America doesn't have a jobs issue, WE HAVE A WAGE ISSUE.

[Asclepias]

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Without 'burger flippers,' wouldn't the restaurant fail?

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

WOW...I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY that humans need interaction. What that has to do with robots...I have no clue. American car makers were crushed by imports because the American Auto Unions fought automation (robots) tooth and nail. That and many other things they demanded and were given.

Your comment that it is THE OLDER GENERATION (me) is holding up automation is showing you as a fool.

No dummy that was my comment. I've worked in the IT field and I am well aware of the challenges you old people have with technology. The younger generation has very little problem interacting with automation. It has a lot to do with robots because not many old people are going to be trusting of robots doing things for them.

 

[Asclepias]

The working poor are growing because our government punishes people for working.

How so?

Low wages are fine, if you aren't taxed up the ASS and if your food doesn't cost more than your life's blood is worth. And both of those conditions are creately SOLELY by the tyrannical, unconstitutional and communistic policies that punish people for working.

Low wages and high food costs are created by corporate America.

Who's taxed 'up the ass?' It's not corporations. It's not the rich/wealthy.

Entrepreneurs are taxed up the ass.
Working class people are taxed up the ass. Gas is taxed up the ass. Our property is taxed up the ass. We are forced to purchase insurance at ridiculous and back breaking rates, which means we have less and less for our children and food.
And our wages aren't low, dumbass. High food costs are created by government interference with production and resource management.

Obviously you have never had a business or you were too dumb to understand all the tax write offs business owners get.

You...OBVIOUSLY do not understand tax write-offs. In your opinion, should tax write-offs be eliminated?

Obviously you are uneducated about tax write-offs and fishing for information.

What's obvious is your inability to stop spewing nonsense in an attempt to win an argument, business write offs are expenses,money spent,this notion that somehow they are an advantage ,just prove how much you don't know.

Wages are expenses and you are obviously uneducated regarding tax write offs.

 

[OnePercenter]

Easy peasy lemon squeezy: General Motors. The liabilities owed under union contracts were a major cause of insolvency.

Due to hundreds of billions lost through GMAC Mortage and DiTech.

Linky?

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I know you can read so that was a silly question. Please provide proof the founders were against this concept.

Nope, YOU provide proof they were for it.

 

[Asclepias]

I know you can read so that was a silly question. Please provide proof the founders were against this concept.

Nope, YOU provide proof they were for it.

I dont have to because that had nothing to do with the point. You jumped in midstream with a claim so the burden of proof is on you.

 

[airplanemechanic]

No, YOU claimed they were for it. When I ask you to back your shit up, you can't do it. You lose.

I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right, which you can't do.

 

[Markle]

Providing for the general welfare gives the feds the power to tax

Right, but read it again. I says "provide FOR the general welfare", meaning to maintain circumstances conducive to the general welfare of the nation.

It does not say "PROVIDE general welfare" to individuals, and the Founders never considered such a thing outside of charity.

I dont need to read it again. I am the one that posted it. Welfare is paid for by taxes. It is in the general welfare of this nation that we take care of those that cant or wont take care of themselves or we create a larger problem. Please link to something credible that proves the founders were against this.

Not until you first prove your position as earlier requested.

BTW, welfare did not become a function of government in the United States until the late 19th Century. In light of your apparent hinted belief that the Founders were in favor of wealth redistribution, why is that?

Everyone already knows the general welfare clause gives the feds the power to tax.

Please provide proof the founders were against this concept.

Did you really make this statement? May I quote: "Everyone already knows the general welfare clause gives the feds the power to tax.

Please provide proof the founders were against this concept."

IF what you say is true, or even remotely true, you really need to educate millions of constitutionals scholars.

Again...if what you say is true, or even remotely true, why was the 16th Amendment necessary? Proof provided, you're a loser.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 16

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Asclepias, for you and the other far left Progressives, here is an entire FREE course on our constitution. It will help you immensely to avoid looking so foolish on these threads.

Constitution 101 — A Hillsdale College Online Course

 

[boedicca]

Linky?

Linky?

You mean link?

GM profits dive 90% after subprime losses - FT.com

GMAC Made Risky Subprime Mortgage Loans

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

Futile spin, bub. The excessive liabilities due to union contracts caused GM to get rid of dealerships and car lines. If the situation were due only to the GMAC Mortgage and DiTech businesses, separating from them would have meant that the auto business in an of itself was healthy. It wasn't. It was bankrupt due to a bloated cost structure.

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

If GM hadn't gone into the mortgage business they wouldn't have had an issue.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Wrong again. Excessive liabilities owed for pensions and union contracts caused the Auto Business bankruptcy, as I have already proven in other posts.

Bullshit. Bad, very bad corporate decisions are the stem of GM's problem.

1) Not concentrating on a better automobile and truck.
2) The old full-size Impala.
3) Commercial truck market. ALL of their trucks over the past 20 years are crap.

GM, like every other large corporation that failed, was due to not re-inventing/improving and making a better widget.

It's difficult to make a better widget when the labor costs make widget making economically unviable.

Just sayin'.

 

[Markle]

Actually Jesus Christ was the original poster for wealth redistribution, when he told a rich person to give away all his accumulated wealth to the poor to be a follower of Christ...

Was this your post? I quote: Actually Jesus Christ was the original poster for wealth redistribution, when he told a rich person to give away all his accumulated wealth to the poor to be a follower of Christ..

As you know or are you an ignorant Progressive sycophant, that is a flat out LIE!

Yes, I called you a flat out liar. You, personally, have never, ever read that in the Holy Bible. PLEASE show us all which passages of the Bible make the plea for wealth redistribution. Go for it, you don't have the courage!

 

[Markle]

Dragonlady actually has that partially right, Welfare comes from the middle class not the rich no doubt. - The hard truth on that is that the rich are pretty much untouchable unless you /force/ them to stay in the 'offending' country. So unless you are going to restrain the wealthy to American Citizenship by threat of law, they simply leave when the tax burden gets too high.

Thing you've missed Dragon, is that businesses and corporations are the same way. This is no longer a world where they have no option to find profit but the US. If you make it too expensive to operate, or tax them too high, they leave. The only difference is that there is a little extra leverage against businesses via import/export taxation. However, when you raise wages without slapping on an import tax, you just basically told the business to get the **** out - rather like OWS has told the wealthy...

You posted this which is NOT true. "Dragonlady[/USER] actually has that partially right, Welfare comes from the middle class not the rich no doubt.

Of course, that depends on who you consider "rich". What income does a household have in order to qualify as "RICH"? In your opinion of course.

 

[Markle]

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

Poppycock. Uneconomically viable costs of labor deter growth. We have that already in the forms of requiring Union Labor, Regulations, and Taxes. I bet you whinge that Multinationals have moved labor offshore. Now why would they do that if Higher Wages cause growth?

You're being suckered.

My favorite example of your 'suckering' comes from Levi-Strauss & Company who moved operations off-shore stating they couldn't make $26.00 501's in the US. So now 501's are made in slave wage countries and selling for $60.00, but the good news is that the company has enough monies to put their name on a stadium.

Every business in this country CAN afford to pay living wages, they don't want too.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

Your sentence is incomplete. They don't want to... lose money and go out of business.

List a business bankruptcy filing that read excessive wages as being the reason for the filing.

General Motors, Chrysler would be two that come to mind without even looking.

General Motors, Chrysler would be two that come to mind without even looking.

Try real estate failures.

My far left Progressive good friend one-percenter stated that real estate failures were caused by wages being too high. How in the world my good friend?

You asked what corporations listed wages that were too high as a reason for declaring bankruptcy. I posted, General Motors and Chrysler. You said, "Try real estate failures".

Be interesting as to how you came to that conclusion. Go for it my good friend!

 

[Markle]

I find it interesting the complete disconnect here... The correlation of wages paid is not just "what's important for the business," it's between the paying rate for labor and labor availability. If there are 100 burger flipper's then that is a labor glut, it deflates the paying worth of that labor. If there are 10 managers, that is a labor shortage which inflates the paying worth of that labor. I am baffled that folks cannot see this, simple, common, everyday correlation.

If there are 1,000 widgets on the market the selling price would be less than if there were only 500. This is the exact same concept.

I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

I find it interesting the complete disconnect here... The correlation of wages paid is not just "what's important for the business," it's between the paying rate for labor and labor availability. If there are 100 burger flipper's then that is a labor glut, it deflates the paying worth of that labor. If there are 10 managers, that is a labor shortage which inflates the paying worth of that labor. I am baffled that folks cannot see this, simple, common, everyday correlation.

If there are 1,000 widgets on the market the selling price would be less than if there were only 500. This is the exact same concept.

I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

 

[Asclepias]

Providing for the general welfare gives the feds the power to tax

Right, but read it again. I says "provide FOR the general welfare", meaning to maintain circumstances conducive to the general welfare of the nation.

It does not say "PROVIDE general welfare" to individuals, and the Founders never considered such a thing outside of charity.

I dont need to read it again. I am the one that posted it. Welfare is paid for by taxes. It is in the general welfare of this nation that we take care of those that cant or wont take care of themselves or we create a larger problem. Please link to something credible that proves the founders were against this.

Not until you first prove your position as earlier requested.

BTW, welfare did not become a function of government in the United States until the late 19th Century. In light of your apparent hinted belief that the Founders were in favor of wealth redistribution, why is that?

Everyone already knows the general welfare clause gives the feds the power to tax.

Please provide proof the founders were against this concept.

Did you really make this statement? May I quote: "Everyone already knows the general welfare clause gives the feds the power to tax.

Please provide proof the founders were against this concept."

IF what you say is true, or even remotely true, you really need to educate millions of constitutionals scholars.

Again...if what you say is true, or even remotely true, why was the 16th Amendment necessary? Proof provided, you're a loser.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 16

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Asclepias, for you and the other far left Progressives, here is an entire FREE course on our constitution. It will help you immensely to avoid looking so foolish on these threads.

Constitution 101 — A Hillsdale College Online Course

Of course I made that statement. Thanks for showing the amendment but you never showed me any proof that the founders were against it.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

All citizens are required to pay taxes on income. Why did you think they werent?

 

[Markle]

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

WOW...I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY that humans need interaction. What that has to do with robots...I have no clue. American car makers were crushed by imports because the American Auto Unions fought automation (robots) tooth and nail. That and many other things they demanded and were given.

Your comment that it is THE OLDER GENERATION (me) is holding up automation is showing you as a fool.

No dummy that was my comment. I've worked in the IT field and I am well aware of the challenges you old people have with technology. The younger generation has very little problem interacting with automation. It has a lot to do with robots because not many old people are going to be trusting of robots doing things for them.

So you're PREJUDICED and DISCRIMINATE against older people.

I'm the "OLDER GENERATION". I began using computers when I had to lay everything out in MS-DOS to do mass mail outs. Before cell phones, I had a car phone which was a radio phone. I have no problem with a kiosk.

I also LOVE interacting and being with REAL PEOPLE. You talk like interacting with real people is inferior to interacting with a robot. Cute.

 

[boedicca]

I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

I agree in principal but you forget there are exceptions to that. Look at the cost of iphones and tell me they will go down if they have a surplus of them.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

It's quite easy to guess his response:

"Because My FEEEEEELLLLZZZZZ!!!!!!"

 

[Markle]

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

Here is the problem in this comparison:

You cannot compare a commodity with people. Yes, if there is a glut of widgets on the market, the price will fall.

And similarly, if there are more people available to do a job, the price falls for their labor too, but there's a difference. If the price on the widget falls, it doesn't affect the widget's ability to provide for its family. When workers earn less than they need to support their families, it becomes a societal problem.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

All citizens are required to pay taxes on income. Why did you think they werent?

Your lack of knowledge makes you difficult to take seriously.

Forty seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

 

[Asclepias]

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

WOW...I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY that humans need interaction. What that has to do with robots...I have no clue. American car makers were crushed by imports because the American Auto Unions fought automation (robots) tooth and nail. That and many other things they demanded and were given.

Your comment that it is THE OLDER GENERATION (me) is holding up automation is showing you as a fool.

No dummy that was my comment. I've worked in the IT field and I am well aware of the challenges you old people have with technology. The younger generation has very little problem interacting with automation. It has a lot to do with robots because not many old people are going to be trusting of robots doing things for them.

So you're PREJUDICED and DISCRIMINATE against older people.

I'm the "OLDER GENERATION". I began using computers when I had to lay everything out in MS-DOS to do mass mail outs. Before cell phones, I had a car phone which was a radio phone. I have no problem with a kiosk.

I also LOVE interacting and being with REAL PEOPLE. You talk like interacting with real people is inferior to interacting with a robot. Cute.

No. I have family members your age I take care of so please stop whining.

You said "I" which in no way represents most older peoples attitude toward new technology.

Your whining accusations are merely more of the strawmen you typically fall back on when you cant admit you dont know what you are talking about.

 

[Asclepias]

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

All citizens are required to pay taxes on income. Why did you think they werent?

Your lack of knowledge makes you difficult to take seriously.

Forty seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

Your lack of intellect makes you difficult to take seriously.

So your claim is that if 100% of all people were making 100k a year then only 53% would pay taxes?

 

[Slyhunter]

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

I wasnt comparing a widget with people. Where did you get that idea from?

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Why should I be forced to pay someone for work from which I do not benefit? Why am I responsible for their bad decisions?

You should be forced to pay because you live in a society that allows you to get ahead. Your price to participate in that society is your tax.

You are a hoot. Why should ALL citizens not participate in paying for our society?

PLEASE make a good argument for ME PAYING much more because I have made good decisions, worked my behind off and successful and because of that, I OWE people who made bad decisions, care nothing about their families and sit on their behinds.

GO for it my good friend!

All citizens are required to pay taxes on income. Why did you think they werent?

Your lack of knowledge makes you difficult to take seriously.

Forty seven percent of workers pay NO INCOME TAX.

If you don't make a living wage you shouldn't have. to.
Income tax should come out of discretionary income.