CDZ What are you worth?

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Boss]

Let's approach this another way, sparky. In the spirit of the OP, answer this... What is your health and well-being worth to you? Let's say you have some kind of treatable and non-terminal condition that requires medical attention but without it, you're going to die... what price are you willing to pay personally for the treatment to cure you? What is your limit... the amount you would no longer be willing to pay?

I think most people would probably say there is no price you can put on your health. Whatever amount it takes, it would be worth it to you. If it bankrupts you or if you have to pay for it the rest of your life... doesn't matter. You would agree to pay whatever the cost to preserve your health.

Now... let's ask someone who doesn't know you and has never met you and probably never will. How much do you believe your health is worth to them? How much are they willing to pay to ensure you are cured? How much would they consider "too much" for them personally to pay? I think you'll find there is a BIG difference in perspectives. And this is the problem we face with the question of nationalized health care.

I know it sounds like a great idea to spread everyone's health care costs around so we all pay for it but the problem is perspectives of worth. You value the worth of your personal health care more than anyone. Turn it all over to a government bureaucracy and you'll discover that others don't share your perspective of worth, especially a faceless, soulless government entity with limited resources.

 

[sparky]

A fair Q Boss

It would appear you're asking, in a roundabout way, if we are our 'brothers keeper'

It's interesting in that ,we are on a global scale , yet do not subscribe to the same with our own

That said, gub'mit does not maintain the moral benchmark of human worth, social zeitgeist does & always has

Good health to you just the same sir

~S~

 

[Boss]

The thing is, you're still out there slinging propaganda from pre-Obamacare as if ACA never passed. You don't seem to understand you were duped into believing a bunch of trumped up nonsense so that Big Pharma and the health insurance industry could compose legislation to feather their nests on the backs of the taxpayer. It didn't solve any of the problems with regard to health care in America. Obama fans run around boasting about adding 17 million who now have health care.. well, it was supposed to add 40-50 million... and all it really did was increase Medicaid/Medicare recipients without addressing the solvency problem with that program. Most people just had a 200-400% increase in premiums and/or deductibles or lost their employer-provided health care all together. And now, the same exact people are all out there screaming and moaning that we need MORE health care legislation. They are willing to let the same politicians who screwed them the first time to screw them again because they believe the propaganda.

We have to stop this nonsense of thinking the government is going to solve all our problems. Like Reagan said, government IS the problem! Get the damn government out of our way and let free market principles solve our problems like it always can when we let it.

Health care costs are high and the reasons are simple. We demand impeccable health care. There is no econo-line when it comes to health care. We don't have a generic low-cost option. We want the best doctors, the most qualified professionals, the state-of-the-art equipment and treatment, top-shelf facilities and demanding accountability on all fronts. We don't cut corners. We're a litigious society who doesn't tolerate the least hint of malpractice or negligence. For these reasons, the cost of health care is high and there isn't a way to make it cheap, much less, FREE!

 

[sparky]

Your conjecture leads to who is subservient to who Boss. It is not the gub'mit's job to run any business because a democratic republic is not even close to the realm of it. (despite Mr Trump's insistence it is) , it is, however, their job to create a level playing field for Capitalism to exist & flourish

Thus the ADA's 'rein' on the monolthic insurance cabal , which had grown to the point where it was stronger and controlling than the 'state' itself

Definitionally ,any one entity doing so is fascist.



~S~

 

[Boss]

Your conjecture leads to who is subservient to who Boss. It is not the gub'mit's job to run any business because a democratic republic is not even close to the realm of it. (despite Mr Trump's insistence it is) , it is, however, their job to create a level playing field for Capitalism to exist & flourish

When you use disparaging terms like "gub'mit" it makes me think you don't really appreciate government or governmental solutions... but then, in the same breath, you lobby for the same "gub'mit" to create "fairness" for you. Guess what? They're NEVER going to do that in a FREE society!

We already have a "level playing field" ...it's called a U.S. Constitution and it lays out in no uncertain terms, our equal an unalienable rights as individuals. It grants us practically unlimited power and enumerates specific power for a functioning government. If you begin to follow any other course of reasoning, you'll end up listening to some dingbat former first lady telling you how we need "equal pay for women" or some other nonsense we've already had the past 50 years.

And I am not here to defend Donald Trump. I do not support Donald Trump. I might vote for him to keep the Marxist out of the oval office, but I simply don't support him on many of his positions. Of course the government isn't a business and isn't run like one or else you'd get votes based on how much tax you pay. But the government is also not there to be the "arbiter of fairness" in a free market capitalist system. By allowing them to be, you are are submitting more and more of your personal freedom.

 

[Coyote]

This is the CDZ folks, please remember to wipe your feet. No mud slinging.

 

[sparky]

Your conjecture leads to who is subservient to who Boss. It is not the gub'mit's job to run any business because a democratic republic is not even close to the realm of it. (despite Mr Trump's insistence it is) , it is, however, their job to create a level playing field for Capitalism to exist & flourish

When you use disparaging terms like "gub'mit" it makes me think you don't really appreciate government or governmental solutions... but then, in the same breath, you lobby for the same "gub'mit" to create "fairness" for you. Guess what? They're NEVER going to do that in a FREE society!

Yes in fact i do use the term to disparage them Boss, most (especially career incumbents, accounting for 90% of Congress) have little to no clue about the 'real world of capitalism' most of us survive in.

Further, their influences of lobbyists and elitist $$$ have them turn a blind eye to the 'little guy' , and side with the fortune 5's , who's entire shtick is legislating favor unto themselves...

Not what i'd call ideal 'representative' , yet they're all we got....

We already have a "level playing field" ...it's called a U.S. Constitution and it lays out in no uncertain terms, our equal an unalienable rights as individuals. It grants us practically unlimited power and enumerates specific power for a functioning government. If you begin to follow any other course of reasoning, you'll end up listening to some dingbat former first lady telling you how we need "equal pay for women" or some other nonsense we've already had the past 50 years.

Said uncertainty is in that it is a living document that currently sides with corporate personhood (believing property is a person) ,again tipping the scales

Always in flux, always subject to influence, and yes Edith Bunker Clinton would most likely liberalize it into some Dante's level of socialistic h*ll

And I am not here to defend Donald Trump. I do not support Donald Trump. I might vote for him to keep the Marxist out of the oval office, but I simply don't support him on many of his positions. Of course the government isn't a business and isn't run like one or else you'd get votes based on how much tax you pay. But the government is also not there to be the "arbiter of fairness" in a free market capitalist system. By allowing them to be, you are are submitting more and more of your personal freedom.

Nor would i defend the prodigal son of wall street's take on things economic. Unfortunately , the choices of who holds the reins of the free market are either one or the other, GubM'it , or the fortune 5's

Libertopia will always devolve into anarchy , even diehard Randists agree on this btw

Someone has to make the call Boss....

peace out

~S~

 

[Boss]

Said uncertainty is in that it is a living document that currently sides with corporate personhood (believing property is a person) ,again tipping the scales

*sigh* My dear boy, Citizens United was a landmark ruling by SCOTUS which upheld the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. You see, as a result of McCain-Feingold, people were being denied their freedom of speech because they belonged to a corporation. SCOTUS ruled (correctly) that you cannot do that. It's no different than denying you freedom of speech because you belong to the Republican party, or the Boy Scouts, or Greenpeace, or Netflix. The scales were not tipped, the hand of government was removed from the scales which had been placed on them in 2002 with McCain-Feingold.

Nor would i defend the prodigal son of wall street's take on things economic. Unfortunately , the choices of who holds the reins of the free market are either one or the other, GubM'it , or the fortune 5's

Again, this is eloquently-stated nonsense. The reins of free market are held by free people. The more government constraint, the less free people are. Large corporations tend to lean toward "corporatism" which is the collusion of capitalism and government... this is not free market capitalism and actually threatens it more than Socialism.

 

[sealybobo]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I make $100K a year. I just made 1 sale for my company for $155K. Of that, we get to keep $132K.

So in 1 sale I made more than my entire yearly salary/commissions.

Yes I will get a big fat commission on this sale but the point is, this one sale justifies my existence.

Granted, these sales don't happen every day. In fact maybe only a couple times in the 10 years I've been here. What a great start to the year!!!

I lost a sale like this in December. The bitch told a competitor what discount I gave and they "beat it". The dumb bitch doesn't know if she would have told me I would have beat their price. I'm still not over that one and it's been 3 months. LOL.

 

[ding]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

$200 per hour which is the going rate for senior engineers in oil and gas working in wells.

 

[irosie91]

$200 per hour which is the going rate for senior engineers in oil and gas working in wells.

well---like lawyers. IMO even though ----I was once a fairly highly paid professional----the wage rate is OUTTA CONTROL-----and a big problem---and the price of eggs is enough to bring our country down

 

[DudleySmith]

Keep starving a couple hundred million peasants out of food and shelter, and soon we're going to find out making the big bux doesn't save you from much. 'Gated communities' aren't that secure, and aren't well fortified, neither are freeways and other transportation routes. Can't count on your Army either, since they come from the peasants you're shitting on every day.

 

[ding]

well---like lawyers. IMO even though ----I was once a fairly highly paid professional----the wage rate is OUTTA CONTROL-----and a big problem---and the price of eggs is enough to bring our country down

Lawyers are making even more than that per hour.

 

[peacefan]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

i'm a full stack webdeveloper, and i'd gladly work 5 days a week, 4 hours per day at $25/hour.

 

[sealybobo]

i'm a full stack webdeveloper, and i'd gladly work 5 days a week, 4 hours per day at $25/hour.

I remember in the 2000's I told Republicans that the gap between rich and poor was getting too wide and we weren't being paid what we are worth. Republicans said whatever we are making, is what we are worth.

But today they are now crying fake tears because poor and middle class people "aren't making enough". Isn't that interesting?

In the 2000's they said if you aren't making enough go get another job. Even though jobs were scarce and wages were low. Or they said go back to school. Today they are against college. Or they said go start your own business. Otherwise, sorry, but whatever you make, is what you are worth.

Now it's an election year and they're saying something different. Just look at this fact.

From 2019 to 2022, the median net worth of American families jumped 37% to $192,900, after adjusting for inflation. It’s the largest increase ever recorded by the federal Survey of Consumer Finances, released last fall.

If Trump were president they'd be pointing this out and telling you if you didn't benefit from this fact then that's your fault.

 

[rightwinger]

The middle class has been abandoned since Reagan was President in the 1980s

Reagan busted unions, took away worker protections, put more of the financial burden on the middle class

Worker pay has suffered ever since

 

[sealybobo]

The middle class has been abandoned since Reagan was President in the 1980s

Reagan busted unions, took away worker protections, put more of the financial burden on the middle class

Worker pay has suffered ever since

And a lot of the Republicans who love Reagan and vote for Trump now are living on a pension, social security, medicare, belonged to a union and or went to college when it was only $5000 a year.

 

[rightwinger]

And a lot of the Republicans who love Reagan and vote for Trump now are living on a pension, social security, medicare, belonged to a union and or went to college when it was only $5000 a year.

I went to college when it was $650 a year

 

[sealybobo]

I went to college when it was $650 a year

Couple things I would say to a middle class kid today.

a. Try to get scholarships/grants instead of loans
b. Get your associates degree at a community college cheap
c. Maybe it takes you 6-8 years instead of 4. Relax you're young. Better to take 4 years more to finish college than it is to finish in 4 years and owe $200K. How many years will it take to pay that back? So chillax on trying to finish in 4 years. Hell you might find a good job while you are going to college and they'll help pay for it.