Will: And those hoops force companies to locate in other states which aren't as hostile to the idea of starting a business and employing people. Or even to other countries...
Rob said: "and climb up the social ladder through legitimate means."
Legitimate? As opposed to being too lazy to do a good job at something but instead being good at demanding and getting handouts?
I'll say what I've said before. If the unions focused on workplace safety and discrimination, stuff like that, maybe I could get behind them but I've just seen too many businesses in my field (long-term healthcare) crap the bed because they were run into the ground by the unions to feel very much warmth and fuzziness.
Rusty: Right to work is a great idea. It means fair wages. It means a tendency to have only qualified managers make basic management decisions. It means the ability to fire employees who put the lives of people in danger or otherwise do very bad work.
Unions get in the way of all of this, in a big way.
"Legitimate? As opposed to being too lazy to do a good job at something but instead being good at demanding and getting handouts?"
I try not to generalize, but if you're specifically referring to black people, then that's really a problem of broken families and a lack of fathers in many of these people's lives. It could be a great talking point for conservatives if they emphasized these issues and really made sure that there would be some effective way of making a difference and not viewing these people as welfare bums.
(Before you answer, when I think of people on welfare or food-stamps, I tend to think of whites first, since they outnumber other races in this group. And in this example, I was thinking of the OWS crowd more than anything. I can't imagine how you would get "black" out of this).
Will deleted my comment, but I wonder why he didn't delete this post, as it still illustrates his hypocrisy. Everyone here ridiculed me to no end when I spoke about how the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Will does it and everyone agrees. No doubt he's simply to dense to get the irony.
There's a difference between difficult and rigged (rigged implying impossible). 58% of the people in the bottom quintile in 1996 were out of it by 2005 and the stats are very similar in the opposite direction when it comes to the top 1%....And there's also a difference in that I'm blaming the politicians who create this crony capitalism and not the market economy which has literally taken hundreds of millions of people (many of them through free trade - refer to South Korea) out of poverty and not in a way that makes them dependent. I understand that this is probably too much nuance for your hyper orthodox brain to comprehend but I believe that everybody else can handle it. There, now go away.
It's 58% (upward mobility) now, but if we made entry into entrepreneursip and employment easier we could probably get that up to 75-80% (obviously there will be certain individuals who never advance - rim shot!). The government (a la, Bush, Obama, Bernanke) just has to stop mucking up the market with their idiotic and fuzzy thinking.
And I never used the word, "rigged". That was you putting words in my mouth again (asshole). Most of the income inequality can be explained away by the income mobility stats which plainly go both ways but the part that can't be explained away - that's what this post was about, creating an economic system in which a person can start a business without doling out thousands of dollars and/or jumping through hoops. You worthless little bastard. You're always looking for any little thing that you can jump on and try and start an argument over. Have you ever considered that that's maybe what you can't get ahead in your life (or at least get back that $10 an hour job)?
If I wanted to say that the system was rigged, I would have said that "the system is rigged" (stupid moronic asshole). But I didn't because I DO NOT think that it is. 58% of the people in the bottom 20% get out of it within a decade and my point (imbecile) was that that number could be even higher if the federal overnment stopped harassing its citizens and small businesses. How completely and utterly stupid can you be?
15 comments:
That is what I had in mind too. Fight poverty with more chances to become wealthy and climb up the social ladder through legitimate means.
You literally have to jump through hoops there days to start a business. And that's just the beginning.
Will: And those hoops force companies to locate in other states which aren't as hostile to the idea of starting a business and employing people. Or even to other countries...
Rob said: "and climb up the social ladder through legitimate means."
Legitimate? As opposed to being too lazy to do a good job at something but instead being good at demanding and getting handouts?
Start a business in a right to work state.
I'll say what I've said before. If the unions focused on workplace safety and discrimination, stuff like that, maybe I could get behind them but I've just seen too many businesses in my field (long-term healthcare) crap the bed because they were run into the ground by the unions to feel very much warmth and fuzziness.
Rusty: Right to work is a great idea. It means fair wages. It means a tendency to have only qualified managers make basic management decisions. It means the ability to fire employees who put the lives of people in danger or otherwise do very bad work.
Unions get in the way of all of this, in a big way.
"Legitimate? As opposed to being too lazy to do a good job at something but instead being good at demanding and getting handouts?"
I try not to generalize, but if you're specifically referring to black people, then that's really a problem of broken families and a lack of fathers in many of these people's lives. It could be a great talking point for conservatives if they emphasized these issues and really made sure that there would be some effective way of making a difference and not viewing these people as welfare bums.
Huh? Rob, what does race have to do with it? Did you think I was using code words or something?
(Before you answer, when I think of people on welfare or food-stamps, I tend to think of whites first, since they outnumber other races in this group. And in this example, I was thinking of the OWS crowd more than anything. I can't imagine how you would get "black" out of this).
Will deleted my comment, but I wonder why he didn't delete this post, as it still illustrates his hypocrisy. Everyone here ridiculed me to no end when I spoke about how the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Will does it and everyone agrees. No doubt he's simply to dense to get the irony.
There's a difference between difficult and rigged (rigged implying impossible). 58% of the people in the bottom quintile in 1996 were out of it by 2005 and the stats are very similar in the opposite direction when it comes to the top 1%....And there's also a difference in that I'm blaming the politicians who create this crony capitalism and not the market economy which has literally taken hundreds of millions of people (many of them through free trade - refer to South Korea) out of poverty and not in a way that makes them dependent. I understand that this is probably too much nuance for your hyper orthodox brain to comprehend but I believe that everybody else can handle it. There, now go away.
It's 58% (upward mobility) now, but if we made entry into entrepreneursip and employment easier we could probably get that up to 75-80% (obviously there will be certain individuals who never advance - rim shot!). The government (a la, Bush, Obama, Bernanke) just has to stop mucking up the market with their idiotic and fuzzy thinking.
And I never used the word, "rigged". That was you putting words in my mouth again (asshole). Most of the income inequality can be explained away by the income mobility stats which plainly go both ways but the part that can't be explained away - that's what this post was about, creating an economic system in which a person can start a business without doling out thousands of dollars and/or jumping through hoops. You worthless little bastard. You're always looking for any little thing that you can jump on and try and start an argument over. Have you ever considered that that's maybe what you can't get ahead in your life (or at least get back that $10 an hour job)?
If I wanted to say that the system was rigged, I would have said that "the system is rigged" (stupid moronic asshole). But I didn't because I DO NOT think that it is. 58% of the people in the bottom 20% get out of it within a decade and my point (imbecile) was that that number could be even higher if the federal overnment stopped harassing its citizens and small businesses. How completely and utterly stupid can you be?
Post a Comment