There Is No ‘Income Inequality’

[Wyatt earp]

Once again they founded a socialist colony in America and it DIDNT WORK

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....

Do they have 200 million Illegal rapist killer poor broke ass Mexicans like we do?

Huh super dupe?

.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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.

If the bigger house or newer car was obtained by using government to redistribute wealth from the productive many to the parasitic few, you will find many bodies in the gutter on your way to work assuming you're not afraid to look.

"It's Hard To Be Optimistic" - Homeless Population Jumps In L.A. County To Nearly 59,000

 

[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....

Do they have 200 million Illegal rapist killer poor broke ass Mexicans like we do?

Huh super dupe?

.

they do not have a flat tax system like we have if you count all taxes, brainwashed functional moron. A gigantic giveaway to the rich and a screw job for everyone else. 200 million now LOL....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I didn't say you said "take the damn hospitals" but rather that you said "nationalized healthcare" which - as you evidently don't know - means total gov't control, Comrade, not increased competition.

The problem with having your opinions fed to you by ProgsRus.com is they don't explain what their socialist silliness means but they know they can depend on you not to bother learning before you regurgitate it.

I tell ya, there is nothing dimmer than a big gov't leftard.

Nationalized healthcare is healthcare owned by the nation. It does not have to be exclusive. In fact, competition will benefit both the nationalized system and the private providers. It will put downward pressure on costs in the private market and it will create wage pressure on the government side to compete for staff.

You can plant flowers around "nationalized healthcare" but it still means total gov't control, and free-markets are the best way to insure "downward pressure on costs" and to "create wage pressure," not big, greasy, corrupt gov't meddling.

Free markets are doing nothing to drive down the price of healthcare

You have government adding hundreds of billions in healthcare demand while doing nothing to add to supply.

Gee, I wonder why prices are going up?

Change the word "healthcare" to "college" and you'll understand the other "crisis" in America today.

Do you think the government was making more sick people or just allowing more sick people able to be treated?

I am all for more doctors.....let’s hire more

Do you think the government was making more sick people or just allowing more sick people able to be treated?

If you give people "free healthcare" will they consume more or less?
Will just sick people come in for serious treatment or will people start coming in for frivolous reasons?

I am all for more doctors.....let’s hire more

Excellent idea. And let's make it easier for them to work without getting sued out of the profession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again they founded a socialist colony in America and it DIDNT WORK

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.

 

[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.

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.

If the bigger house or newer car was obtained by using government to redistribute wealth from the productive many to the parasitic few, you will find many bodies in the gutter on your way to work assuming you're not afraid to look.

"It's Hard To Be Optimistic" - Homeless Population Jumps In L.A. County To Nearly 59,000

They don't have those problems in the Worker's Paradise of Venezuela, eh comrade?

 

[Flash]

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.

Isn't it funny how these stupid Moon Bats want to ruin the best health care in the world by putting it in the hands of government bueracrats? What could possibly go wrong?

They came pretty damn close to destroying it with that disastrous Obamacare but now they want to be even more stupid than that with a complete government run system.

They are willing to fuck up health care for everybody and run up the cost so that they can get somebody else to pay their health care bills. Nothing but Libtard greed.

 

[LuckyDuck]

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.

 

[francoHFW]

Has no one mentioned to the Democrats that "skill inequality" is largely responsible for "income inequality"?

It seems not judging by their endless whining. Why not?

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

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.

 

[francoHFW]

Has no one mentioned to the Democrats that "skill inequality" is largely responsible for "income inequality"?

It seems not judging by their endless whining. Why not?

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

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.

maybe you want to change careers and don't want to be a s*** salesman all your life....

 

[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.




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.

 

[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.

If she is for Bernie or Warren, you don't know what she means, brainwashed functional moron. She probably just doesn't want to talk politics with a GOP idiot zombie.

 

[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

 

[Wyatt earp]

Has no one mentioned to the Democrats that "skill inequality" is largely responsible for "income inequality"?

It seems not judging by their endless whining. Why not?

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

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.

Republicans kill opportunities for working class Americans
They want a low paid workforce for their corporate masters

 

[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

free stock.....those bastards!

 

[francoHFW]

so keep cutting taxes on the rich and keep cutting services benefits and opportunity for the rest, brainwashed functional moron.

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.

 

[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.....

 

[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.




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.....

All we want is a level playing field
Someone standing up for working Americans fighting for a piece of the American dream

 

[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.




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.