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.

 Seaward wrote:

I honestly believe there are an awful lot of people who've obtained jobs with the government that would have been fired a long time ago had the person in the position to make that call not been subject to far more strict termination rules than are found in the private sector. I'd certainly hate to see that level of scrutiny become the commercial standard.

There are, but that doesn't make at-will employment good, or imply that there is a binary choice between the present government standard and at-will.

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

 AustonT wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I'm so very glad you established where the delineation occurs in the debate but felt somehow unable to let the rest of us know until you're confronted with some figures and then you simply inform us you've been having that 'other' discussion along different rules.

When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population, you chose to place 'your qualifying line' lower than everyone else and lambaste them for their idiocy, after we'd not actually established a quantitative figure for the entire debate. I think I was certainly operating under the notion of 'low pay' rather than precisely the minimum or below, but I'm glad you have set the standard in the conversation. Where would we be without your flawless logic?

Some of us are so sharp we could just cut ourselves.

 AustonT wrote:

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I suppose I could bring it down to that level. Given that six members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the poorest 70 million Americans, to get down to that bottom 12 million we would only need one Walton (who would probably control MORE wealth that that bottom 12 million, but we'll go ahead and call it equivalent).

Do you actually think that one Walton spends more than those twelve million in the bottom percentile? Really? He'll spend over $600,000,000 a week on groceries (or $50 per person out of that 12 million you specified)? You sure about that?

 Ratbarf wrote:

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

And here I thought everyone agreed that getting ridiculous looking tribals on your shoulder joint was akin to an avowal of ery...

(well everyone but those with ridiculous looking tribals)

And I usually try to avoid absolutes in moral relationships. Yes, a marriage is more important (to you) than a employer-employee relationship, which doesn't excuse you for being a douche to your employees in order to save your marriage.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

And here I thought everyone agreed that getting ridiculous looking tribals on your shoulder joint was akin to an avowal of ery...

(well everyone but those with ridiculous looking tribals)

And I usually try to avoid absolutes in moral relationships. Yes, a marriage is more important (to you) than a employer-employee relationship, which doesn't excuse you for being a douche to your employees in order to save your marriage.

Especially considering you created the danger to the marriage in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

And here I thought everyone agreed that getting ridiculous looking tribals on your shoulder joint was akin to an avowal of ery...

(well everyone but those with ridiculous looking tribals)

And I usually try to avoid absolutes in moral relationships. Yes, a marriage is more important (to you) than a employer-employee relationship, which doesn't excuse you for being a douche to your employees in order to save your marriage.

Especially considering you created the danger to the marriage in the first place.

Why would Kovnik create this setup to ruin another person's marriage?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That's nonsense. The bottom rungs of the payscale hold the entire economy together, fueling the buying and selling and provide the infrastructure necessary to allow a nation to function.

Yeah you're right. That IS nonsense.

So, AustonT, you actually think 3.4 million people will buy five times more than the other 330 million people in America - or on a per capita basis, 5,000 times more? Because right now they control five times more wealth than the rest of the country, or 5,000 times more on a per capita basis.

That's a big part of the stagnation of the American economy. The people with the money are not spending it at anything close to the speed the rest of the population would IF they had it.

Let's make that into a concrete example for you. The average American goes out to eat twice a week, spending around $25 bucks per outing. For a 1%er to spend a proportional amountm they would need to go out to eat for every meal (10x as often) and drop $2500 per outing. Short of political fund-raisers, I don't think there's any restaurant that costs THAT much.

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I'm so very glad you established where the delineation occurs in the debate but felt somehow unable to let the rest of us know until you're confronted with some figures and then you simply inform us you've been having that 'other' discussion along different rules.

When the 6 immediate family members who own Walmart own more money than the entire lower 30% of your nation's population, you chose to place 'your qualifying line' lower than everyone else and lambaste them for their idiocy, after we'd not actually established a quantitative figure for the entire debate. I think I was certainly operating under the notion of 'low pay' rather than precisely the minimum or below, but I'm glad you have set the standard in the conversation. Where would we be without your flawless logic?

Some of us are so sharp we could just cut ourselves.

Vulcan wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

I see you've mastered the art of abandoning reality in the search of the one true hyperbole. I suppose by discarding both common sense and context you can happily chatter away at your keyboard under the belief that 330M Americans represent the "bottom rungs" of the economy rather than the 12-oddM minimum wage workers we were actually discussing. But do go on, I would want to let the actual conversation get in the way of your pontificating.

I suppose I could bring it down to that level. Given that six members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the poorest 70 million Americans, to get down to that bottom 12 million we would only need one Walton (who would probably control MORE wealth that that bottom 12 million, but we'll go ahead and call it equivalent).

Do you actually think that one Walton spends more than those twelve million in the bottom percentile? Really? He'll spend over $600,000,000 a week on groceries (or $50 per person out of that 12 million you specified)? You sure about that?

A twofer! What a Christmas delight!
/claims lower class is the life blood of the economy
/pulls Walton family out of ass
/blithy ignores the middle class
#slowedhivemind

I'm of the opinion that as the owner of a business, you should be able to terminate someone for whatever reason you see fit as long as it does not include harassment. Whether or not this specific case contained harassment I'm not sure.

And that is why we have some of the worst labor laws in the "developed" world...

I have no idea how any business anywhere in the world except the USA survives.

 Cheesecat wrote:


Why would Kovnik create this setup to ruin another person's marriage?

The evil that I do do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mattman154 wrote:
I'm of the opinion that as the owner of a business, you should be able to terminate someone for whatever reason you see fit as long as it does not include harassment. Whether or not this specific case contained harassment I'm not sure.

That leaves discrimination out. And Harassment is a crime up here, I don't know if it's one down the border, but I would hope...

 d-usa wrote:
And that is why we have some of the worst labor laws in the "developed" world...

I have no idea how any business anywhere in the world except the USA survives.

Surviving is a bit different than "driving the world's largest, most powerful economy," no?

The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

So we're not the largest, most powerful economy in the world, eh? Who is?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

So we're not the largest, most powerful economy in the world, eh? Who is?

So, answering to an unasked question with another question? Maybe a brain reboot could help.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
So, answering to an unasked question with another question? Maybe a brain reboot could help.

As you apparently neglected to actually read the sequence of posts, I'll repeat them for you.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And that is why we have some of the worst labor laws in the "developed" world...

I have no idea how any business anywhere in the world except the USA survives.

Surviving is a bit different than "driving the world's largest, most powerful economy," no?

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The USA is not #1 in many different categories.

So we're not the largest, most powerful economy in the world, eh? Who is?

You are the one who claimed that we are the largest, most powerful economy in the world.

So instead of backing that up with a source it is my job to provide sources to show you are wrong?

Edit:

Fine. Once you ignore the fact that "we make more because we are the biggest country" and actually focus on individuals (which is the point when talking about business being able to make profit) and look at GDP per capita we get the US ranking at (ignoring ties):

World Bank Ranking: #10
IMF Ranking: #8
CIA Ranking: #12
UofP Ranking: #12

If we treat the European Union (and all its crazy laws that give workers rights and keep employers from being able to do whatever they want) as a federation of states like the USA then they also beat the US in all three lists.

I'd say USA and European Union are #1 and #2... just pick whichever order...

Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

er... not sure I'd agree with that.

But... ignorance is bliss eh?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

er... not sure I'd agree with that.

But... ignorance is bliss eh?

We've had a thread about this in the past, not sure what the subject was, but the Europeans were actually pretty shocked when they found out what our employers are able to do and how little rights we actually have. We are one of the only countries that doesn't have paid parental leave as just one example.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Worst "labor" laws... o.O

Really?

Maybe better worded as "worst worker rights" laws, but yes.

The United States is a horrible country when it comes to how workers are treated with regards to their rights.

er... not sure I'd agree with that.

But... ignorance is bliss eh?

We've had a thread about this in the past, not sure what the subject was, but the Europeans were actually pretty shocked when they found out what our employers are able to do and how little rights we actually have. We are one of the only countries that doesn't have paid parental leave as just one example.

Huh?

I can see we have different rights... but that doesn't necessarily damn our "working conditions" here in the states.

Remember, being different isn't always bad:

And being ignorant of all the things we don't have that other developed countries do is good as well I guess.

 d-usa wrote:
And being ignorant of all the things we don't have that other developed countries do is good as well I guess.

Well... we can only play with the cards that we're dealt with. Most of us should know or want to acquire skills so that we're wanted on the job market. As long as we're providing these desirable skills, the employer should pay accordingly.

Okay... I.CAN'T.RESIST... but, I mean this as a jest since you did this to me...

So...

Quit yer whining and engage the political process to change this!

 whembly wrote:
Quit yer whining and engage the political process to change this!

Why do you think I voted Democrat

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Quit yer whining and engage the political process to change this!

Why do you think I voted Democrat

Because you are a godless socialist.

Hey, I believe in God...

 AustonT wrote:

A twofer! What a Christmas delight!
/claims lower class is the life blood of the economy
/pulls Walton family out of ass
/blithy ignores the middle class
#slowedhivemind

Thanks for the 'slowed' comment, it strengthened your position a great deal.

Now, since we're going forward in that fashion, nice and 'slow', what are the three input requirements for a capitalist society (which we do live in, despite you and yours all whining about your new black socialist muslim overlord)? That's right children, we require the following ingredients:

Land
Capital Goods
annnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddd?...
Labor! That's right, we require labour.

Now, for those of you at the back, desperately mining for your brain via your nose, yes you AustonT, you witty scamp or you Seaward, you cheeky imp. How do we get labor, is it via the 'middle class'? (also, do remember your fixation with figures Auston, I want a full report from you on 'definition of the middle class, just in case you decide to release your 'finite fixture' of what the middle class constitutes after someone makes some error in meeting 'your definition'.
No, for the middle class to exist, there must be a working class providing the basics. Because that's how pyramids work, you require a large number at the bottom, earning less, to facilitate people at the top earning a lot. Even if you try to broaden the definitions of the middle tier, you must lower the average earned by lowest level... the only other option would be to take from the upper tier, and that would be evil redistribution of wealth, such as the 'great satan' sat in your white house is trying to do, right? If you wanted to improve the wealth of the middle, given that you don't or won't take from the top, you have to take from the bottom, because we're dealing with a finite amount.

So, going back to Seaward's claim that the lowest earners are fairly dispensable, I again have to repeat my disagreement because without them holding up the pyramid, it won't function.

Also, 'pulling the Waltons from my ass' (Johnboy was especially difficult to free up) was entirely poignant as not only are they among the highest echelons of the wealthy, but they directly rely upon the very lowest portion of society to fuel that, both as employees and shoppers. The example was supposed to be obvious, but, then again, given your remarkably witty retort Auston, it's unsurprising you didn't 'get it'.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, going back to Seaward's claim that the lowest earners are fairly dispensable, I again have to repeat my disagreement because without them holding up the pyramid, it won't function.

Seaward's claim was that they're not valuable from a business perspective. If you're going to get worked up over people allegedly arguing against something you're not saying, it might be wise not to do the same to them.

Seaward posited the question about who had the best economy in the world?

Obviously it's the Lobstermen that immigrated from Crustaceia 7 fifty-six years ago in an attempt to escape their slowly boiling planet.


Also, I'm not quite sure where this stopped being about a guy with morally shady hiring/firing practices and about the common man being the back bone to our economy... Fiscal Cliff is that way ->