response to prove "we, The American Workers" are screwed right now... but here is some home work for you all to do until I get the rest of my days work done...


Look up Government Training programs.. I'm talking about them paying half a person's wage while in training.. then declining on a sliding scale until 6 months of employment..

Also look up how this is tied to our immigration problem, Identity theft, and tax fraud. 

I'll be back in a bit with FACTS that most people here saying "JOBS ARE EVERYWHERE" doesn't have a clue.. they are just sheep that need the wool sheered from their eyes..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Perhaps you just had better luck than some.
> 
> I had a friend who worked hard, saved, had money. His wife died and could not collect on insurance (for some reason), *he lost his job and therfore his healtchare,* then developed Multiple Sclerosis, which now has him in extreme pain, penniless, confined to a wheel chair, with no use of his legs. He tried to commit suicide, just to get checked into a VA hospital.
> 
> ...


What is the common denominator involved with those things I bolded? Placing their future in someone elses hands. Bad move... every time! Some of us have to learn the hard way. I know I did.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Adapt, improvise and overcome.
> 
> Until Gabriel grabs his horn off the shelf, there is nothing certain in this old world. *There is more opportunity in this country for economic advancement, than there ever has been, in any country, at any point in time*.
> 
> ...


There is still opportunity, but the window of opportunity will never be as wide open again as it was back when the Louisiana Purchase was opened up. When you are building a nation from scratch and all those natural resources are all still there for the taking - well nothing in today's world even comes close.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> There is still opportunity, but the window of opportunity will never be as wide open again as it was back when the Louisiana Purchase was opened up. When you are building a nation from scratch and all those natural resources are all still there for the taking - well nothing in today's world even comes close.


 You summed it up pretty well. My aunt of 85 years said the other day that she had lived through the best years of what this country had to offer, and was kind of sad for her sons, nieces and nephews, for she was afraid, that we would not get to experience the oppurtunities she and her deceased husband had.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Once you have had that good job, bought a house based on it and so forth, you can't really go back to $8 hour and tell your creditors to just hang on a few years while you climb the ladder again.


It has always seemed to me that if you have the good fortune to land a job that provides a good income, you should put away plenty for a rainy day, just in case your winning streak doesn't last. 

I see a lot of folks who would be set for life if they managed their funds carefully who instead buy as much house as they can afford and go deeply into debt. And why not? Their income supports paying those kinds of bills ... until that paycheck stops coming, and then they're in trouble. 

If they had lived more modestly during the good times, they'd be better-positioned for the bad ones. But we all pays our money and takes our chances.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> It has always seemed to me that if you have the good fortune to land a job that provides a good income, you should put away plenty for a rainy day, just in case your winning streak doesn't last.
> 
> I see a lot of folks who would be set for life if they managed their funds carefully who instead buy as much house as they can afford and go deeply into debt. And why not? Their income supports paying those kinds of bills ... until that paycheck stops coming, and then they're in trouble.
> 
> If they had lived more modestly during the good times, they'd be better-positioned for the bad ones. But we all pays our money and takes our chances.


Even for a saver, if the dry spell lasts long enough, they are in trouble. That happened with my dad.

I also see people who live too large and don't save enough, but you can also see plenty of examples of people who did everything "right" and are in trouble since the crash. It just takes longer, they aren't in crisis when they miss that first paycheck but if they don't get a similar paycheck coming in at some point, they are in the same boat.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> There is still opportunity, but the window of opportunity will never be as wide open again as it was back when the Louisiana Purchase was opened up. When you are building a nation from scratch and all those natural resources are all still there for the taking - well nothing in today's world even comes close.


Louisiana Purchase?

Sure, there was opportunity. Root hog, or die opportunity. No government safety net, no educational programs, no nothing. 

And people did succeed. Some did really, really well. But a lot of folks died with their boots on at an early age or died in abject poverty. The price of failure was very high, indeed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Louisiana Purchase?
> 
> Sure, there was opportunity. Root hog, or die opportunity. No government safety net, no educational programs, no nothing.
> 
> And people did succeed. Some did really, really well. But a lot of folks died with their boots on at an early age or died in abject poverty. The price of failure was very high, indeed.


I was thinking the same thing.... lots of trees to be used for building in those days... if someone had an ax to cut them with, or a mill set up to mill them into lumber. Those were some difficult times to live in too. We still have lots of natural resources today, and for the most part I would say a lot easier ways to capitalize on them too. How many today would be willing to walk the distance the pioneers did (a couple thousand miles) to reach the west coast to get that "free" land... that still had to be cleared and put into production if you survived the trip?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Louisiana Purchase?
> 
> Sure, there was opportunity. Root hog, or die opportunity. No government safety net, no educational programs, no nothing.
> 
> And people did succeed. Some did really, really well. But a lot of folks died with their boots on at an early age or died in abject poverty. The price of failure was very high, indeed.


Everyone lived under a lot more risk in those days, whether they went west or not.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Everyone lived under a lot more risk in those days, whether they went west or not.


That is true... it was a high risk job no matter what... and people paid attention to what they were doing and did not depend on someone else to pick up their slack. Those who planned well, worked hard and endured came out pretty good.... and built one of the greatest nations the world had ever witnessed.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is true... it was a high risk job no matter what... and people paid attention to what they were doing and did not depend on someone else to pick up their slack. Those who planned well, worked hard and endured came out pretty good.... and built one of the greatest nations the world had ever witnessed.


We built a great nation, no argument there.

But come on, people were still people back in the day. Did not depend on someone else to pick up their slack? How about all those outlaws who just stole what others produced? The traveling "snake oil" salesmen types who moved from town to town and took advantage of people? People who simply imposed on their families? People weren't saints back then, just tougher!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kycountry said:


> I don't have the time it would take to type the half page response to prove "we, The American Workers" are screwed right now... but here is some home work for you all to do until I get the rest of my days work done...
> 
> 
> Look up Government Training programs.. I'm talking about them paying half a person's wage while in training.. then declining on a sliding scale until 6 months of employment..
> ...


The Right could not stop cheering, when states voted "right to work" effectively neutering Unions. They are against any minimum wage increases.

Now the jobs are lousy pay, no benefits and part time and now we are complaining - again. Maybe we getting what we asked for.

As far as available jobs, at least in the 220 miles between Fort Wayne IN and Louisville KY, I have a clue. I see *now hiring* signs EVERYWHERE, in shop windows, In factory yards, on huge billboards, stuck in business yards.

In _one mile_ on Grade Lane in Louisville, There is a sign for drivers for Waste MGT (CDL B), one in a small MFG plant for welders, "fitters" and laborers, a bar that is hiring, several now hiring signs from staffing agencies, stuck in yard in industrial complex and hiring CDL A drivers of deliver automobiles.

This is on _*one*_ street.

This is certainly not the case everywhere, but the cold reality - called life, is that if someone lives where there are no jobs, they are going to have to go somewhere else to work. This is not a new concept. Obama, or anyone else, is not going to magically bring in good jobs, just because people need them.

People starved, poverty ridden in Appalachia - for decades, while the rest of the country mostly prospered. Many left homes in Kentucky permanently, to work in Indiana and Ohio factories, in the 1960's and later. many of these factories paid $5/hr, but that was more than they made staying at home. People are leaving to work in the oil fields in ND and TX, today. My own kids have been finding jobs relatively easy.

Any "facts" you have to dispute this any of this, please present them. 

I'm finding it harder and harder to feel sorry for people who claim they can't find _any_ job.

At least around here.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> We built a great nation, no argument there.
> 
> But come on, people were still people back in the day. Did not depend on someone else to pick up their slack? How about all those outlaws who just stole what others produced? The traveling "snake oil" salesmen types who moved from town to town and took advantage of people? People who simply imposed on their families? People weren't saints back then, just tougher!


Those outlaws were risk taking self employed entrepreneurs, just like the snake oil sellers. They did their own business dealings in their own ways. They did not sit back and wait for the government to feed, clothe, and house them on the tax payers dime! Most went to great lengths to prevent that very thing from happening. They also did not demand free medical care... and yes, they were tougher than the couch potatoes we have today who sit on their duffs waiting for someone else to do their robbing for them. The James brothers robbed those banks themselves as did all the other outlaws of the time period. Todays outlaws operate within the safety of the law, and let the government rob the wealthy and hand it to them.... its such a sorry state of affairs.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> This is certainly not the case everywhere, but the cold reality - called life, is that if someone lives where there are no jobs, they are going to have to go somewhere else to work. This is not a new concept. Obama, or anyone else, is not going to magically bring in good jobs, just because people need them.


Over on the liberal forum (which just banned me), whenever I suggested moving to find work, there would be a general outcry that it's too risky or simply impossible. I liked to point out to these folks that most of them are descended from people who crossed the Atlantic under some pretty harsh conditions for a shot at a better life.

They did not like that at all.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Over on the liberal forum (which just banned me), whenever I suggested moving to find work, there would be a general outcry that it's too risky or simply impossible. I liked to point out to these folks that most of them are descended from people who crossed the Atlantic under some pretty harsh conditions for a shot at a better life.
> 
> They did not like that at all.


You got banned too? odd that those liberals wont tolerate us "intolerant" conservative types. They threw me out a couple years ago.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Those outlaws were risk taking self employed entrepreneurs, just like the snake oil sellers. They did their own business dealings in their own ways. They did not sit back and wait for the government to feed, clothe, and house them on the tax payers dime! Most went to great lengths to prevent that very thing from happening. They also did not demand free medical care... and yes, they were tougher than the couch potatoes we have today who sit on their duffs waiting for someone else to do their robbing for them. The James brothers robbed those banks themselves as did all the other outlaws of the time period. Todays outlaws operate within the safety of the law, and let the government rob the wealthy and hand it to them.... its such a sorry state of affairs.


Well let's all hope you never fall on hard times, since you think "self service" stealing is so admirable!

And, about that free medical care - seriously you don't think anyone ever demanded the doc patch them up at the point of a gun? Stole his services?

The James homestead isn't very far from here, the Youngers too. I doubt the locals were as enamored of them as you seem to be during their "careers".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> Well let's all hope you never fall on hard times, since you think "self service" stealing is so admirable!
> 
> And, about that free medical care - seriously you don't think anyone ever demanded the doc patch them up at the point of a gun? Stole his services?
> 
> The James homestead isn't very far from here, the Youngers too. I doubt the locals were as enamored of them as you seem to be during their "careers".


What makes you think I havent fallen on hard times? BTDT but didnt steal the tshirt or anything else. I found more honorable ways to get back on my feet. Not necessarily legal always, but at least I was always honest.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Over on the liberal forum (which just banned me), whenever I suggested moving to find work, there would be a general outcry that it's too risky or simply impossible. I liked to point out to these folks that most of them are descended from people who crossed the Atlantic under some pretty harsh conditions for a shot at a better life.
> 
> They did not like that at all.


 You shouldn't move to find work, it is to risky. You should find the work first, determine if it's secure, and pays well enough for the cost of living in that area to make the transition.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> You shouldn't move to find work, it is to risky. You should find the work first, determine if it's secure, and pays well enough for the cost of living in that area to make the transition.


We know where the work is.... its all being moved out of this country to places like China and Mexico. Its hard to find those jobs without actually going there.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We know where the work is.... its all being moved out of this country to places like China and Mexico. Its hard to find those jobs without actually going there.


Might stop over in one of the oil patches on the way to the boat or border unless you are going the other direction of work 

I never saw the time I couldn't find a job .Thing was I was looking for was a position not work :runforhills:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Might stop over in one of the oil patches on the way to the boat or border unless you are going the other direction of work
> 
> I never saw the time I couldn't find a job .Thing was I was looking for was a position not work :runforhills:


I am no longer able to work, but for about fifty years or so I never found work to be in short supply... high paying positions? yeah, sometimes those were scarce but there was always plenty of work if one wanted it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I have never had trouble finding work, either, even during the 20 years I lived in northern Michigan, where the unemployment rate even during the GOOD times was in the double digits!

Funny, that. :huh:



> You got banned too? odd that those liberals wont tolerate us "intolerant" conservative types. They threw me out a couple years ago.


Yeah, I got the boot, but not before they brought in a hired gun, a new poster who appears to have been invited for the sole purpose of arguing with me. The poor fellow proved to be so intellectually inept that he evidently believes 'the invisible hand of the market' to be a supernatural being! :huh: I think he was picturing libertarians dancing skyclad around an effigy of it beneath the full moon. ound:

Technically, I'm only banned for two weeks, but I hear this mental midget is appealing to the admins to not only make my banning permanent, but to also delete my entire (10+ year) posting history. Umm ... whatever! :shrug:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Over on the liberal forum (which just banned me), whenever I suggested moving to find work, there would be a general outcry that it's too risky or simply impossible. I liked to point out to these folks that most of them are descended from people who crossed the Atlantic under some pretty harsh conditions for a shot at a better life.
> 
> They did not like that at all.


Interesting.

i have been accused of being a Liberal many times here. I didn't even know a forum existed for them. Better rush over there LOL 

Apparently - at least from what i see here, if your are unemployed, refusing a lousy job, doing something hard, or really drastic and instead sitting on your butt, complaining and waiting, until a good job comes along, is something that both Conservatives and Liberals agree on. 

Common ground indeed.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

If you want to really get 'em going, the next time they suggest that the Man Is Keeping Them Down, and no one will pay them what they're worth (because, being special snowflakes, they're worth _a lot_) -- tell them that the solution is to start their own business!

As a side benefit, in addition to finally earning what they deserve, they will be able to pay their employees those excellent wages and benefits to which all workers are entitled. Heh!

The howls of outrage will be deafening. ound:

I have to give the conservatives here credit, though ... we've had some pretty heated debates at times, but they've never called me the C-word or told me to "Go die in a fire" the way the liberals did. :huh:


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Ok, guys and gals, don't want to make this a left vs. right thing, but from my perspective, as workers we all do deserve the security of a living wage, and health insurance, and a pension. These are things that the American middle class dream had in the 1950's until the 1980's, until the corporate elite, like the fascist Koch brothers started stripping everything away from the average middle class worker, claiming that trickle down economics and NAFTA would benefit us all. Have we not learned that it has been a boon for big business, and devastating to the average joe. I mean, they have done a good job of turning up the heat slow enough on us all, that we haven't realized it, and are still in the pan. They have also done a good job of blaming it on the poor and disabled and the seniors under the guise that there the one's on the take, and breaking the country, when it pales in comparison to the large transfer of wealth to the top 1%, have we all forgot about 2008. I mean come on, these corporations that make billions in profit and don't pay in any taxes, and some even get multi-million dollar refunds, to me this is infuriating. If we don't wake up and jump out of the pan before were cooked, and come together to take back what has been gutted of the oppurtunities for the common man, then im afraid all will be lost, and us and our children will be living and working in a oligarchy, fascist, controlled third world country. The Republicans and Democrats or the libertarians have all sold out there vote to the highest bidder, it wont be any of them that rescues us. :flame:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Ok, guys and gals, don't want to make this a left vs. right thing, but from my perspective, as workers we all do deserve the security of a living wage, and health insurance, and a pension.


The problem with this is that not all businesses have a high enough profit margin to pay for those things, especially in their early years, when they're just getting off the ground. Make it a requirement, and you'll have a lot of businesses that will close their doors, or never open in the first place. 

Or they'll find ways to replace those costly workers with technology of some sort. My job (milking cows) could be done by a robot. I have a job because paying me is cheaper than installing the robot. I'm not in a hurry to see that situation change ... :teehee:

Also keep in mind that even when a business employs many low-wage workers -- say, a fast-food restaurant -- it also provides higher-paying jobs in management, accounting, IT, etc. It's supplied by delivery drivers and route salesman who also earn more than the lowly counterperson. If you close that restaurant, those higher-paid individuals will also lose their income, or part of it. It's not just the minimum-wage jobs that will be going away.

Finally, when you make employees expensive -- by require companies to provide them with high pay and benefits -- the ones on the bottom rung of the ladder suffer the most. When workers are cheap and disposable, there's little risk in hiring a high school kid who's never held a job before. When employees are high-priced and difficult to shed, employers are liable to be more picky, and hold out for one with a proven track record, perhaps even a college education. 

Now, I have no problem with workers asking their employers for more money, or organizing and collectively bargaining for such. But for the government to take the ham-handed approach of mandating wages and bennies? No. I think that has the potential to do more harm than good.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> The problem with this is that not all businesses have a high enough profit margin to pay for those things, especially in their early years, when they're just getting off the ground. Make it a requirement, and you'll have a lot of businesses that will close their doors, or never open in the first place.
> 
> Or they'll find ways to replace those costly workers with technology of some sort. My job (milking cows) could be done by a robot. I have a job because paying me is cheaper than installing the robot. I'm not in a hurry to see that situation change ... :teehee:
> 
> ...


 I agree with you on the fact, that a small business may not be able to afford this. My beef is with the large high profit margin business and corporations who can, but are just taking advantage of the workers, to pad the bottom line, or to pay management 100 times or more the wage of the laborer. I have owned 2 small business's, and I paid my workers a good living wage, at the sacrifice of putting more money in my pocket. I just couldn't feel good about myself, if I was living very well, and I had to watch my employee's struggle. It all comes down to the principals of greed. When you have 4% of the country's population that holds 90% of the wealth of it, then something is wrong.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I hate to say "I told ya so", but I saw it coming.

Everybody looked at Unions in dismay, for the bad things they did, while completely ignoring the good things they did, for workers.

We could not wait to smash organized labor, during economic downturns and threats from foreign labor.

I probably had 100 relatively small factories in the county I grew up in. They did not have huge pay, but it was livable and there was always 40 hours, vacation, sick pay, seniority, OK health insurance and usually some type of small pension.

Whatever they did get (most of them)was fought for and negotiated, by organized labor, usually small locals of larger Unions. Sometimes it took a strike, usually not.

Now most unions shops are gone (as are the factories), but some of the one still standing are taking advantage of never having Unions, so many now work with temps and no benefits.

The Companies would have done the exact same thing 40 years ago, if they could, IMO.

Maybe it's a sing of the times but it is one reason job are not paying anything, especially manufacturing.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think the political issues of the unions are only part of it. Back in the heyday we didn't have so much foreign competition, either. So they become politically unpopular, plus the cheaper imports start hitting the market, it was a double whammy.

Also, there was a time when hiring a union worker meant you were guaranteed a certain degree of proficiency, like in the skilled trades where they had been thru their apprenticeship and such. But somewhere along the line, the paradigm shifted to where employers feared a union operation would mean they couldn't fire a sub-standard worker because the union would protect them.

If the unions would reform themselves, get out of politics and get back to focusing on the workers, everyone would be better off. But I'm not holding my breath. 

There is plenty of blame to go around, as usual.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It all comes down to the principals of greed. When you have 4% of the country's population that holds 90% of the wealth of it, then something is wrong.


Maybe the "something" that's wrong is that workers nowadays don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up to their bosses and demand more, in cases where the employers really could afford to be more generous. 

You get what you fight for in this world. The government has largely removed that necessity, though, by supplementing low-wage workers with food stamps, heating assistance, housing assistance, and now health insurance. Where is the incentive to take the risk of organizing and, perhaps, striking? Maybe losing one's job and being blacklisted? Nawww, it's easier to fill out a form and getcha some government bennies.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Maybe the "something" that's wrong is that workers nowadays don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up to their bosses and demand more, in cases where the employers really could afford to be more generous.
> 
> You get what you fight for in this world. The government has largely removed that necessity, though, by supplementing low-wage workers with food stamps, heating assistance, housing assistance, and now health insurance. Where is the incentive to take the risk of organizing and, perhaps, striking? Maybe losing one's job and being blacklisted? Nawww, it's easier to fill out a form and getcha some government bennies.


You've pointed out why many of the largest employers in this country are also the biggest backers of continuing the system of government wage supports. They know that without things like SNAP, WIC, EIC and subsidized insurance, all paid for with tax dollars, they might have to provide living wages and benefits to their employees and actually have to pay the true cost if running that business. That just might eat into profits and shareholder satisfaction.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Everybody looked at Unions in dismay, for the bad things they did, while completely ignoring the good things they did, for workers.
> 
> We could not wait to smash organized labor, during economic downturns and threats from foreign labor.


I am still looking for the "good things" the unions did.... besides pricing labor out of the market. It would appear that those were pretty serious threats by the foreign labor markets since thats where our jobs went. What good is it to have great bennies and high wages tied to jobs if there are no jobs?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> I agree with you on the fact, that a small business may not be able to afford this. My beef is with the large high profit margin business and corporations who can, but are just taking advantage of the workers, to pad the bottom line, or to pay management 100 times or more the wage of the laborer. I have owned 2 small business's, and I paid my workers a good living wage, at the sacrifice of putting more money in my pocket. I just couldn't feel good about myself, if I was living very well, and I had to watch my employee's struggle. It all comes down to the principals of greed. *When you have 4% of the country's population that holds 90% of the wealth of it, then something is wrong.*


One of the things "wrong" is how our wealth is measured. It does not include the real wealth... things like our homes, automobiles, and other tangible things of value are not included in those calculations. That sorta skews the numbers right there. Then when you figure that a lot of folks have no clue as to how to accumulate wealth of any kind and are content to live day to day, paycheck to paycheck, (or gov check to gov check) that also throws things out of balance. That 4 percent who have managed to skimp and save and build their wealth should be admired, and held up as role models, not ridiculed and bashed for doing it right. 

ETA: I am curious what happened to your 2 small businesses?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One of the things "wrong" is how our wealth is measured. It does not include the real wealth... things like our homes, automobiles, and other tangible things of value are not included in those calculations. That sorta skews the numbers right there.


You don't think people should count corporate stock as wealth?

Of course homes & cars should be included as wealth, but that's only a small amount of net worth for the very wealthy.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One of the things "wrong" is how our wealth is measured. It does not include the real wealth... things like our homes, automobiles, and other tangible things of value are not included in those calculations. That sorta skews the numbers right there. Then when you figure that a lot of folks have no clue as to how to accumulate wealth of any kind and are content to live day to day, paycheck to paycheck, (or gov check to gov check) that also throws things out of balance. That 4 percent who have managed to skimp and save and build their wealth should be admired, and held up as role models, not ridiculed and bashed for doing it right.
> 
> ETA: I am curious what happened to your 2 small businesses?


 The majority of that 4% did not have to skimp and save to build their wealth, most of them were born into it, and, or made it on the backs of the hard working employee's. Who is ridiculing or bashing them? Whether they did it right or not, that would be on whose perspective, youre looking at it from.
As far as my 2 business's are concerned, I sold out and liquidated, and took an early retirement because of health reason's.
From youre statement, I would say the corporate media has done a good job of brain washing you. I am a compassionate Christian, that believes in solely what Jesus taught, and that is the love and caring for your fellow man. If Jesus were walking the earth today, im pretty sure he would be repulsed at the greed of some.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am still looking for the "good things" the unions did.... besides pricing labor out of the market. It would appear that those were pretty serious threats by the foreign labor markets since thats where our jobs went. What good is it to have great bennies and high wages tied to jobs if there are no jobs?


 Go back and study some labor history, the unions gave us the standardized 8 hour, 5 day work week, they gave us a living wage, they fought for safe working conditions, they fought for health coverage. Do you think that all those things just came about because of the generosity of the employer? 
There are no jobs because of our politicians and policies like NAFTA, and corporate greed of wanting to pay slave wage's in third world countries to boost the bottom line. Who want's to compete for slave wage's here in America? If youre gonna convince every one to do that, then the corporations would love you!


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Maybe the "something" that's wrong is that workers nowadays don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up to their bosses and demand more, in cases where the employers really could afford to be more generous.
> 
> You get what you fight for in this world. The government has largely removed that necessity, though, by supplementing low-wage workers with food stamps, heating assistance, housing assistance, and now health insurance. Where is the incentive to take the risk of organizing and, perhaps, striking? Maybe losing one's job and being blacklisted? Nawww, it's easier to fill out a form and getcha some government bennies.


 You just made my point of why we need unions. Tax payers are paying for the government bennies, because workers at Wal-Mart for instance are not receiving a living wage, so who are we really subsidizing, is it the workers, or maybe Wal-Mart.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You just made my point of why we need unions. Tax payers are paying for the government bennies, because workers at Wal-Mart for instance are not receiving a living wage, so who are we really subsidizing, is it the workers, or maybe Wal-Mart.


Absolutely, but I don't think we'll see a rise in unionization until or unless we get rid of the welfare. Organizing and collectively bargaining are risky activities ... history tells us more than a few people got their heads bashed in for their trouble. Applying for goverment bennies, in contrast, is pretty safe and easy. I can hardly blame people for taking the path of least resistance. Can you?



> I am a compassionate Christian, that believes in solely what Jesus taught, and that is the love and caring for your fellow man.


I am all for individuals spending their own money and/or energy to care for their fellow man, but too often in liberal circles, the formula tends to be for Person A to propose taxing Person B so the resulting funds can be used to benefit Person C. (And, funny ... usually Person A manages to skim a bit off the top -- y'know, in compensation for his efforts?) 

That isn't "charity" in my books, but something else altogether. :flame:

Ha,,,,,,it's talk like that that got me banned from the liberal forum. ound:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> I am all for individuals spending their own money and/or energy to care for their fellow man, but too often in liberal circles, the formula tends to be for Person A to propose taxing Person B so the resulting funds can be used to benefit Person C. (And, funny ... usually Person A manages to skim a bit off the top -- y'know, in compensation for his efforts?)


Never assume that just because something is a charitable organization that a lot of money isn't being made. People who manage charitable organizations sometimes do really well for themselves. There can be lots of profit angles to charities.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Absolutely, but I don't think we'll see a rise in unionization until or unless we get rid of the welfare. Organizing and collectively bargaining are risky activities ... history tells us more than a few people got their heads bashed in for their trouble. Applying for goverment bennies, in contrast, is pretty safe and easy. I can hardly blame people for taking the path of least resistance. Can you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 There's lots of things you and I agree upon, and a few we don't, but that's ok. If we all would put are petty diffrence's aside and fight for the 96% that I think all of us fall into that category on here, then we would all be a much better society. We get hung up on welfare for the poor, but forget about corporate welfare benefits. I would argue that the later is the one we can do without, based on needs.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Never assume that just because something is a charitable organization that a lot of money isn't being made. People who manage charitable organizations sometimes do really well for themselves. There can be lots of profit angles to charities.


 This is so true, if you look at what the management from some of these charities make, you would be shocked, I think.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One of the things "wrong" is how our wealth is measured. It does not include the real wealth... things like our homes, automobiles, and other tangible things of value are not included in those calculations. That sorta skews the numbers right there. Then when you figure that a lot of folks have no clue as to how to accumulate wealth of any kind and are content to live day to day, paycheck to paycheck, (or gov check to gov check) that also throws things out of balance. That 4 percent who have managed to skimp and save and build their wealth should be admired, and held up as role models, not ridiculed and bashed for doing it right.
> 
> ETA: I am curious what happened to your 2 small businesses?


Are you sure real estate and assets like cars, boats, planes etc. are not included? Just stocks/cash? If you leave out the multiple, expensive homes and other expensive non-cash assets of the wealthy, the statistics are actually skewed to make them seem less rich. A few multi-million dollar estates and a fleet of expensive cars, yachts, planes, is going to add up to a lot more wealth than the more modest homes and typical cars and possessions of the middle classes down.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If we all would put are petty diffrence's aside and fight for the 96% that I think all of us fall into that category on here, then we would all be a much better society.


The devil in is the details, though, and how you envision "fighting for the 96%."

If you're talking about fighting for free market principles -- for instance, opposing laws that favor incumbents and prevent new entrants into markets -- I'm all for it. If you're fighting to preserve collective bargaining rights for employees, sign me up!

But the liberals who just cast me into the outer darkness :hysterical: didn't seem able to envision any way to improve the situation other than by confiscating the wealth of the productive and dividing it among the masses. And, as we're seeing in Venezuela, that strategy only works until you run out of other people's money ... :teehee:

Short of an abundance of natural resources, there is no way for a nation to be prosperous without its citizens being productive. Productivity is the key to both individual and societal prosperity. The liberals I've talked to seem to be a seeking a way in which people can effortlessly enjoy abundance. Like the alchemists of old who sought to turn dross into gold, they're seeking a shortcut that I don't believe exists.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> The devil in is the details, though, and how you envision "fighting for the 96%."
> 
> If you're talking about fighting for free market principles -- for instance, opposing laws that favor incumbents and prevent new entrants into markets -- I'm all for it. If you're fighting to preserve collective bargaining rights for employees, sign me up!
> 
> ...


 There is no shortcut, that's for sure. The playing field needs to be leveled, unfortunately it's almost to late to level it. The corporations have already used the bulk of our, not theirs, our natural resources and turned them into large profits, in other words we all as a nation did not share equally in the profit taking of those resources. 
Who is other peoples money? That's the question we should be asking. You and I the 96%, only have a very small % of the wealth, yet we are paying a bigger % of income tax. Here is an example.

*ExxonMobil*
Exxon received $600 million annual tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes. The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.
Exxonâs oil production was down 6 percent from 2011.
In fourth quarter, Exxon bought back $5.3 billion of its stock, which enriches the largest shareholders and executives of the company.
Exxonâs federal campaign contributions totaled $2.77 million for the 2012 cycle, sending 89 percent to Republicans.
The company spent $12.97 million lobbying in 2012 to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health.
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million total compensation.
ExxonMobil has not paid any federal income tax for several years. How is this an even playing field? This is just one example, there are many more. There would be no shortage in our federal budget if these companies paid there fair share. ​


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> Go back and study some labor history, the unions gave us the standardized 8 hour, 5 day work week, they gave us a living wage, they fought for safe working conditions, they fought for health coverage. Do you think that all those things just came about because of the generosity of the employer?
> There are no jobs because of our politicians and policies like NAFTA, and corporate greed of wanting to pay slave wage's in third world countries to boost the bottom line. Who want's to compete for slave wage's here in America? If youre gonna convince every one to do that, then the corporations would love you!


All I am saying is those shorter hours for more pay is what drove the jobs out of this country. I would have loved to not compete with others during my working years.... but I got a news flash here for ya... its a competitive market and if one wishes to be in the game... one MUST compete!


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All I am saying is those shorter hours for more pay is what drove the jobs out of this country. I would have loved to not compete with others during my working years.... but I got a news flash here for ya... its a competitive market and if one wishes to be in the game... one MUST compete!


 Question is, who is making the rules for the game? I already know the answer, and its not an impartial referee.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am still looking for the "good things" the unions did.... besides pricing labor out of the market. It would appear that those were pretty serious threats by the foreign labor markets since thats where our jobs went. What good is it to have great bennies and high wages tied to jobs if there are no jobs?


LOl

Railroads, Aerospace, Shipping, Autos, musicians, medical, practically every facet of labor in the U.S.

The unprecedented U.S. middle class - over 40 years, was built only on the benevolence of Corporations, towards blue collar workers?

Seriously?

Hopefully nobody will start with the Henry Ford fantasy thing either.

Ford was a miserable place to work, just like the rest. If it was as wonderful as some want to believe, the workers would not have needed or wanted to organize.

Food-for-thought.

When Toyota came to town they paid their non union workers $17/hr, or so not bad.

Would they ave paid that much if GM, workers were making $12?

Of course not.

Unions built the middle class in America and yes they are part of the reason it is hard to compete with slave labor in developing countries.

No problem. wage wise, we are catching up to them quickly.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There is no shortcut, that's for sure. The playing field needs to be leveled, unfortunately it's almost to late to level it.


The playing field will _never_ be level, so you might as well fergettaboutit. There always will be some who are smarter, more ambitious, better-looking or simply luckier than others. I say deal with it, and focus on playing the hand you're dealt to the best of your ability. I think that will produce better results than tilting at windmills!


> The corporations have already used the bulk of our, not theirs, our natural resources and turned them into large profits, in other words we all as a nation did not share equally in the profit taking of those resources.


Waiiiit a minute! Those natural resources are generally found either on private land -- in which case they're the property of the owner -- or public land that has been leased to an entity for the purpose of harvesting or developing the resources. 

For instance, I'm in the process of negotiating an oil and gas lease on my acreage. If we come to terms, Range Resources will bear the risk and cost of drilling the well. I'll bear the nuisance and the risk that my property may be harmed in some way. You don't own the land and won't share in the cost of development -- why should you be entitled to some of the profits, if any? And are you prepared to compensate the developer and I in the event of a loss? 



> Who is other peoples money? That's the question we should be asking.


I would say that "other people's money" is any money that I have not personally earned, and thus I have no right to it, or any say in how it's spent. 


> You and I the 96%, only have a very small % of the wealth, yet we are paying a bigger % of income tax.


You are aware that over 40 percent of the American population pays no federal taxes, right? 

I agree that the corporate tax system is screwed up (we have a very high marginal rate but allow companies to buy themselves exemptions by way of lobbying). That doesn't change the fact that a lot of individuals aren't paying anything, either. I'd prefer to see a flat tax, but that is not likely to happen, as there is so much political hay to be made in the form of campaign contributions from businesses seeking tax breaks. 

Corporate profits are a red herring anyway: they're not the problem, although they're useful for whipping up envy and resentment among the lower classes. The minimum wage is not the problem either. The 2012 American Community survey, conducted by the Census Bureau, found that fewer than 4 percent of people who had worked full-time for the entire year preceding the survey were in poverty. _Less than four percent!_

It seems the reason many people are poor is not because Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million compensation, but rather because they don't work very much, or very often. The solution is not to confiscate Tillerson's earnings; it's to make the poor more productive. That's the only surefire way to arrive at prosperity. Like I said earlier ... there are no shortcuts.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> The playing field will _never_ be level, so you might as well fergettaboutit. There always will be some who are smarter, more ambitious, better-looking or simply luckier than others. I say deal with it, and focus on playing the hand you're dealt to the best of your ability. I think that will produce better results than tilting at windmills!
> 
> 
> Waiiiit a minute! Those natural resources are generally found either on private land -- in which case they're the property of the owner -- or public land that has been leased to an entity for the purpose of harvesting or developing the resources.
> ...


All I can say to your post is *wow*, *LOL! Take a break from the Fox News Channel!*


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

For the record, I have never watched Fox News (I don't even have a TV, and DBF, who is a liberal, watches MSNBC religiously). 

But keeping looking for that shortcut. I hear if you turn left at the Skittles factory, and keep going until you see the unicorns ... ound:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You don't think people should count corporate stock as wealth?
> 
> Of course homes & cars should be included as wealth, but that's only a small amount of net worth for the very wealthy.


We seem to be in agreement here. When they calculated our net worth without using "all" of the value owned it skews the numbers badly. To the average american things like their homes and cars are a very large percentage of their net worth... but isnt counted, while for the wealthy those same items account for a small percentage of their overall wealth. This makes it appear that the wealthy own the vast majority of the total wealth. To get an accurate assessment of our nations wealth distribution we should be including "all" of everyones wealth. What would the same wealth distribution numbers look like if we counted only the value of real estate and personal property owned, and not the value of stocks, bonds and other paper wealth? I think you would find its the lower income folks that would look like the greedy monsters instead of the "rich".


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

> The playing field will _never_ be level, so you might as well fergettaboutit. There always will be some who are smarter, more ambitious, better-looking or simply luckier than others. I say deal with it, and focus on playing the hand you're dealt to the best of your ability. I think that will produce better results than tilting at windmills!


It can be leveled by removing all of the Bush tax cuts, and closing the corporate tax loopholes. 30 years of trickle down economics has only widened the gap, and destroyed the middle class. Experiment Failed.



> Waiiiit a minute! Those natural resources are generally found either on private land -- in which case they're the property of the owner -- or public land that has been leased to an entity for the purpose of harvesting or developing the resources.
> 
> For instance, I'm in the process of negotiating an oil and gas lease on my acreage. If we come to terms, Range Resources will bear the risk and cost of drilling the well. I'll bear the nuisance and the risk that my property may be harmed in some way. You don't own the land and won't share in the cost of development -- why should you be entitled to some of the profits, if any? And are you prepared to compensate the developer and I in the event of a loss?


We as a nation should be compensated in the way of taxes on these resources, instead these large corporations spend millions on lobbying and lawyers, to not only get out of paying proper taxes, but they get subsidized by us the taxpayers. If they cant contribute, and only want to take, sorry that's a Fail.



> I would say that "other people's money" is any money that I have not personally earned, and thus I have no right to it, or any say in how it's spent.


Exactly why we should get the trillions back in corporate bailouts, and subsidies, and the all the 401k pensions that were robbed from everyone in 2008 when the financial crash happened. Not to mention the money that has been shipped to off shore accounts, to avoid taxation.



> Corporate profits are a red herring anyway: they're not the problem, although they're useful for whipping up envy and resentment among the lower classes. The minimum wage is not the problem either. The 2012 American Community survey, conducted by the Census Bureau, found that fewer than 4 percent of people who had worked full-time for the entire year preceding the survey were in poverty. _Less than four percent!_
> 
> It seems the reason many people are poor is not because Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million compensation, but rather because they don't work very much, or very often. The solution is not to confiscate Tillerson's earnings; it's to make the poor more productive. That's the only surefire way to arrive at prosperity. Like I said earlier ... there are no shortcuts.


Seriously? LOL. Im not even going to address this, cause it's so far out in right field!ound:


> For the record, I have never watched Fox News (I don't even have a TV, and DBF, who is a liberal, watches MSNBC religiously).
> 
> But keeping looking for that shortcut. I hear if you turn left at the Skittles factory, and keep going until you see the unicorns ...


Yeeeah! OK! Not buying that bridge. You have no access to a tv, but DBF watches MSNBC.:hysterical: I probably wont go near that skittles factory, I hear that's where Rush Linbo does his radio show.:runforhills:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> The majority of that 4% did not have to skimp and save to build their wealth, most of them were born into it, and, or made it on the backs of the hard working employee's. Who is ridiculing or bashing them?
> 
> If Jesus were walking the earth today, im pretty sure he would be repulsed at the greed of some.


Are you saying that most of our nations wealthy got rich just by sitting around with their hands in their pockets? Some have been born into wealthy families, this I agree with, but they inherited that wealth only after their parents passed away... and someone had to do some skimping and saving and working their tails off to build that wealth to begin with. It didnt just fall out of the sky! The Rockefeller family today have a fair amount of wealth, but if John D had not skimped saved and worked his hiney off and built that fortune they would all be broke today. He started with nothing and worked his way up. 

As to "who is ridiculing or bashing them?", we could start with your comment above. Those who feel like they got the short end of the stick love to criticize and accuse the wealthy few who have made it. "They inherited everything they have" or "made it on the backs of all those hard working employees" are common comments made by those who are jealous and envious of their wealth. 

Finally, I am quite sure JC would indeed be repulsed by some folks.... and a lot of that would be directed toward those who refuse to work and earn their own livings, while condemning others for having been successful.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> Question is, who is making the rules for the game? I already know the answer, and its not an impartial referee.


perhaps you could share this insider knowledge with the rest of us?


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

> perhaps you could share this insider knowledge with the rest of us?


Here's a pair for starters. http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo...ends-or-enemies-of-american-middle-class/3490
These guys have a lot of congressman and governors in their back pocket.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Are you saying that most of our nations wealthy got rich just by sitting around with their hands in their pockets? Some have been born into wealthy families, this I agree with, but they inherited that wealth only after their parents passed away... and someone had to do some skimping and saving and working their tails off to build that wealth to begin with. It didnt just fall out of the sky! The Rockefeller family today have a fair amount of wealth, but if John D had not skimped saved and worked his hiney off and built that fortune they would all be broke today. He started with nothing and worked his way up.
> 
> As to "who is ridiculing or bashing them?", we could start with your comment above. Those who feel like they got the short end of the stick love to criticize and accuse the wealthy few who have made it. "They inherited everything they have" or "made it on the backs of all those hard working employees" are common comments made by those who are jealous and envious of their wealth.
> 
> Finally, I am quite sure JC would indeed be repulsed by some folks.... and a lot of that would be directed toward those who refuse to work and earn their own livings, while condemning others for having been successful.


 Do you not grasp how a proper Capitalist, Democratic society is supposed to work, without collapsing? If you are more successful, then you should have to contribute more, trying to hoard it, and wanting more and more until you have a large percentage of the nations wealth, while the larger population suffers, leads to an fascist, oligarchy. That is what is happening now. It is not sustainable. 
Your statement about what Jesus would think is off base, as far as what most true Christians believe, and im not talking about the right wing bible thumpers who are sheep in wolves clothing, and have hijacked our religion for political gain! Remember JC hung out with the poor, the prostitutes, sinners of all sorts. Im certain he never would of condemned them!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> Here's a pair for starters. http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo...ends-or-enemies-of-american-middle-class/3490
> These guys have a lot of congressman and governors in their back pocket.


Interesting article.... lots of accusations, not much on proof. Similar tactics were used by those who thought Rocky was getting too rich. If these brothers are operating outside the law, they should be arrested and brought to justice. If not, they seem to be successful entrepreneurs providing thousands of jobs to the working class. If you think they have "bought" governors or congressmen... I strongly suggest electing officials who refuse to be bought.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> Do you not grasp how a proper Capitalist, Democratic society is supposed to work, without collapsing?


Do you not grasp that our nation was not set up as a democracy? Maybe if we got back to our proper form of government (a republic) many of our problems would solve themselves. As long as we have the public demanding loot from our treasury in exchange for their votes our treasury and our nation is in extreme danger. And yes, I am aware of who JC hung out with.... but He wasnt one for stealing from one group to hand to the other either... He expected everyone to work for their own supper. He counted on peoples charity to be voluntary, not extracted by the point of a sword.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting article.... lots of accusations, not much on proof. Similar tactics were used by those who thought Rocky was getting too rich. If these brothers are operating outside the law, they should be arrested and brought to justice. If not, they seem to be successful entrepreneurs providing thousands of jobs to the working class. If you think they have "bought" governors or congressmen... I strongly suggest electing officials who refuse to be bought.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


>


Or....... get off ones duff and do something productive.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Do you not grasp that our nation was not set up as a democracy? Maybe if we got back to our proper form of government (a republic) many of our problems would solve themselves. As long as we have the public demanding loot from our treasury in exchange for their votes our treasury and our nation is in extreme danger. And yes, I am aware of who JC hung out with.... but He wasnt one for stealing from one group to hand to the other either... He expected everyone to work for their own supper. He counted on peoples charity to be voluntary, not extracted by the point of a sword.


 The one's I see getting loot from our treasury is the rich and wealthy, in the form of bailouts, cheating the tax code, and robbing the middle class's 401k's in 2008. The public is extracting money by the point of a sword, that's laughable. 
JC expected everyone to work for his own supper. Where's that at in the scriptures?
_âBut when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.â_ (Luke 14:13-14) 

_âJesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And He said, âTruly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.â_ (Luke 21:1-4)

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24
"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16
"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21


I got lots more where those came from.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or....... get off ones duff and do something productive.


 Maybe you should heed your own advise, I paid my dues. I wrote a check to the IRS one year for $82,000.00 in capital gains tax. Probably more than you have paid your whole life. But you don't see me complaining about the money we give to the less fortunate in our society. Hell I guess I paid more tax in that year than Exxon-Mobil or GE.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Since this thread seems to have upset a couple people, and is getting a little heated, I think I will leave it be.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> Since this thread seems to have upset a couple people, and is getting a little heated, I think I will leave it be.


I guess I wasted my efforts looking this up then, but others may be interested so I will post it anyway. 

Its from 2 Thessalonians chapter 3.

"6-9 Our ordersâbacked up by the Master, Jesusâare to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Donât permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how to pull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it. We didnât sit around on our hands expecting others to take care of us. In fact, we worked our fingers to the bone, up half the night moonlighting so you wouldnât be burdened with taking care of us. And it wasnât because we didnât have a right to your support; we did. We simply wanted to provide an example of diligence, hoping it would prove contagious.

10-13 Donât you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? âIf you donât work, you donât eat.â And now weâre getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediatelyâno excuses, no argumentsâand earn their own keep. Friends, donât slack off in doing your duty.

14-15 If anyone refuses to obey our clear command written in this letter, donât let him get by with it. Point out such a person and refuse to subsidize his freeloading. Maybe then heâll think twice. But donât treat him as an enemy. Sit him down and talk about the problem as someone who cares."


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> We as a nation should be compensated in the way of taxes on these resources,


Rest assured that if the well is developed, Range Resources and I will be paying taxes on our profits. 

But why should you be "compensated"? Why do you feel entitled to a share of the profits, when you neither own the land nor have borne any of the risks or costs of development? That-right-there is the mentality of a looter or moocher. 

Now, I have no problem with individuals and corporations paying their fair share of taxes. But this idea that any entity that turns a profit is a cash cow ripe for milking -- that's a dangerous attitude for a society to adopt. Get too greedy, and you end up stifling development, and killing the goose laying those golden eggs. 



> instead these large corporations spend millions on lobbying and lawyers, to not only get out of paying proper taxes,


Now here is something on which we can partially agree -- I think our tax code should be overhauled and replaced by a flat tax. I don't expect it will ever happen, as our politicians make too much money being bribed -- err, I mean, l_obbied_ -- by companies seeking breaks. It's a nice idea, though! 



> Exactly why we should get the trillions back in corporate bailouts, and subsidies, and the all the 401k pensions that were robbed from everyone in 2008 when the financial crash happened. Not to mention the money that has been shipped to off shore accounts, to avoid taxation.


Here again it seems we agree. As an adherent of free market principles, I don't think our government should be in the business of bailing out corporations, or backing their play. 



> Seriously? LOL. Im not even going to address this, cause it's so far out in right field!


Of course you're not going to address it, because it doesn't fit with your ideology. That's the problem with ideologues -- when the facts conflict with their ideology, they tend to discard the facts. 

And the fact, in this case, is that 96 percent of people who work full-time, year-round, aren't poor, according to Census Bureau statistics. It would seem like the simplest solution to poverty in this country isn't to tax millionaires or enact social programs; it's to get poor people to work 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. I think it was Ronald Reagan who said, "The best social program is _a job_." I concur. 

Recently I read a news article about a strike at a McDonald's restaurant. One of the strikers claimed to be trying to support a wife and 2 kids on 15 hours of work per week. He was picketing for higher wages, but even if he were paid $25 an hour, he would still be poor. _What he needs is to work more hours. _



> Yeeeah! OK! Not buying that bridge. You have no access to a tv,


Techically, I suppose I have access to a TV, but in the 2 years I've lived here, I've never bothered to figure out how to turn it on or even which remote operates it. I have never been much of a TV watcher. 



> but DBF watches MSNBC.:hysterical:


Religiously. He's got it on right now. 



> I probably wont go near that skittles factory, I hear that's where Rush Linbo does his radio show.:runforhills:


Actually, I listen to NPR all day long. I lurves me some NPR! And yes, I'm a member of my local station.


----------

