What exactly do republicans have to offer blacks?

[sealybobo]

No. I'd like to see unions make a comeback. Labor woke up in the past and improved the middle class perhaps they can do it again.

They say it's a lot harder for Walmart employees and McD employees to organize because they are all spread out all across America. It was easier for GM and Ford employees because there were thousands of them all working in the same building. Regardless, Walmart workers need to strike. But, they are so poor and stupid they don't.

And I did see something the other day where yes there is a formula that they want to have companies that are larger than 250 employees must pay their employees 1% of the profits. Something like that. I don't remember the details but it sounded good to me. Some con on here said, "socialism never works" but really I'm not talking about socialism. I'm talking about the fact that in 1978 CEO's made 30 times what the average worker made but today it's like 200 times. This is not right. Do I want the government to pass laws that force the companies to pay their workers appropriately? I guess if there was a law that would right the wrong, sure. I'd have no problem with it. Of course you cons would fight it tooth and nail. We already know your biggest concern is protecting CEO pay. Why we have no idea but clearly you don't mind that CEO pay has skyrocketed in the years that middle class wages have stagnated.

Unions won't make a comeback because they are like the buggy whip. They are no longer of any value and smart people know Unions have outlived their purpose.

National Education Association General Counsel Bob Chanin stated in July 2009.

Chanin: "It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues...."



Pretty much says it all.

What do you mean? If Walmart employees organized they’d no longer have to get food stamps.

 

[sealybobo]

But you guys do want to ban abortion and do away with social security.

How does that further your cause? Just curious.

I’m not. You are. You won’t admit it but it’s 100% true. You would love to end social security and you think abortion is murder

 

[sealybobo]

Let’s say a company has 50,000 employees and the CEO gets a $21,000,000 compensation package with pay, bonus and stock options. Now let’s say we reduce his package to 1 million bucks and give the difference to the 50,000 employees. That’s a whopping $400 increase in pay per employee.

Wow, that really made a difference.

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

I think when you add up all the salaries of the white collar workers and all the blue collar you’ll see the white collar are fucking the blue.

Hence the GM strike.

 

[Markle]

What do you mean? If Walmart employees organized they’d no longer have to get food stamps.

 

[Markle]

But you guys do want to ban abortion and do away with social security.

How does that further your cause? Just curious.

I’m not. You are. You won’t admit it but it’s 100% true. You would love to end social security and you think abortion is murder

 

[katsteve2012]

When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under Trump, it dropped a full percentage point to 6.8 percent in December. That’s the lowest rate since the bureau began regularly breaking out unemployment rates by race in 1972.

A similar drop of 1 percentage point was recorded during the same 11-month period in 2016. The drop was even more pronounced in each of the three years before that. It fell 1.9 percentage points in 2015, 1.5 percentage points in 2014 and 1.8 percentage points in 2013.

In other words, the downward trend has continued under Trump, albeit at a slower pace than in recent years.

Correct. And that had been pointed out repeatedly in this forum.

But try convincing his legion of sheep that it was not all attributed to "him".

It would be easier trying to raise the dead.

 

[sealybobo]

When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under Trump, it dropped a full percentage point to 6.8 percent in December. That’s the lowest rate since the bureau began regularly breaking out unemployment rates by race in 1972.

A similar drop of 1 percentage point was recorded during the same 11-month period in 2016. The drop was even more pronounced in each of the three years before that. It fell 1.9 percentage points in 2015, 1.5 percentage points in 2014 and 1.8 percentage points in 2013.

In other words, the downward trend has continued under Trump, albeit at a slower pace than in recent years.

Correct. And that had been pointed out repeatedly in this forum.

But try convincing his legion of sheep that it was not all attributed to "him".

It would be easier trying to raise the dead.

There going to repeat that lie all the way up to election day

 

[Markle]

What do you mean? If Walmart employees organized they’d no longer have to get food stamps.

Why do you refuse to hold people responsible for themselves?

The average pay for a Walmart sales associate is $11.33 per hour. Forty hour week, 52 weeks a year that is $23,566.00 per year.

To qualify for SNAP, most households must meet the gross income test. At time of writing, a one-person household must have a pre-tax monthly income of no more than $1,265; as the household adds members, the cutoff goes up by roughly $440 a person. The government periodically adjusts the figures to account for inflation.

$1,265 per month is $15,180. per year or far, far below the average pay of a sales associate at Walmart.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc Hourly Pay | PayScale

https://www.sapling.com/8170968/income-level-qualify-food-stamps

 

[MaryL]

Given the self destructive cycle poor blacks are in, what does ANYONE have to offer poor blacks? Reparations! The Leftist demagogues will shilll to anything... That will fix everything...till next Tuesday.

 

[katsteve2012]

When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under Trump, it dropped a full percentage point to 6.8 percent in December. That’s the lowest rate since the bureau began regularly breaking out unemployment rates by race in 1972.

A similar drop of 1 percentage point was recorded during the same 11-month period in 2016. The drop was even more pronounced in each of the three years before that. It fell 1.9 percentage points in 2015, 1.5 percentage points in 2014 and 1.8 percentage points in 2013.

In other words, the downward trend has continued under Trump, albeit at a slower pace than in recent years.

Correct. And that had been pointed out repeatedly in this forum.

But try convincing his legion of sheep that it was not all attributed to "him".

It would be easier trying to raise the dead.

There going to repeat that lie all the way up to election day

Yes indeed.

 

[ding]

Let’s say a company has 50,000 employees and the CEO gets a $21,000,000 compensation package with pay, bonus and stock options. Now let’s say we reduce his package to 1 million bucks and give the difference to the 50,000 employees. That’s a whopping $400 increase in pay per employee.

Wow, that really made a difference.

I realize that SEALYBOBO pushed you into this phony example but you seem to be hanging on to the absurdity! Why?

Mindless, DESPERATE example.

Keep in mind that bogus $400.00 is over ONE YEAR. ONE YEAR!

A real example of your phony point is this.

General Electric WITH bonus and possible equity grants, that CEO MIGHT earn $19,000,000 a year. They have not 50,000 employees but rather 283,000 employees.

That breaks down to $19,900,000.00 / 283,000 = $67.14 over ONE YEAR.

Back to the drawing board sonny for your phony, desperate, "points".

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...e-ceos-pay-package-has-heavy-emphasis-on.html

General Electric - Wikipedia

Again... it was a hypothetical designed to show the absurdity of his position.

You are wrecking your autoimmune system with your incessant need to seek conflict. If you aren’t careful you’ll give yourself cancer.

 

[ding]

Let’s say a company has 50,000 employees and the CEO gets a $21,000,000 compensation package with pay, bonus and stock options. Now let’s say we reduce his package to 1 million bucks and give the difference to the 50,000 employees. That’s a whopping $400 increase in pay per employee.

Wow, that really made a difference.

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

I think when you add up all the salaries of the white collar workers and all the blue collar you’ll see the white collar are fucking the blue.

Hence the GM strike.

So now it’s all white collar workers screwing the blue collar workers?

 

[ding]

Conspiracy!!!!!

 

[ding]

Yes, it was a hypothetical case. Are you arguing that If CEO’s weren’t paid so well that there would be no income gap?

I said, are you arguing for SB’s position?

Would you like to see my shoe?

 

[danielpalos]

Let’s say a company has 50,000 employees and the CEO gets a $21,000,000 compensation package with pay, bonus and stock options. Now let’s say we reduce his package to 1 million bucks and give the difference to the 50,000 employees. That’s a whopping $400 increase in pay per employee.

Wow, that really made a difference.

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

 

[danielpalos]

Because, equal protection of the law is in our social contract, not your subjective, socialist values on a national basis.

Did your mother smoke crack when you were in the womb, Daniel?

lol. Why do I get banned for being obtuse, when the right wing is Always worse.

Hint, it's not the right wing, it's you.

lol. hint. i am the truest witness bearer on this board. Yes, the right wing is worse.

Seriously, you're the only one who thinks that.

One per thousand, is all it takes.

 

[ding]

Let’s say a company has 50,000 employees and the CEO gets a $21,000,000 compensation package with pay, bonus and stock options. Now let’s say we reduce his package to 1 million bucks and give the difference to the 50,000 employees. That’s a whopping $400 increase in pay per employee.

Wow, that really made a difference.

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

 

[danielpalos]

Did your mother smoke crack when you were in the womb, Daniel?

He keeps repeating over and over again something about equal protection of the law. But he rarely explains what that means. Even when he does it still doesn't seem to make sense to me 5 days later when I hear him repeat it. So maybe he should stop repeating that because it means nothing to the rest of us.

He must think repeating it over and over will make it catch on but when we don't know what he's talking about it just makes him come off as one of the nuts on this board. Like LARAMFAN.

lol. i guess i haven't dumbed it down enough for the right wing.

what part are you too dumb to understand?

I'm a flaming liberal. So if you are losing us and them, maybe you need to rethink your tactics.

Not at all. I merely need to be more grateful for our federal and State doctrines of separation of power, than I currently am.

You would simply be, incompetent in superior or supreme venues.

There you go again. I totally don't understand what the fuck you just said. You're too smart for this conversation.

lol. you are simply not superior or supreme enough; just inferior.

 

[danielpalos]

Because, equal protection of the law is in our social contract, not your subjective, socialist values on a national basis.

Did your mother smoke crack when you were in the womb, Daniel?

He keeps repeating over and over again something about equal protection of the law. But he rarely explains what that means. Even when he does it still doesn't seem to make sense to me 5 days later when I hear him repeat it. So maybe he should stop repeating that because it means nothing to the rest of us.

He must think repeating it over and over will make it catch on but when we don't know what he's talking about it just makes him come off as one of the nuts on this board. Like LARAMFAN.

He claims the law providing unemployment benefits is not applied equally because it requires you to have been laid off from a job before you can get the benefit. He literally wants anyone who simply decides not to work a job at all be paid.

it is about equal protection of employment at the will of Either party laws, not your subjective social morals on a national basis.

Which you've admitted means you want to be paid whether you work a job or not. That's the bottom line.

It is more cost effective than welfare because it solves simple poverty in a market friendly manner by increasing market based participation and engendering a positive multiplier effect upon our economy. That is the Capital bottom line, not Your subjective Social values on a National basis.

 

[danielpalos]

Let’s say a company has 50,000 employees and the CEO gets a $21,000,000 compensation package with pay, bonus and stock options. Now let’s say we reduce his package to 1 million bucks and give the difference to the 50,000 employees. That’s a whopping $400 increase in pay per employee.

Wow, that really made a difference.

Your imagination is active but why not change the above to an actual case. You can't because you are lying. Why? Because that's the only way to make a "case" in your fantasy world.

Show us the thousands of companies, with 50,000 employees where the CEO earns $21 MILLION. You can't.

It’s an extreme case but it highlights the point.

You can zero out every CEO’s compensation and use it to increase the pay of the other employees and it wouldn’t change the calculus.

Now am I lying or am I lying?

Let's say we solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner;

would the Poor really have to care how much the richest make, for political purposes?

Have you looked around the world? You are never going to solve “poverty.” We will always have the “poor.” It’s all relative anyway, right?

Our “poor” would be considered “rich” in many other parts of the world, right?

So yes people will always complain that others have it better. It’s human nature.

I agree to disagree. Solving simple poverty under our form of Capitalism simply means Persons have more opportunity costs to consider.