Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your conjecture leads to who is subservient to who Boss. It is not the gub'mit's job to run any business because a democratic republic is not even close to the realm of it. (despite Mr Trump's insistence it is) , it is, however, their job to create a level playing field for Capitalism to exist & flourish
Your conjecture leads to who is subservient to who Boss. It is not the gub'mit's job to run any business because a democratic republic is not even close to the realm of it. (despite Mr Trump's insistence it is) , it is, however, their job to create a level playing field for Capitalism to exist & flourish
When you use disparaging terms like "gub'mit" it makes me think you don't really appreciate government or governmental solutions... but then, in the same breath, you lobby for the same "gub'mit" to create "fairness" for you. Guess what? They're NEVER going to do that in a FREE society!
We already have a "level playing field" ...it's called a U.S. Constitution and it lays out in no uncertain terms, our equal an unalienable rights as individuals. It grants us practically unlimited power and enumerates specific power for a functioning government. If you begin to follow any other course of reasoning, you'll end up listening to some dingbat former first lady telling you how we need "equal pay for women" or some other nonsense we've already had the past 50 years.
And I am not here to defend Donald Trump. I do not support Donald Trump. I might vote for him to keep the Marxist out of the oval office, but I simply don't support him on many of his positions. Of course the government isn't a business and isn't run like one or else you'd get votes based on how much tax you pay. But the government is also not there to be the "arbiter of fairness" in a free market capitalist system. By allowing them to be, you are are submitting more and more of your personal freedom.
Said uncertainty is in that it is a living document that currently sides with corporate personhood (believing property is a person) ,again tipping the scales
Nor would i defend the prodigal son of wall street's take on things economic. Unfortunately , the choices of who holds the reins of the free market are either one or the other, GubM'it , or the fortune 5's
I make $100K a year. I just made 1 sale for my company for $155K. Of that, we get to keep $132K.First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.
The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:
It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?
For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.
GO!!
$200 per hour which is the going rate for senior engineers in oil and gas working in wells.First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.
The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:
It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?
For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.
GO!!
well---like lawyers. IMO even though ----I was once a fairly highly paid professional----the wage rate is OUTTA CONTROL-----and a big problem---and the price of eggs is enough to bring our country down$200 per hour which is the going rate for senior engineers in oil and gas working in wells.
Lawyers are making even more than that per hour.well---like lawyers. IMO even though ----I was once a fairly highly paid professional----the wage rate is OUTTA CONTROL-----and a big problem---and the price of eggs is enough to bring our country down
i'm a full stack webdeveloper, and i'd gladly work 5 days a week, 4 hours per day at $25/hour.First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.
The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:
It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?
For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.
GO!!
i'm a full stack webdeveloper, and i'd gladly work 5 days a week, 4 hours per day at $25/hour.
And a lot of the Republicans who love Reagan and vote for Trump now are living on a pension, social security, medicare, belonged to a union and or went to college when it was only $5000 a year.The middle class has been abandoned since Reagan was President in the 1980s
Reagan busted unions, took away worker protections, put more of the financial burden on the middle class
Worker pay has suffered ever since
And a lot of the Republicans who love Reagan and vote for Trump now are living on a pension, social security, medicare, belonged to a union and or went to college when it was only $5000 a year.
I went to college when it was $650 a year