Trickle-Up Recession: The 1% Getting Real About the Permanent Fix for the Economy

[Indeependent]

You're not a centrist by any means.
Or you're too young to remember how many people became multi-millionaires before cheap labor.

I absolutely am a centrist. Are you aware of my position on gay marriage and all the other LGBT cult dogma/issues?

I have one grandparent born in the 1800s, so I heard about things back in the day.

I apologize; I thought I was addressing Andy.

 

[Silhouette]

Okay, and while we're at it, jack the price of gasoline by 20 cents a gallon so we can hire people to pump our gas for us, raise banking fees to cover hiring more tellers so we can get rid of ATM's and outlaw residential kitchens so we can hire more fast food workers. Face it, every single time you use a washing machine, you're robbing someone of a job. Every time you cook a meal at home, you're robbing someone of a job. See where it ends up? We didn't take that approach when we came up with those devices and as a result, created many new industries and jobs. When the first cars came out, the owner had to know how to almost literally strip it down and rebuild it. Not so much now. The same will happen again as new technologies create opportunities unforeseen. Would you have denied customers access to GPS systems because map publishers were crying that their jobs would be eliminated?

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).

Since you know these entrepreneurs, have you asked them what it is like to work for very little, sometimes nothing, for years or decades just to get a company off the ground? Have you asked them what it's like to sacrifice time with their family, miss children's birthdays and anniversaries because there were things they had to do or their company would fail and all their employees would be out of a job? If starting and running a successful business was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason they're not.

What you're seeing is the final result of a successful company and the person who made all the sacrifices and took all the risks finally enjoying some of the rewards. I would posit that those original employees that stuck with him are likely enjoying a lot of that success as well.

Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hypocrites. All of you on the left, all hypocrites.

If you don't need facts, then nor does anyone else, and all your blaw blaw blaw, is all BS, because we had an opinion poll, and the vote was against you. So, you are wrong. The poll determines truth now. We don't need to prove anything. So you are just wrong. Period. You can leave now. Have a nice day.

I'm not a leftist. I'm a centrist. Might want to read a few of my threads to figure that out.

The John Birch Society has taken over the GOP. But the good news is they are slowly being shown the door.

 

[Silhouette]

The John Birch Society has taken over the GOP. But the good news is they are slowly being shown the door.

I like your avatar. I'd laugh at the humor but it's too painful.

 

[hadit]

Okay, and while we're at it, jack the price of gasoline by 20 cents a gallon so we can hire people to pump our gas for us, raise banking fees to cover hiring more tellers so we can get rid of ATM's and outlaw residential kitchens so we can hire more fast food workers. Face it, every single time you use a washing machine, you're robbing someone of a job. Every time you cook a meal at home, you're robbing someone of a job. See where it ends up? We didn't take that approach when we came up with those devices and as a result, created many new industries and jobs. When the first cars came out, the owner had to know how to almost literally strip it down and rebuild it. Not so much now. The same will happen again as new technologies create opportunities unforeseen. Would you have denied customers access to GPS systems because map publishers were crying that their jobs would be eliminated?

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).

Since you know these entrepreneurs, have you asked them what it is like to work for very little, sometimes nothing, for years or decades just to get a company off the ground? Have you asked them what it's like to sacrifice time with their family, miss children's birthdays and anniversaries because there were things they had to do or their company would fail and all their employees would be out of a job? If starting and running a successful business was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason they're not.

What you're seeing is the final result of a successful company and the person who made all the sacrifices and took all the risks finally enjoying some of the rewards. I would posit that those original employees that stuck with him are likely enjoying a lot of that success as well.

Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

Greed will always be a factor in life. But would you prefer a company not automate, not increase efficiency and find ways to do more with less and ultimately close their doors, leaving ALL the employees on the street? You seem to have an emotional instead of logical understanding of how a company works, the costs and risks involved, the tough decisions that those at the top have to make every single day. I worked at Circuit City during it's peak time. Things were great, it was a fun place to work. Leadership was making good decisions and they were very profitable. There was a change in leadership and bad decisions were made which ultimately led to a company that once employed 50,000 well paid people shut down and went away. The top cats during the good times deserved all the perks they got.

 

[Indeependent]

Okay, and while we're at it, jack the price of gasoline by 20 cents a gallon so we can hire people to pump our gas for us, raise banking fees to cover hiring more tellers so we can get rid of ATM's and outlaw residential kitchens so we can hire more fast food workers. Face it, every single time you use a washing machine, you're robbing someone of a job. Every time you cook a meal at home, you're robbing someone of a job. See where it ends up? We didn't take that approach when we came up with those devices and as a result, created many new industries and jobs. When the first cars came out, the owner had to know how to almost literally strip it down and rebuild it. Not so much now. The same will happen again as new technologies create opportunities unforeseen. Would you have denied customers access to GPS systems because map publishers were crying that their jobs would be eliminated?

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).

Since you know these entrepreneurs, have you asked them what it is like to work for very little, sometimes nothing, for years or decades just to get a company off the ground? Have you asked them what it's like to sacrifice time with their family, miss children's birthdays and anniversaries because there were things they had to do or their company would fail and all their employees would be out of a job? If starting and running a successful business was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason they're not.

What you're seeing is the final result of a successful company and the person who made all the sacrifices and took all the risks finally enjoying some of the rewards. I would posit that those original employees that stuck with him are likely enjoying a lot of that success as well.

Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

Greed will always be a factor in life. But would you prefer a company not automate, not increase efficiency and find ways to do more with less and ultimately close their doors, leaving ALL the employees on the street? You seem to have an emotional instead of logical understanding of how a company works, the costs and risks involved, the tough decisions that those at the top have to make every single day. I worked at Circuit City during it's peak time. Things were great, it was a fun place to work. Leadership was making good decisions and they were very profitable. There was a change in leadership and bad decisions were made which ultimately led to a company that once employed 50,000 well paid people shut down and went away. The top cats during the good times deserved all the perks they got.

They're not automating, they're bringing in "highly skilled" Indians to stack shelves.

 

[hadit]

Okay, and while we're at it, jack the price of gasoline by 20 cents a gallon so we can hire people to pump our gas for us, raise banking fees to cover hiring more tellers so we can get rid of ATM's and outlaw residential kitchens so we can hire more fast food workers. Face it, every single time you use a washing machine, you're robbing someone of a job. Every time you cook a meal at home, you're robbing someone of a job. See where it ends up? We didn't take that approach when we came up with those devices and as a result, created many new industries and jobs. When the first cars came out, the owner had to know how to almost literally strip it down and rebuild it. Not so much now. The same will happen again as new technologies create opportunities unforeseen. Would you have denied customers access to GPS systems because map publishers were crying that their jobs would be eliminated?

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).

Since you know these entrepreneurs, have you asked them what it is like to work for very little, sometimes nothing, for years or decades just to get a company off the ground? Have you asked them what it's like to sacrifice time with their family, miss children's birthdays and anniversaries because there were things they had to do or their company would fail and all their employees would be out of a job? If starting and running a successful business was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason they're not.

What you're seeing is the final result of a successful company and the person who made all the sacrifices and took all the risks finally enjoying some of the rewards. I would posit that those original employees that stuck with him are likely enjoying a lot of that success as well.

Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

Greed will always be a factor in life. But would you prefer a company not automate, not increase efficiency and find ways to do more with less and ultimately close their doors, leaving ALL the employees on the street? You seem to have an emotional instead of logical understanding of how a company works, the costs and risks involved, the tough decisions that those at the top have to make every single day. I worked at Circuit City during it's peak time. Things were great, it was a fun place to work. Leadership was making good decisions and they were very profitable. There was a change in leadership and bad decisions were made which ultimately led to a company that once employed 50,000 well paid people shut down and went away. The top cats during the good times deserved all the perks they got.

They're not automating, they're bringing in "highly skilled" Indians to stack shelves.

No, they're bringing in highly educated Indians to write code.

 

[Indeependent]

Okay, and while we're at it, jack the price of gasoline by 20 cents a gallon so we can hire people to pump our gas for us, raise banking fees to cover hiring more tellers so we can get rid of ATM's and outlaw residential kitchens so we can hire more fast food workers. Face it, every single time you use a washing machine, you're robbing someone of a job. Every time you cook a meal at home, you're robbing someone of a job. See where it ends up? We didn't take that approach when we came up with those devices and as a result, created many new industries and jobs. When the first cars came out, the owner had to know how to almost literally strip it down and rebuild it. Not so much now. The same will happen again as new technologies create opportunities unforeseen. Would you have denied customers access to GPS systems because map publishers were crying that their jobs would be eliminated?

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).

Since you know these entrepreneurs, have you asked them what it is like to work for very little, sometimes nothing, for years or decades just to get a company off the ground? Have you asked them what it's like to sacrifice time with their family, miss children's birthdays and anniversaries because there were things they had to do or their company would fail and all their employees would be out of a job? If starting and running a successful business was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason they're not.

What you're seeing is the final result of a successful company and the person who made all the sacrifices and took all the risks finally enjoying some of the rewards. I would posit that those original employees that stuck with him are likely enjoying a lot of that success as well.

Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

Greed will always be a factor in life. But would you prefer a company not automate, not increase efficiency and find ways to do more with less and ultimately close their doors, leaving ALL the employees on the street? You seem to have an emotional instead of logical understanding of how a company works, the costs and risks involved, the tough decisions that those at the top have to make every single day. I worked at Circuit City during it's peak time. Things were great, it was a fun place to work. Leadership was making good decisions and they were very profitable. There was a change in leadership and bad decisions were made which ultimately led to a company that once employed 50,000 well paid people shut down and went away. The top cats during the good times deserved all the perks they got.

They're not automating, they're bringing in "highly skilled" Indians to stack shelves.

No, they're bringing in highly educated Indians to write code.

Which is why IBM, Oracle and MS are kicking technological ass?
You've got to be kidding.

 

[hadit]

Okay, and while we're at it, jack the price of gasoline by 20 cents a gallon so we can hire people to pump our gas for us, raise banking fees to cover hiring more tellers so we can get rid of ATM's and outlaw residential kitchens so we can hire more fast food workers. Face it, every single time you use a washing machine, you're robbing someone of a job. Every time you cook a meal at home, you're robbing someone of a job. See where it ends up? We didn't take that approach when we came up with those devices and as a result, created many new industries and jobs. When the first cars came out, the owner had to know how to almost literally strip it down and rebuild it. Not so much now. The same will happen again as new technologies create opportunities unforeseen. Would you have denied customers access to GPS systems because map publishers were crying that their jobs would be eliminated?

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).

Since you know these entrepreneurs, have you asked them what it is like to work for very little, sometimes nothing, for years or decades just to get a company off the ground? Have you asked them what it's like to sacrifice time with their family, miss children's birthdays and anniversaries because there were things they had to do or their company would fail and all their employees would be out of a job? If starting and running a successful business was easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason they're not.

What you're seeing is the final result of a successful company and the person who made all the sacrifices and took all the risks finally enjoying some of the rewards. I would posit that those original employees that stuck with him are likely enjoying a lot of that success as well.

Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

Greed will always be a factor in life. But would you prefer a company not automate, not increase efficiency and find ways to do more with less and ultimately close their doors, leaving ALL the employees on the street? You seem to have an emotional instead of logical understanding of how a company works, the costs and risks involved, the tough decisions that those at the top have to make every single day. I worked at Circuit City during it's peak time. Things were great, it was a fun place to work. Leadership was making good decisions and they were very profitable. There was a change in leadership and bad decisions were made which ultimately led to a company that once employed 50,000 well paid people shut down and went away. The top cats during the good times deserved all the perks they got.

They're not automating, they're bringing in "highly skilled" Indians to stack shelves.

No, they're bringing in highly educated Indians to write code.

Which is why IBM, Oracle and MS are kicking technological ass?
You've got to be kidding.

Those are the innovators in the IT world. I'm talking about the companies that use their products. Indian programmers have a very strong presence in nearly every IT department in the country, and for good reason. They're well educated, do good work and don't charge as much for their services as American programmers. That's one reason why I transferred to Database Administration.

 

[LaDexter]

The bigger government gets, the more income inequality becomes a problem.

 

[Silhouette]

The bigger government gets, the more income inequality becomes a problem.

Government doesn't have to get big if the common man makes enough money to support himself. This all comes back to my points on corporate greed and the woes of automation.

Reduce: 1. Corporate greed by, I don't know...mandatory ethics classes? 2. Automation. 3. Enact Universal Healthcare.

Increase: Tariffs on goods manufactured over seas.

You do those four things and government will shrink like an old man's balls in an ice storm.

It's not that if corporates have to pay more in wages, they can't be competitive. They could reduce their prices, pay good wages and just have to skim less cream from the top. It's like a 600lb man who needs to go on a money diet or he's going to die. The "body" (US Economy) that supports him will die without a new fitness program and reduced calories.

 

[LaDexter]

There was plenty of "corporate greed" during the entire history of the US. In the 1990s, nobody whined about minimum wage and scarce jobs while government spending was 25% of GDP. Now, with government at 50% of GDP, jobs, good paying jobs, are being squeezed out under the cost of government and all the legal and regulatory costs.

America can compete on a level playing field. Cut government spending back to the 1990s level and we will once again have a 1990s type of job market.

GOVERNMENT GREED is the problem.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know you need humans bolting down seats? Someone has to Design, build, program, install, maintain, monitor, order all of those Automation machines. Higher pay, better jobs. This allows all that human labor to be used elsewhere.

Am I way wrong?

Yes, the number of people working in building robots, unless those very expensive robots are built to fail predictably on a regular short term basis, is a very limited pool of jobs compared to how many more job man-hours are being robbed over the lifespan of those robots.

You are way wrong. The man-hour math means this economic disease will trickle up to the 1%. The amount of cash-outlay for each robot also adds to that economic peril. Think of how many salaries could be paid off the price of just one of those huge robots retail price, let alone the number of hours it will steal from a number of workers. Again, these robots and offshore jobs do NOT consume vacations, restaurant meals, housing, new cars, sundries and entertainment onshore on a regular, RELIABLE basis (you listening mutual fund investors?).

Detroit committed fiscal suicide in large part thanks to automation. Robots just weren't buying new houses around that area, nor any other product that keeps an economy thriving.

Thanks robots!

Built in 1907 for the luxury car manufacturer Packard Motors. It was the first example of Kahn's functionalist architecture. The 700 meter long plant provided a usable area of 325000 square meters (the equivalent of fifty football fields). Production ceased in 1956 and the site was turned into a business park, which closed in the late 1990s. Today one last company still occupies a tiny area of the park. Yves Marchand & Romain Meffre Photography

So we should ban technology and go back to doing everything by hand a la the 18th century so more people can have jobs

 

[LaDexter]

So we should ban technology and go back to doing everything by hand a la the 18th century so more people can have jobs

Define LUDDITE...

LOL!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The bigger government gets, the more income inequality becomes a problem.

Government doesn't have to get big if the common man makes enough money to support himself. This all comes back to my points on corporate greed and the woes of automation.

Reduce: 1. Corporate greed by, I don't know...mandatory ethics classes? 2. Automation. 3. Enact Universal Healthcare.

Increase: Tariffs on goods manufactured over seas.

You do those four things and government will shrink like an old man's balls in an ice storm.

It's not that if corporates have to pay more in wages, they can't be competitive. They could reduce their prices, pay good wages and just have to skim less cream from the top. It's like a 600lb man who needs to go on a money diet or he's going to die. The "body" (US Economy) that supports him will die without a new fitness program and reduced calories.

Yes, giving the government more money, from tariffs, and complete control over our healthcare system will
make it shrivel like your brain at a gay pride parade.

DERP!

 

[Silhouette]

There was plenty of "corporate greed" during the entire history of the US. In the 1990s, nobody whined about minimum wage and scarce jobs while government spending was 25% of GDP. Now, with government at 50% of GDP, jobs, good paying jobs, are being squeezed out under the cost of government and all the legal and regulatory costs.

America can compete on a level playing field. Cut government spending back to the 1990s level and we will once again have a 1990s type of job market.

GOVERNMENT GREED is the problem.

The reason the gov. is spending more is because more people are unemployed so safety nets are taking their toll. The enemies causing this? Outsourcing jobs, illegal workers and automation. We used to make tons of stuff in the US. We don't do that anymore. And what little we do, the corporates are trying to automate or do with cheap labor so they can "stay competitive".

I don't know how I can make this simpler. If the 1% insists on fabulous wealth at the expense of the working population 99%, they're going to pay in taxes if they don't pay in wages. Pick one or the other. I'd say it's more noble to employ someone than put him on the dole... Plus, it's healthier for a larger tax base spread out more evenly.

 

[AntonToo]

In the 1990s, nobody whined about minimum wage and scarce jobs while government spending was 25% of GDP. Now, with government at 50% of GDP

 

[Skull Pilot]

So we should ban technology and go back to doing everything by hand a la the 18th century so more people can have jobs

Define LUDDITE...

LOL!!

And the lefty loons say that the right wants to turn the clock back

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was plenty of "corporate greed" during the entire history of the US. In the 1990s, nobody whined about minimum wage and scarce jobs while government spending was 25% of GDP. Now, with government at 50% of GDP, jobs, good paying jobs, are being squeezed out under the cost of government and all the legal and regulatory costs.

America can compete on a level playing field. Cut government spending back to the 1990s level and we will once again have a 1990s type of job market.

GOVERNMENT GREED is the problem.

The reason the gov. is spending more is because more people are unemployed so safety nets are taking their toll. The enemies causing this? Outsourcing jobs, illegal workers and automation. We used to make tons of stuff in the US. We don't do that anymore. And what little we do, the corporates are trying to automate or do with cheap labor so they can "stay competitive".

I don't know how I can make this simpler. If the 1% insists on fabulous wealth at the expense of the working population 99%, they're going to pay in taxes if they don't pay in wages. Pick one or the other. I'd say it's more noble to employ someone than put him on the dole... Plus, it's healthier for a larger tax base spread out more evenly.

I don't know how I can make this simpler.

Make it simpler by starting your own company that pays high wages, gives good benefits, including fully paid for health insurance and most of all, no automation!!

Let us know when you start up, I'll be sure to buy your product.

 

[Indeependent]

We wouldn't need to if the top 1% were happy with less obscene wealth. I'm old enough to have seen how the routine goes. At first, the budding entrepreneur starts up a business and treats his employees fairly well. Pays them well and they do well for him in exchange so that the product is a success and everyone benefits. Then begins the shaving. I've known several entrepreneurs over the decades and have seen this played out in exactly the same way with almost no exceptions. At first it's 'we can't afford a pay raise right now' (translation, my wife wants a second home by the lake and it's costing me a fortune). Then it's I'm sorry, we have to cut you to part time (translation, your health insurance premiums are forcing me to not take my third European vacation this year). Then it's "sorry, we have to lay you off" (translation: because you're accruing too much retirement and if I pay you for not working after you retire, I can't send my lazy, spoiled, underachieving sons to Harvard later on).

Finally it's "well we're installing robots and the few jobs that are left we're giving to Mexicans" (translation: I've lost all touch with why I started my business in the first place and now I'm just addicted to outdoing the neighbors in our gated community).
Yes, and this is why at first they are very kind to their workers. Read what I said again. I've highlighted it for you because you obviously skimmed right over it.

..Then greed causes them to forget. The final result of a successful company should be reasonable wealth for the owner(s); more than the employees. But also employees that are satisfied and can pay their basic bills without suffering.

Recall the recent outrage in the world when Wallmart announced it was doing a food drive for its own employees? Apparently even one of the most successful companies can't figure out the basic math of "success" as measured in its truest form. Who says success is measured by how many people you can stand on the backs of in fiscal quicksand as you feed your fattened jowls as the lot of you eventually sink into the abyss?

Greed will always be a factor in life. But would you prefer a company not automate, not increase efficiency and find ways to do more with less and ultimately close their doors, leaving ALL the employees on the street? You seem to have an emotional instead of logical understanding of how a company works, the costs and risks involved, the tough decisions that those at the top have to make every single day. I worked at Circuit City during it's peak time. Things were great, it was a fun place to work. Leadership was making good decisions and they were very profitable. There was a change in leadership and bad decisions were made which ultimately led to a company that once employed 50,000 well paid people shut down and went away. The top cats during the good times deserved all the perks they got.

They're not automating, they're bringing in "highly skilled" Indians to stack shelves.

No, they're bringing in highly educated Indians to write code.

Which is why IBM, Oracle and MS are kicking technological ass?
You've got to be kidding.

Those are the innovators in the IT world. I'm talking about the companies that use their products. Indian programmers have a very strong presence in nearly every IT department in the country, and for good reason. They're well educated, do good work and don't charge as much for their services as American programmers. That's one reason why I transferred to Database Administration.