There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

[francoHFW]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

Yeah. The woman I'm dating refers to herself as a "socialist" who believes in income equality. So, I asked her to state exactly what she meant by it. I asked if she meant that high school drop-outs should receive the same income as the head of a major corporation or a brain surgeon that spent 10 years learning his/her craft...or, did she mean that all burger slingers in the fast food industry, be paid the same as other burger slingers? Her response (having multiple degrees and thus a bunch of letters after her name), "uhh, I don't know for sure." I just shook my head and got back to what I was doing. We're fairly compatible, but when it comes to politics, her thinking ability declines.

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
2. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
3. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government! David Mamet

1. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now.... But carry on.....

"Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now..."


That level of misunderstanding is like believing that purchasing an airline ticket makes one able to flap their arms and fly.

Yes we are all communists. You figured it out. LOL

 

[francoHFW]

A socialist society that didn't work? I'm shocked!!!

Wait ... no I'm not.

What socialist society in America are you talkin about you idiots? The kind of socialism Bernie Sanders and Warren and everybody else wants has not ever been a failure.

You haven't a clue what socialism is, what Sanders or Warren intend, and not a fucking clue what others want. All you know for certain is that you're a fucking IDIOT, you want "free" stuff, and you don't care who is made to pay for it or how much damage you do to this country.

Now STFU or go play with the other children on the coloring book forum, Comrade MORON.

The Commie Bernie and Indian Princess Warren brand of socialism can be summed up in only two words:

Free stuff!

Too bad the idiots don't have a clue as to the damage paying for all that free stuff will do to the economy.

how does every other rich country in the world manage it when we the richest country in the world can't? The scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....

how does every other rich country in the world manage it

Less, older equipment.
Less, older medicines.
Fewer doctors, fewer hospital beds.
Ridiculous waits for treatment.
Rationing.

Being a GOP dupe, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What opportunities, please be specific..


.

Cheap college and training, grants- you name it they get cut. No sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share....

how do I benefit from cheap college grants?

Now be specific what is in it for ME, that opportunities are lost?


I will tell you zip/nothing/Nadda

this is a discussion about politics and the health of the country, not a class in short-sighted selfishness, crap excuse for a good citizen.

Fuck them

You said the Republicans kill opportunities..name them or shut your pie hole up.

They have done away with cheap college and training, dumbass.

Who did, the democrats?


Why the hell do you think it's so high?

Democrats and colleges using the tax payers for milk money so they can buy a new Mercedes.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?

$270 dollars?
Can Walmart get more generous?

Their executives get million dollar stock deals

PC thinks that people on food stamps and MedicAid, have an extra $1800 to invest in the company stocks. And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money What a great deal is that!!!!!.

PC also thinks that minimum wage workers who are dependent on food stamps and MedicAid have 401K's that they contribute to. If only these people would just take advantage of the perks being offered, they could retire wealthy!

People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America, having put all of the other retailers out of business. All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices, and offerred higher wages, until all the other stores closed. Then Walmart raised prices and cut hours and wages. There aren't any other stores for miles around.

Stupid, ignorant and conservative til the day she dies.

 

[rightwinger]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?

$270 dollars?
Can Walmart get more generous?

Their executives get million dollar stock deals

PC thinks that people on food stamps and MedicAid, have an extra $1800 to invest in the company stocks. And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money What a great deal is that!!!!!.

PC also thinks that minimum wage workers who are dependent on food stamps and MedicAid have 401K's that they contribute to. If only these people would just take advantage of the perks being offered, they could retire wealthy!

People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America, having put all of the other retailers out of business. All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices, and offerred higher wages, until all the other stores closed. Then Walmart raised prices and cut hours and wages. There aren't any other stores for miles around.

Stupid, ignorant and conservative til the day she dies.

I think Walmart giving its workers $270 is hilarious
Hard to match such generosity

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?

$270 dollars?
Can Walmart get more generous?

Their executives get million dollar stock deals

PC thinks that people on food stamps and MedicAid, have an extra $1800 to invest in the company stocks. And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money What a great deal is that!!!!!.

PC also thinks that minimum wage workers who are dependent on food stamps and MedicAid have 401K's that they contribute to. If only these people would just take advantage of the perks being offered, they could retire wealthy!

People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America, having put all of the other retailers out of business. All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices, and offerred higher wages, until all the other stores closed. Then Walmart raised prices and cut hours and wages. There aren't any other stores for miles around.

Stupid, ignorant and conservative til the day she dies.

I know I am taking advantage of a complete moron and total imbecile, who writes:
"People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America".....

....and, no doubt, fails to see how really funny that cyclic sentence is.....
Did you think that post made sense??? If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

The Beatles gave the requirement for being a Liberal in their song ‘Strawberry Fields:’
“Living is easy with eyes closed…Misunderstanding all you see”
I see you live by that.





Here we go again.....you do the only thing you can do....spew the indoctrination that has been trained into you....


....and I rip you a new one with indisputable facts.


"The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim."
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.c...ding-ovation-the-faculty-were-deathly-silent/




Let's cut to the chase: there is no real poverty, and the welfare industry is simply a Democrat vote-buying scheme.

 

[CowboyTed]

The fundamental problem with all democratic "solutions" is that they still preserve the economic structures that created the inequality to begin with. That is a fancy way of saying they ain't rocking Wall Street's boat.

You may be a little confused.

The big problem with democracy is that it allows the majority to use the government to steal form the minority.

So you have just said there is income inequality. Thanks.

Thievery is all about taking other people's stuff to make things more "equal".

Using the filthy oppressive government to facilitate the thievery is still stealing.

While polluting the Air is not robbing everyone else?

If you think we are polluting the air is "robbing" you of something then you should have done what I did.

I got a BS, MS and PE in Environmental Engineering and had a 30 year career cleaning up pollution that was generated by corporations. My specialty was air pollution although I did a lot nuclear.

That way you wouldn't sound like a whiny little Moon Bat when you post your garbage.

So you work for free then... You are running a charity?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What socialist society in America are you talkin about you idiots? The kind of socialism Bernie Sanders and Warren and everybody else wants has not ever been a failure.

You haven't a clue what socialism is, what Sanders or Warren intend, and not a fucking clue what others want. All you know for certain is that you're a fucking IDIOT, you want "free" stuff, and you don't care who is made to pay for it or how much damage you do to this country.

Now STFU or go play with the other children on the coloring book forum, Comrade MORON.

The Commie Bernie and Indian Princess Warren brand of socialism can be summed up in only two words:

Free stuff!

Too bad the idiots don't have a clue as to the damage paying for all that free stuff will do to the economy.

how does every other rich country in the world manage it when we the richest country in the world can't? The scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you....

how does every other rich country in the world manage it

Less, older equipment.
Less, older medicines.
Fewer doctors, fewer hospital beds.
Ridiculous waits for treatment.
Rationing.

Being a GOP dupe, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Since you're so smart, can you confirm these awesome government healthcare plans you love have....

More, newer equipment.
More, newer medicines.
More doctors, more hospital beds.
Shorter waits for treatment.
No rationing. Compared to our awful system, of course.

Any actual information you can post to refute my claims would be welcome.​

 

[Dragonlady]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

Yeah. The woman I'm dating refers to herself as a "socialist" who believes in income equality. So, I asked her to state exactly what she meant by it. I asked if she meant that high school drop-outs should receive the same income as the head of a major corporation or a brain surgeon that spent 10 years learning his/her craft...or, did she mean that all burger slingers in the fast food industry, be paid the same as other burger slingers? Her response (having multiple degrees and thus a bunch of letters after her name), "uhh, I don't know for sure." I just shook my head and got back to what I was doing. We're fairly compatible, but when it comes to politics, her thinking ability declines.

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
2. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
3. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government! David Mamet

1. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now.... But carry on.....

"Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now..."


That level of misunderstanding is like believing that purchasing an airline ticket makes one able to flap their arms and fly.

Is this a deliberate malapprop, or were trying to make a joke? Either way, you've failed utterly.

Income equality means that when wages go up, everybody's wages go up. If management gets a 10%, workers get a 10% raise. Increased levels of income are shared across the wage spectrum, not all increases go to the top, and everyone else watches their wages erode due to inflation.

The wealth created by the increased levels of productivity over the past 40 years, has not be shared with the front line workers. The wealthy have excused the failure to raise worker wages saying that investments in automation increased productivity, and the value of the work had not increased.

I work in a field that has been utterly changed by automation. When I started in real estate law, I had to physically go to the Land Titles Office, requisition a large Plan Book for the property, and scroll through pages of handwritten listings of every document ever registered against the property my clients were hoping to buy, then make a list of documents which might have relevance, have clerks pull those documents, pull plans, order copies of everything relevant, and review them all by hand, write a title report and go back to my office. All correspondence was hand typed, as were cheques. I could close, from start to finish 10 deals a month.

Word processors changed everything. My boss bought a $5000 word processor, I doubled my output - 20 deals a month. Then came online registration. My boss bought me a $3000 computer. No trips to the registry office - all searches, retrieval of documents, and document registration done online - 40 deals a month. $80,000 per month in billings. My billable hours never changed, but my billings went from $15,000 p/m to $80,000. Are you saying that because my employer bought me computers that enabled me to do more, that my wages should not have gone up, because the increased productivity was due to automation?

Wage equality means that because I was able to handle a high volume of deals, by marrying computer skills with legal skills, I shared in my employers' increased billings. As my billings doubled, my income doubled, and then doubled again. That's what workers are asking for. Frontline workers - burger flippers, store clerks, service staff, those people make ALL of the money for the companies.

Customers aren't giving you money for the work the President does, they're paying for what the kid at the grill is making. If it's a crappy burger, I won't be back. That kid deserves a living wage, and I don't think that I'll be patroniziing any burger joint that has robots making my burgers either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?

$270 dollars?
Can Walmart get more generous?

Their executives get million dollar stock deals

PC thinks that people on food stamps and MedicAid, have an extra $1800 to invest in the company stocks. And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money What a great deal is that!!!!!.

PC also thinks that minimum wage workers who are dependent on food stamps and MedicAid have 401K's that they contribute to. If only these people would just take advantage of the perks being offered, they could retire wealthy!

People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America, having put all of the other retailers out of business. All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices, and offerred higher wages, until all the other stores closed. Then Walmart raised prices and cut hours and wages. There aren't any other stores for miles around.

Stupid, ignorant and conservative til the day she dies.

And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money

No, you idiot, they give you $270 in additional stock.
It's no wonder why you'll always be poor, you can't read.

All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices,

WalMart, giving customers lower prices......bastards!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?

$270 dollars?
Can Walmart get more generous?

Their executives get million dollar stock deals

PC thinks that people on food stamps and MedicAid, have an extra $1800 to invest in the company stocks. And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money What a great deal is that!!!!!.

PC also thinks that minimum wage workers who are dependent on food stamps and MedicAid have 401K's that they contribute to. If only these people would just take advantage of the perks being offered, they could retire wealthy!

People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America, having put all of the other retailers out of business. All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices, and offerred higher wages, until all the other stores closed. Then Walmart raised prices and cut hours and wages. There aren't any other stores for miles around.

Stupid, ignorant and conservative til the day she dies.

I think Walmart giving its workers $270 is hilarious
Hard to match such generosity

When was the last time your employer gave you free shares of stock?
Or a 1-1 match on a 6% 401K contribution?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

Yeah. The woman I'm dating refers to herself as a "socialist" who believes in income equality. So, I asked her to state exactly what she meant by it. I asked if she meant that high school drop-outs should receive the same income as the head of a major corporation or a brain surgeon that spent 10 years learning his/her craft...or, did she mean that all burger slingers in the fast food industry, be paid the same as other burger slingers? Her response (having multiple degrees and thus a bunch of letters after her name), "uhh, I don't know for sure." I just shook my head and got back to what I was doing. We're fairly compatible, but when it comes to politics, her thinking ability declines.

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
2. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
3. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government! David Mamet

1. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now.... But carry on.....

"Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now..."


That level of misunderstanding is like believing that purchasing an airline ticket makes one able to flap their arms and fly.

Is this a deliberate malapprop, or were trying to make a joke? Either way, you've failed utterly.

Income equality means that when wages go up, everybody's wages go up. If management gets a 10%, workers get a 10% raise. Increased levels of income are shared across the wage spectrum, not all increases go to the top, and everyone else watches their wages erode due to inflation.

The wealth created by the increased levels of productivity over the past 40 years, has not be shared with the front line workers. The wealthy have excused the failure to raise worker wages saying that investments in automation increased productivity, and the value of the work had not increased.

I work in a field that has been utterly changed by automation. When I started in real estate law, I had to physically go to the Land Titles Office, requisition a large Plan Book for the property, and scroll through pages of handwritten listings of every document ever registered against the property my clients were hoping to buy, then make a list of documents which might have relevance, have clerks pull those documents, pull plans, order copies of everything relevant, and review them all by hand, write a title report and go back to my office. All correspondence was hand typed, as were cheques. I could close, from start to finish 10 deals a month.

Word processors changed everything. My boss bought a $5000 word processor, I doubled my output - 20 deals a month. Then came online registration. My boss bought me a $3000 computer. No trips to the registry office - all searches, retrieval of documents, and document registration done online - 40 deals a month. $80,000 per month in billings. My billable hours never changed, but my billings went from $15,000 p/m to $80,000. Are you saying that because my employer bought me computers that enabled me to do more, that my wages should not have gone up, because the increased productivity was due to automation?

Wage equality means that because I was able to handle a high volume of deals, by marrying computer skills with legal skills, I shared in my employers' increased billings. As my billings doubled, my income doubled, and then doubled again. That's what workers are asking for. Frontline workers - burger flippers, store clerks, service staff, those people make ALL of the money for the companies.

Customers aren't giving you money for the work the President does, they're paying for what the kid at the grill is making. If it's a crappy burger, I won't be back. That kid deserves a living wage, and I don't think that I'll be patroniziing any burger joint that has robots making my burgers either.

My billable hours never changed, but my billings went from $15,000 p/m to $80,000. Are you saying that because my employer bought me computers that enabled me to do more, that my wages should not have gone up, because the increased productivity was due to automation?


Are you saying that because your productivity is more than 5 times what it used to be that your income should be 5 times what it used to be?

 

[Dragonlady]

I've highlighted this line because of the sheer idiocy of it. Of course there is no poverty in the "Dickensian sense" because we've closed the debtors' prisons and the work houses. After Roe v. Wade, we also closed the orphanages.

Poverty is not having enough money to put a roof over your head and food on the table. Inequity is the President of McDonald's making 2000 times more money than his front line workers. Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

All of the smart, educated, women have left the Republican Party. But you're still there - voting for a President who thinks that Asians aren't real Americans, women aren't equal to men, and only white people should be in America. Stupid, ignorant, and conservative is no way to go through life, PC.

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?

$270 dollars?
Can Walmart get more generous?

Their executives get million dollar stock deals

PC thinks that people on food stamps and MedicAid, have an extra $1800 to invest in the company stocks. And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money What a great deal is that!!!!!.

PC also thinks that minimum wage workers who are dependent on food stamps and MedicAid have 401K's that they contribute to. If only these people would just take advantage of the perks being offered, they could retire wealthy!

People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America, having put all of the other retailers out of business. All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices, and offerred higher wages, until all the other stores closed. Then Walmart raised prices and cut hours and wages. There aren't any other stores for miles around.

Stupid, ignorant and conservative til the day she dies.

I know I am taking advantage of a complete moron and total imbecile, who writes:
"People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America".....

....and, no doubt, fails to see how really funny that cyclic sentence is.....
Did you think that post made sense??? If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

The Beatles gave the requirement for being a Liberal in their song ‘Strawberry Fields:’
“Living is easy with eyes closed…Misunderstanding all you see”
I see you live by that.





Here we go again.....you do the only thing you can do....spew the indoctrination that has been trained into you....


....and I rip you a new one with indisputable facts.


"The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim."
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.c...ding-ovation-the-faculty-were-deathly-silent/




Let's cut to the chase: there is no real poverty, and the welfare industry is simply a Democrat vote-buying scheme.

You keep posting non-sequiters in response to other people's posts.

I clicked on your link, it said "Page not found". I googled your quote and got nothing. So much for your indisputable truth.

The Beatles song is about a children' orphage called Strawberry Field.

The Story of Strawberry Fields Forever

 

[Dragonlady]

Yeah. The woman I'm dating refers to herself as a "socialist" who believes in income equality. So, I asked her to state exactly what she meant by it. I asked if she meant that high school drop-outs should receive the same income as the head of a major corporation or a brain surgeon that spent 10 years learning his/her craft...or, did she mean that all burger slingers in the fast food industry, be paid the same as other burger slingers? Her response (having multiple degrees and thus a bunch of letters after her name), "uhh, I don't know for sure." I just shook my head and got back to what I was doing. We're fairly compatible, but when it comes to politics, her thinking ability declines.

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
2. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
3. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government! David Mamet

1. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now.... But carry on.....

"Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now..."


That level of misunderstanding is like believing that purchasing an airline ticket makes one able to flap their arms and fly.

Is this a deliberate malapprop, or were trying to make a joke? Either way, you've failed utterly.

Income equality means that when wages go up, everybody's wages go up. If management gets a 10%, workers get a 10% raise. Increased levels of income are shared across the wage spectrum, not all increases go to the top, and everyone else watches their wages erode due to inflation.

The wealth created by the increased levels of productivity over the past 40 years, has not be shared with the front line workers. The wealthy have excused the failure to raise worker wages saying that investments in automation increased productivity, and the value of the work had not increased.

I work in a field that has been utterly changed by automation. When I started in real estate law, I had to physically go to the Land Titles Office, requisition a large Plan Book for the property, and scroll through pages of handwritten listings of every document ever registered against the property my clients were hoping to buy, then make a list of documents which might have relevance, have clerks pull those documents, pull plans, order copies of everything relevant, and review them all by hand, write a title report and go back to my office. All correspondence was hand typed, as were cheques. I could close, from start to finish 10 deals a month.

Word processors changed everything. My boss bought a $5000 word processor, I doubled my output - 20 deals a month. Then came online registration. My boss bought me a $3000 computer. No trips to the registry office - all searches, retrieval of documents, and document registration done online - 40 deals a month. $80,000 per month in billings. My billable hours never changed, but my billings went from $15,000 p/m to $80,000. Are you saying that because my employer bought me computers that enabled me to do more, that my wages should not have gone up, because the increased productivity was due to automation?

Wage equality means that because I was able to handle a high volume of deals, by marrying computer skills with legal skills, I shared in my employers' increased billings. As my billings doubled, my income doubled, and then doubled again. That's what workers are asking for. Frontline workers - burger flippers, store clerks, service staff, those people make ALL of the money for the companies.

Customers aren't giving you money for the work the President does, they're paying for what the kid at the grill is making. If it's a crappy burger, I won't be back. That kid deserves a living wage, and I don't think that I'll be patroniziing any burger joint that has robots making my burgers either.

My billable hours never changed, but my billings went from $15,000 p/m to $80,000. Are you saying that because my employer bought me computers that enabled me to do more, that my wages should not have gone up, because the increased productivity was due to automation?


Are you saying that because your productivity is more than 5 times what it used to be that your income should be 5 times what it used to be?

If my company is booking record profits, because of your productivity - yes!

My wages went from $1000 per month, to $2000 per month, to more than a $5000 per month. While my employers initially received $24,000 per month over my salary, that increased to $48,000 more than salary, and finally, $75,000 per month more than they were paying me. Are you saying I wasn't entitled to any share of my increased billings? I mean the lawyer could say, he brought in the work, after all. They're his clients, not mine, and they're all his deals.

Are you saying that executive deserve 270% raises, while their workers are dependent on government handouts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.
2. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.
3. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government! David Mamet

1. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.” Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now.... But carry on.....

"Nobody is arguing for income equality, just less inequality than the record amount we have now..."


That level of misunderstanding is like believing that purchasing an airline ticket makes one able to flap their arms and fly.

Is this a deliberate malapprop, or were trying to make a joke? Either way, you've failed utterly.

Income equality means that when wages go up, everybody's wages go up. If management gets a 10%, workers get a 10% raise. Increased levels of income are shared across the wage spectrum, not all increases go to the top, and everyone else watches their wages erode due to inflation.

The wealth created by the increased levels of productivity over the past 40 years, has not be shared with the front line workers. The wealthy have excused the failure to raise worker wages saying that investments in automation increased productivity, and the value of the work had not increased.

I work in a field that has been utterly changed by automation. When I started in real estate law, I had to physically go to the Land Titles Office, requisition a large Plan Book for the property, and scroll through pages of handwritten listings of every document ever registered against the property my clients were hoping to buy, then make a list of documents which might have relevance, have clerks pull those documents, pull plans, order copies of everything relevant, and review them all by hand, write a title report and go back to my office. All correspondence was hand typed, as were cheques. I could close, from start to finish 10 deals a month.

Word processors changed everything. My boss bought a $5000 word processor, I doubled my output - 20 deals a month. Then came online registration. My boss bought me a $3000 computer. No trips to the registry office - all searches, retrieval of documents, and document registration done online - 40 deals a month. $80,000 per month in billings. My billable hours never changed, but my billings went from $15,000 p/m to $80,000. Are you saying that because my employer bought me computers that enabled me to do more, that my wages should not have gone up, because the increased productivity was due to automation?

Wage equality means that because I was able to handle a high volume of deals, by marrying computer skills with legal skills, I shared in my employers' increased billings. As my billings doubled, my income doubled, and then doubled again. That's what workers are asking for. Frontline workers - burger flippers, store clerks, service staff, those people make ALL of the money for the companies.

Customers aren't giving you money for the work the President does, they're paying for what the kid at the grill is making. If it's a crappy burger, I won't be back. That kid deserves a living wage, and I don't think that I'll be patroniziing any burger joint that has robots making my burgers either.

My billable hours never changed, but my billings went from $15,000 p/m to $80,000. Are you saying that because my employer bought me computers that enabled me to do more, that my wages should not have gone up, because the increased productivity was due to automation?


Are you saying that because your productivity is more than 5 times what it used to be that your income should be 5 times what it used to be?

If my company is booking record profits, because of your productivity - yes!

Are you saying that executive deserve 270% raises, while their workers are dependent on government handouts?

If my company is booking record profits, because of your productivity - yes!

You don't deserve 500% of your old salary.

Are you saying that executive deserve 270% raises, while their workers are dependent on government handouts?

You're comparing the productivity of a CEO versus the guy who sweeps the floors?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Inequity is the Walton family, sitting on their asses collecting profits from a company, who's workers received over $9 billion per year in government social assistance handouts, because they're being paid minimum wage.

How much would the government save if WalMart fired every employee who receives government assistance?

If that is the case- about workers at Walmart being exploited...

1. "If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One?

2. If we listen to some of the activists on the WalMart issue then we’re told that the jobs at the store are just terrible. The pay, the conditions are appalling, which leaves us with the mysterious question of why do so many people seem to want a job at WalMart?

3. There’s a lot of rhetoric, especially from the left, that is very dismissive of working at Walmart. Go the Wikipedia entry for “Criticism of Walmart” and you’ll find references to the following criticisms of being a Walmart employee:

4.... low wages, poor working conditions, being forced to work off the clock, being denied overtime pay, not being allowed to take breaks, violations of child labor laws, instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day, labor racketeering crimes, sexual discrimination, limiting or eliminating health care benefits, poorly-run and understaffed stores, etc.



5. – it must be a pretty terrible place to work, right? But then why do so many people actually want to work for the retail giant, based on the huge number of applications that Walmart receives every time it opens a new store?

6. ... the new Washington D.C. stores received 23,000 applications for only 600 positions.

That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.

So, if the jobs are so terrible then why is it that so many people want to have one of these terrible jobs?





7. ... WalMart jobs are better than one or all of those alternatives. This is revealed preferences in action: that people apply for the jobs means that they want them.






8. [It's an economic fact:] those offering the best opportunities and working conditions will get the workers and those offering bad conditions and/or pay will find that they have to improve them in order to retain their workforce.

9. ... what is the current constraint on people setting up in business....the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds gaining all of the necessary permits and licenses discourages many would-be entrepreneurs from even starting.

10. Reduce that regulatory burden and we’ll see more new businesses starting and thus, through the above process, conditions will get better for all workers."
If WalMart Jobs Are So Terrible, Then Why Do So Many People Want One? - Forbes



Best line in the article:
That’s a multiple of the number of applications there are for each and every place at Harvard.



How about this?

"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably



Terrible job, huh?

$270 dollars?
Can Walmart get more generous?

Their executives get million dollar stock deals

PC thinks that people on food stamps and MedicAid, have an extra $1800 to invest in the company stocks. And then asks those people to take $1800 of the money Walmart paid them and give it back to Walmart. This would be more than one month's pre-tax earning, and Walmart would refund them $270 of their own money What a great deal is that!!!!!.

PC also thinks that minimum wage workers who are dependent on food stamps and MedicAid have 401K's that they contribute to. If only these people would just take advantage of the perks being offered, they could retire wealthy!

People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America, having put all of the other retailers out of business. All those stores that used to hire people in American, before Walmart came in and undercut prices, and offerred higher wages, until all the other stores closed. Then Walmart raised prices and cut hours and wages. There aren't any other stores for miles around.

Stupid, ignorant and conservative til the day she dies.

I know I am taking advantage of a complete moron and total imbecile, who writes:
"People apply to work at Walmart because they are the largest employer in America".....

....and, no doubt, fails to see how really funny that cyclic sentence is.....
Did you think that post made sense??? If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

The Beatles gave the requirement for being a Liberal in their song ‘Strawberry Fields:’
“Living is easy with eyes closed…Misunderstanding all you see”
I see you live by that.





Here we go again.....you do the only thing you can do....spew the indoctrination that has been trained into you....


....and I rip you a new one with indisputable facts.


"The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim."
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.c...ding-ovation-the-faculty-were-deathly-silent/




Let's cut to the chase: there is no real poverty, and the welfare industry is simply a Democrat vote-buying scheme.

You keep posting non-sequiters in response to other people's posts.

I clicked on your link, it said "Page not found". I googled your quote and got nothing. So much for your indisputable truth.

The Beatles song is about a children' orphage called Strawberry Field.

The Story of Strawberry Fields Forever

As I stated, there is no real poverty in American.....it is a chimera designed to envelop dopes like you.


"The Census Bureau has estimated the nation's annual poverty rate since 1963 using data from the Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted in March of each year. Census deems a household "poor" if annual income falls below specified income thresholds. There are two problems with this methodology. First, the Current Population Survey dramatically undercounts household economic resources. Second, the fact that household income falls below a specific level reveals little about the nature of material deprivation within the household.

This paper will take an alternative approach to assessing poverty: examining the material living conditions of low-income Americans. Using data from various government surveys this paper examines ownership of property and consumer durables; housing space, and housing conditions; food and nutrient consumption; and the height, thinness and obesity of low-income persons. Finally, we attempt an overall assessment of material deprivation based on material living conditions.

Today the typical American, defined as poor by the government, has a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer, a car, air conditioning, a VCR, a microwave, a stereo, and a color TV. He is able to obtain medical care and his home is in good repair and is not over-crowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and in the last year he had sufficient funds to meet his essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of poverty conveyed by politicians, the press, and activists."
The Heritage Foundation


Now jot this down so you never forget it: I am never wrong.

 

[Flash]

[Q


Income equality means that when wages go up, everybody's wages go up. If management gets a 10%, workers get a 10% raise. wage, and I don't think that I'll be patroniziing any burger joint that has robots making my burgers either.

Why?

What if management contributes more to the profitability of the company than some worker doing mundane repetitive jobs?

Let the labor market determine the worth of the hourly worker and the worth of the CEO. Keep the friggin government out of it.

I am not concerned about income equality. It is none of my business what other people make. I am not greedy and I am not envious. I don't need the friggin government to help me out by taking money away from other people and giving it to me.

There will never be income equality because some people are productive and some people are lazy.

When I was busting my ass in Engineering school studying all hours and giving up doing things I would rather be doing some of my friends were partying.

Why should the government try to equalize me and my partying friends? Shouldn't they reap reap the rewards of being sorry? Shouldn't I reap the rewards of learning something that gave me a much higher paying job?

 

[Dragonlady]

[Q


Income equality means that when wages go up, everybody's wages go up. If management gets a 10%, workers get a 10% raise. wage, and I don't think that I'll be patroniziing any burger joint that has robots making my burgers either.

Why?

What if management contributes more to the profitability of the company than some worker doing mundane repetitive jobs?

Let the labor market determine the worth of the hourly worker and the worth of the CEO. Keep the friggin government out of it.

I am not concerned about income equality. It is none of my business what other people make. I am not greedy and I am not envious. I don't need the friggin government to help me out by taking money away from other people and giving it to me.

There will never be income equality because some people are productive and some people are lazy.

When I was busting my ass in Engineering school studying all hours and giving up doing things I would rather be doing some of my friends were partying.

Why should the government try to equalize me and my partying friends? Shouldn't they reap reap the rewards of being sorry? Shouldn't I reap the rewards of learning something that gave me a much higher paying job?

The government isn't trying to have everyone paid the same. If your employer thinks you're more valuable, you'll be paid more. But the harsh reality is that companies budget a wage for every position, and even if your coworkers are showing up late, spending all day on the phone and doing half the work you do, they're going to get the same pay, because that's how companies roll these days. The job pays X, you don't like it leave. 10 people will line up to replace you.

We're trying to ensure that every worker who works 40 hour weeks, is paid a living wage, and that government isn't being forced to subsidize low prices by giving welfare to full time employees.

The government has to collect taxes, process applications and then pay the benefits. Increasing wages eliminates these expenses and reduces taxes.

 

[Flash]

[Q


Income equality means that when wages go up, everybody's wages go up. If management gets a 10%, workers get a 10% raise. wage, and I don't think that I'll be patroniziing any burger joint that has robots making my burgers either.

Why?

What if management contributes more to the profitability of the company than some worker doing mundane repetitive jobs?

Let the labor market determine the worth of the hourly worker and the worth of the CEO. Keep the friggin government out of it.

I am not concerned about income equality. It is none of my business what other people make. I am not greedy and I am not envious. I don't need the friggin government to help me out by taking money away from other people and giving it to me.

There will never be income equality because some people are productive and some people are lazy.

When I was busting my ass in Engineering school studying all hours and giving up doing things I would rather be doing some of my friends were partying.

Why should the government try to equalize me and my partying friends? Shouldn't they reap reap the rewards of being sorry? Shouldn't I reap the rewards of learning something that gave me a much higher paying job?

The government isn't trying to have everyone paid the same. If your employer thinks you're more valuable, you'll be paid more. But the harsh reality is that companies budget a wage for every position, and even if your coworkers are showing up late, spending all day on the phone and doing half the work you do, they're going to get the same pay, because that's how companies roll these days. The job pays X, you don't like it leave. 10 people will line up to replace you.

We're trying to ensure that every worker who works 40 hour weeks, is paid a living wage, and that government isn't being forced to subsidize low prices by giving welfare to full time employees.

The government has to collect taxes, process applications and then pay the benefits. Increasing wages eliminates these expenses and reduces taxes.

The friggin government doesn't need to be concerned about a "living wage". That should between the employer and the employee. If the proposed pay is not enough and nobody takes the job then employer will have to pay more.

The government needs to stay out of our lives and trying to interfere with everything.

What increases wages is not government interference but productivity. As an Engineer I tried to make myself as productive as possible and got paid well for it.

We see what is happening all over the country with mandated minimum wage laws. People are losing their jobs. The government always screws up everything, doesn't it?

 

[Kondor3]

1.As any observant individual has found, Liberals/Democrats think with their heart, not with their head. Soooo… an effective propaganda tool to win unthinking individuals over, is to simply point out that not everyone has the same income, wealth, material assets.

Boo hoo!

My usual perspective, is ‘so what’??? There is no real poverty, that is poverty in the Dickensian sense in America….you’ve never had to step over bodies in the gutter on your way to work….if another’s home is bigger or their car is newer, that is no one else’s business, and certainly not government’s.




2. But the always perceptive and articulate Bill O’Reilly has a somewhat different….and insightful….take on the issue of income inequality.
Getting right to the heart of the matter, O’Reilly nails it: any inequality in outcome, in terms of wealth, can be traced back to the real problem: parental inequality.




3. “Bad parenting, not capitalism, is the main cause of “income inequality” in America. The left, including liberal educators, media, and politicians will never admit that, but it’s absolutely true.

…begin with education. If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society. If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.

As the child gets older, parents must participate in the learning process - emphasizing the tremendous importance of academic discipline and monitor school work on a daily basis.

Millions of American parents simply refuse to do that.” Bill O'Reilly: Bill's Weekly Column Archive




4. An example of how fiercely Liberals/Democrats fight this idea: Reading to your children is racist and unfair for all of the other minority children - leftist science.

“Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.”
Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review




What is the result of this sort of Leftist bilge, vis-à-vis the struggle to give every child the same start for success???


Next.

Doesn't matter.

There comes a time in the life of every country when the rich are few enough and the poor are overwhelming enough to turn the tables.

The only question is: have we reach that point yet in the life of our Republic?