Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:And how many hundreds work under her can not be afforded the same opportunity until she leaves? Growth in wealth can't exist solely through promotion, not everyone can be the manager and our population isn't rising a fifth as fast as would be needed for that to make sense. Acting like mcdonalds isn't a corporation that heavily exploits its ability to pay low for unskilled gak labor is like pretending the sky doesn't exist. It's right there. Look at it. It's ugly.

It also doesn't help that there are very few corporations left that will allow a worker to move to upper management without a related degree. Is McDonalds even still one of them? How long has she had her position?

She's had her position for 2 years. She completed her degree this year. Unusual for anyone to get her position without her degree, but she's good and was recommended by several franchise owners.

On your first point, not everyone is a go-getter and deserves promotion. You get that in every group. Pretending they don't exist is pie-int-the-sky thinking, too. Some people can't do any better than minimum wage because they're lazy and/or suck at everything they try. You can't push a rope.

Those that apply themselves get better jobs, get promoted, and get ahead. It's on the individual to make that choice and take the effort. Saying that coporations are evil because they have employees that can't do anything else is pointing the finger at the wrong person.

Or did I just blame the victim?

BLAME THE VICTIM!

ShumaGorath wrote:

As someone who has worked fast food, construction, customer service jobs, active military and now contractor for the Army I have to laugh. I've had soul sucking jobs. Know what? They paid for me to enjoy non-soul sucking activites when not working. It is the kids who are too good for 'soul sucking jobs' that want many of the things in the second list of demands from the opening post.

You sound like you're used to soul crushing jobs. You should get out of that rut.

They want the world handed to them and don't think they should ever have to break a sweat to enjoy the fruits of MY sweat. As Dad used to say, they can find sympathy between shyte and syphilis in the dictionary. They need to embrace the suck and drive on.

I'm sure there demands have more to do with the fact that the income divide has grown steadily for 40 years while good paying unskilled work has all but vanished in america. Wages have not increased against inflation since the 70s. gak is shittier then when your dad was bitching. You have it worse then your dad. Pretending that everyone but you is a lazy twit pretending that things are going wrong during the greatest recession in almost a century is lame.

I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.

I don't think I have it worse than my dad. In fact, I would argue I have it a lot better.

ShumaGorath wrote:Do the liberals have their own teaparty now? Nah, this things still more coherent then that pack of crap.

Your over confidence in the liberal movement is entertaining, even if factually inaccurate. The Tea Party is a relevant and legitimate grass-roots organisation of groups generally sympathetic to the GOP. This is a manufactured protest and a generalized grievance against "the man." As illustrated in their list of 'demands', they really don't have a coherent message.

Well, there is a coherent message, but they apparently don't feel the need to advertise it.

ShumaGorath wrote:You should look at minimum wage jobs that don't have such high attrition rates then. Fast food has an immense amount of churn at everything below multi store manager level. It's awful and difficult work.

You're right, it is. Minimum wage work sucks. Which is probably why so many people tend to leave it as soon as they can.

Here's some statistics. Most minimum wage earners are young, the percent of minimum wage earners tends to decrease as you look at older groups.

I found Table 10 interesting. Despite all of the claims that Bush was only adding "McJobs", the number of people at or below minimum wage was a lot higher in the '90s than during the '00s. Even the percent of hourly workers decreased during the Bush years, indicating that most of the increase in employment was in salaried employees. And the decrease wasn't simply due to better opportunities for women (an interesting trend you can see in the bottom part of table 10).

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

As someone who has worked fast food, construction, customer service jobs, active military and now contractor for the Army I have to laugh. I've had soul sucking jobs. Know what? They paid for me to enjoy non-soul sucking activites when not working. It is the kids who are too good for 'soul sucking jobs' that want many of the things in the second list of demands from the opening post.

You sound like you're used to soul crushing jobs. You should get out of that rut.

They want the world handed to them and don't think they should ever have to break a sweat to enjoy the fruits of MY sweat. As Dad used to say, they can find sympathy between shyte and syphilis in the dictionary. They need to embrace the suck and drive on.

I'm sure there demands have more to do with the fact that the income divide has grown steadily for 40 years while good paying unskilled work has all but vanished in america. Wages have not increased against inflation since the 70s. gak is shittier then when your dad was bitching. You have it worse then your dad. Pretending that everyone but you is a lazy twit pretending that things are going wrong during the greatest recession in almost a century is lame.

Clearly you haven't had to pay a plumber recently.

Wat?

Speaking of McDonald's I remember when McD's hiring 50K people earlier this year was a sign tha the job's market was improving.

That made me laugh.

Also, since OWS has no actual leadership, you can't take any demands you read seriously. Essentially, it is a grass roots movement protesting economic disparity and the growing hourglass economy. They aren't demanding anyone do anything, because that would require a level of top down hierarchy that the protesteres simply do not have/want.

Your over confidence in the liberal movement is entertaining, even if factually inaccurate. The Tea Party is a relevant and legitimate grass-roots organisation of groups generally sympathetic to the GOP.

Its relevant and legitimate in that it exists and has a lot of people. Not due to any sort of actual platform or political relevance. They STILL lack a coherent ideology and conflict themselves daily.

This is a manufactured protest and a generalized grievance against "the man." As illustrated in their list of 'demands', they really don't have a coherent message.

You do realize that's exactly how the teaparty started? If the democrats claimed to all be 99%ers and MSNBC started funding their rallies it would be exactly the same.

Well, there is a coherent message, but they apparently don't feel the need to advertise it.

No. There is no coherent message. Stop reading into the radio noise.

You're right, it is. Minimum wage work sucks. Which is probably why so many people tend to leave it as soon as they can.

Here's some statistics. Most minimum wage earners are young, the percent of minimum wage earners tends to decrease as you look at older groups.

I didn't disagree with you last time you said it so don't strawman me with pie charts. We were all 15 once.

I found Table 10 interesting. Despite all of the claims that Bush was only adding "McJobs", the number of people at or below minimum wage was a lot higher in the '90s than during the '00s. Even the percent of hourly workers decreased during the Bush years, indicating that most of the increase in employment was in salaried employees. And the decrease wasn't simply due to better opportunities for women (an interesting trend you can see in the bottom part of table 10).

That exact same graph shows that the bush years averaged about 2% less salaried workers. You know why there was more? Population growth. Look an inch to the right. That same graph also shows a direct loss of job growth during the bush years compared to the years before.

One issue is that there are a lot of REASONABLE people who are just arguing about the overall wage gap and how to fix it, but then reactionists see that and assume we're talking about socialism or something.

There are poor people, there are rich people. The fact that there's a difference is very important to our economy functioning properly. Concentrated capital in some areas is fantastic because it builds an investment pool from which people in all income brackets can borrow and start businesses.

The issue is that it isn't stable. The percentage of people in the different income groups is fluctuating and pooling at either end. This is an indicator that something is seriously wrong. If it gets stretched too thin, you start to have SERIOUS demand issues and stagnation.

But then idiots see THAT and say "WELL WE NEED TO GET ALL THAT MONEY FROM THE RICHIES AND TAKE IT BAAAAACK" but that's just as wrong as the people who say "everything is totally fine, change nothing, work hard, bootstraps, etc"

In reality, the best fix is to tweak tax policy to stabilize the groups so that growth is happening at similar rates in each one. Income levels shift over time, but they should not fluctuate as they have been for the past 20 years or so.

The good news though is that the fix can be gradual if done right. There's no need to massively tax the wealthy or cut all taxes for the poor. Small targeted tweaks that most people will not notice are capable of doing it as long as people don't mind it taking 5+ years.

Which brings me to the NEXT economic problem: People have STUPID expectations for how fast this stuff works. Economic policy changes are utterly incapable of doing anything faster than 18 months, and even then you'll just see a bunch of complicated numbers and an economist will need to interpret it. People are insisting on instant fixes and changing course so fast right now that nothing is going to work. It almost doesn't matter what we do, as long as we keep doing whatever it is for at least 18 months without freaking out and trying something else.

TLR, calm the freak down, American consumer. This is complicated crap and it doesn't happen overnight, jesus.

kronk wrote:Full stop.

Remove your head from your ass.

Remove the stick from yours . I already said it was a joke.

Melissia wrote:

kronk wrote:Full stop.

Remove your head from your ass.

Remove the stick from yours . I already said it was a joke.

I think you're on the wrong forum, this ones for families and that's not where those two things are supposed to go.

CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.

I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.

Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.

Yeah the fight club one is probably the dumbest on that list. Debt is an expression of the trade of work and potential work. The economy wouldn't FUNCTION if it weren't for access to debt.

Frazzled wrote:

CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.

I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.

Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.

The second list also looks fake as hell.

ShumaGorath wrote:Its relevant and legitimate in that it exists and has a lot of people. Not due to any sort of actual platform or political relevance. They STILL lack a coherent ideology and conflict themselves daily.

"Conflict themselves daily" doesn't necessarily mean that their core ideology changes daily. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. While some "Tea Party" groups may have different ideas, the core concept of smaller government and less taxes is pretty standard.

Plus, the Tea Party involves a LOT of people and groups, and you're not going to get a single message out from all of them. Hell, LaRouche crashed some Tea Party events, and they're about as far from the Tea Party ideal as you can get.

ShumaGorath wrote:You do realize that's exactly how the teaparty started? If the democrats claimed to all be 99%ers and MSNBC started funding their rallies it would be exactly the same.

No, actually it's not.

ShumaGorath wrote:No. There is no coherent message. Stop reading into the radio noise.

Read both of those concepts with an eye towards pure socialism and replacing the capitalist system. They're pretty "coherent" under that understanding.

ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't disagree with you last time you said it so don't strawman me with pie charts. We were all 15 once.

I'm not "strawman[nig you] with pie charts." It's a table.
(also, it's interesting and demonstrates the point I made that people don't stay in minimum wage jobs).

ShumaGorath wrote:That exact same graph shows that the bush years averaged about 2% less salaried workers.

Huh? Lets look at table 10...
Total wage and salary workers: Workers paid hourly rates: Total Percent of total wage and salary workers

In '09, for example, there were 124,490,000 workers. 72,611,000 were hourly workers (58.3%). That measn the remainder (51,879,000) were salaried.

If you look at the first column (Total wage and salary workers) you'll see that it increased from 1991-2008. The percent of those (column 3) who were hourly workers peaked during 1996 and decreased from ~60% in 2000 to just over 58% in 2008.

ShumaGorath wrote:You know why there was more? Population growth. Look an inch to the right. That same graph also shows a direct loss of job growth during the bush years compared to the years before.

No it doesn't. It shows an increase in the number of jobs during the Bush years (column 1). The unemployment rate (4-6%) supports that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.

I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.

Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.

The second list also looks fake as hell.

Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.

biccat wrote:No, actually it's not.

Yeah it is.

Don't just take our word for it. Let's hear it from those excellent boys and girls at The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street

"Conflict themselves daily" doesn't necessarily mean that their core ideology changes daily. In fact, the opposite tends to be true. While some "Tea Party" groups may have different ideas, the core concept of smaller government and less taxes is pretty standard.

It implies that their ideology at its core is contradictory. Which it is.

Plus, the Tea Party involves a LOT of people and groups, and you're not going to get a single message out from all of them. Hell, LaRouche crashed some Tea Party events, and they're about as far from the Tea Party ideal as you can get.

Which is part of it's illegitimacy. It's nothing. It has no organization or ideals, just a name.

No, actually it's not.

Well, aside from exchanging democrats for repubs and fox for MSNBC anyway. I figured you would see that.

Read both of those concepts with an eye towards pure socialism and replacing the capitalist system. They're pretty "coherent" under that understanding.

I'm still pretty sure you don't know what the term socialism means and couldn't quantify it, but we've had that discussion before. I'll agree that second list is pretty fethed up and I doubt it's veracity as anything but the mewling of a homeless turd.

Huh? Lets look at table 10...
Total wage and salary workers: Workers paid hourly rates: Total Percent of total wage and salary workers

In '09, for example, there were 124,490,000 workers. 72,611,000 were hourly workers (58.3%). That measn the remainder (51,879,000) were salaried.

If you look at the first column (Total wage and salary workers) you'll see that it increased from 1991-2008. The percent of those (column 3) who were hourly workers peaked during 1996 and decreased from ~60% in 2000 to just over 58% in 2008.

Sorry, i was comparing bush to clinton. The chart would need a hell of a lot of asterisks if we're to be using it for pure numbers post recession. I didn't think you were doing that.

No it doesn't. It shows an increase in the number of jobs during the Bush years (column 1). The unemployment rate (4-6%) supports that.

But jobs on chart decrease. This implies more self 'employment'. The data set is incomplete and either way the idea that salaried work increased is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

CptJake wrote:I'm not pretending anything, nor implying everyone other than me is lazy. I am stating that the folks who came up with that second list are looters and leaches.

I'm lazy and even I can't deal with the second list. Its just fairy tale dust.

Eliminate all debt for everyone? OK. Lets think about that.
1. All banks go under. Most financial institutions go under. Everyone is unemployed. Thats millions of people instantly unemployed in the US alone.
2. Much of that debt is owned by other countries. Their savings is now gone.
3. Debt is owned by lots of companies and lots of individuals. Everyone that has bonds, and notes in their 401K just got killed. Thats Great Depression X2.
4. Once you've killed the global economy what then? How are you going to buy a house, a car, a college education? How are businesses going to get working capital or loans for new capital?
In essence you've just dropped back to a Mideval economy. Smooth move rocket queens now we all stink like you do because running water just ceased.

The second list also looks fake as hell.

Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.

I hate protest movements.

Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.

Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.

In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.

Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.

In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...

You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.

Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.

In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...

You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.

Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.

You can't put the economics genie back in the lamp, but on the same note, you can't put the globalization genie back in either...

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.

Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.

In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...

You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.

Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.

1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its from their actual website which was included. If you read the comments from protesters on FB sites and the Washington Post its not out of wack.

Yeah, you usually get a bit nutty when you have lots of disparate (and sometimes desparate) people come together. I mean, the Tea Party movement had some pretty damn nutty arguments when it starts, too.

In many ways it still does. I doubt I could ever agree with either extreme about that much...

You're acting like this crew is new though. they aren't - same bunch of wackjobs who pop up protesting economic summits and such for the last 20 years.

Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.

1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.

The hell they do. Old people smell awful.

Frazzled wrote:1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.

1: I never said the Tea Party did such. Only that the type of person whom locally is interested in the tea party comes from the same like minded group of people whom would bomb abortion clinics or murder their employees.

2: Sometimes. There's a reason that they get associated with troglodytes.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Prove any abortion clinics were bombed by the Tea party, else you're blwoing smoke out your ass yet again.
2. There is one big difference however. Tea Party protesters, be they or be they not wackjobs, have at least one advantage. They bathe.

1: I never said the Tea Party did such. Only that the type of person whom locally is interested in the tea party comes from the same like minded group of people whom would bomb abortion clinics or murder their employees.

2: Sometimes. There's a reason that they get associated with troglodytes.

So now you're backpedalling because you can't actually support your own statement. Got it.

Watch out for the homeless guys with shanks if you show up downtown on Thursday. They're really jealous of their block corners.

on the positive I cannot recommend enough treesbeards near the meeting point. Although everything is awesome, the chocolate cake is like your grandmother just appeared and gave you a hug.

Frazzled wrote:So now you're backpedalling

No, you're just intentionally misreading what I posted because you are trying to get a rise out of me.

Both of you have been trollin'.

ShumaGorath wrote:But jobs on chart decrease. This implies more self 'employment'. The data set is incomplete and either way the idea that salaried work increased is wrong.

Jobs on the table don't show a decrease:

Column 1: Year
Column 2: Total number of workers
Column 3: Total number of workers paid an hourly wage
Column 4: Hourly workers as a percent of total workers
Columns 5-8: Number/percent of workers at/below minimum wage.

If you're going to claim that the data is wrong, please at least try to contradict it other than by means of a conclusory statement.

Melissia wrote:Yeah it is.

Don't just take our word for it. Let's hear it from those excellent boys and girls at The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street

My comment was pertaining to the comment/implication that the Tea Party was a manufactured protest.

Also, protests, even minor ones, must be organized to some extent. The important question is who organized these "protests"?

There have been other pro-Obama "protests" (grassroots and otherwise) that attempted to re-capture the wave of energy that he had going into office. They fizzled out and I fully expect this one will too.

It's hard to generate the correct amount of righteous anger when your guy is the one in the White House. Which is why the Tea Party didn't materialize until Obama took office, despite the anti-bailout sentiment being present during Bush.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So now you're backpedalling

No, you're just intentionally misreading what I posted because you are trying to get a rise out of me.

except of course, its what you actually posted.

Reminds me of the Tea Party, except they're left-wing instead of right, and instead of protesting economic summits they bombed abortion clinics.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:But jobs on chart decrease. This implies more self 'employment'. The data set is incomplete and either way the idea that salaried work increased is wrong.

Jobs on the table don't show a decrease:

Column 1: Year
Column 2: Total number of workers
Column 3: Total number of workers paid an hourly wage
Column 4: Hourly workers as a percent of total workers
Columns 5-8: Number/percent of workers at/below minimum wage.

If you're going to claim that the data is wrong, please at least try to contradict it other than by means of a conclusory statement.

Melissia wrote:Yeah it is.

Don't just take our word for it. Let's hear it from those excellent boys and girls at The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street

My comment was pertaining to the comment/implication that the Tea Party was a manufactured protest.

Also, protests, even minor ones, must be organized to some extent. The important question is who organized these "protests"?

There have been other pro-Obama "protests" (grassroots and otherwise) that attempted to re-capture the wave of energy that he had going into office. They fizzled out and I fully expect this one will too.

It's hard to generate the correct amount of righteous anger when your guy is the one in the White House. Which is why the Tea Party didn't materialize until Obama took office, despite the anti-bailout sentiment being present during Bush.

I'm at work, I'll yell at you when I get home.